South Yorkshire Bus Service Needs Improvement

[Resident]

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Are you still claiming that you can make end to end journeys at peak time?

Are you suggesting that a bus company takes buses off a profitable route and puts them on a loss making route?

Are you suggesting that five hospitals get a reduced service?

Are you suggesting that we discourage the use of public transport in Sheffield most dense work and education zone?

Car parking is already a huge problem for residents and commuters in the area which already suffers from the highest levels of pollution in the City, actively removing buses is crazy.

There is a need, there is a demand and it is being met.

 

The absolutely dreadful and unfair current Government bus legislation effectively stops this level of interference in the activity of commercial operators, there is a highly financially risky option where a local authorities take control through tendering and applying minimum levels of service. Nobody since GMPTE has ever tried to impose a maximum service level- and that failed in the courts and public opposition.

 

The Government last week its reaffirmed its £4.2billion subsidy to safeguard transport services London.

The Government yesterday announced £150 million provided to safeguard public transport services in the rest of England.

 

"Why would it mean waiting longer? A less frequent service can be made much more reliable than a high freq service that it consistently late and running in convoy." 

The reason for high frequency services profitable or otherwise is to meet a demand to move lots people.

Buses bunch- a mathematical fact studied all over the world.

The solutions are all imperfect but to maintain frequency some operators:

Allow the unplanned missing out of stops(used on a few London high frequency/stopping services and very unpopular).

Allow buses to hop pass each other.

Specially designed buses to allow faster egress and access. Separate doors, fewer seats, longer buses, no DDs, cashless and ticketless etc. 

Core and overlapping service eg 120.

Nobody has ever come up with the idea of removing capacity in order to move more people faster,

 

So you think 10 buses, each with a capacity of ~80 passengers, per hour, each on average carrying just less 1/4 of their capacity is better than 5 carrying a minimum of half capacity. 

You're an idiot. Again had I mentioned any other service you wouldn't be arguing moronic points. High frequency services in Sheffield simple do not work, expecially on cross-city routes. 

Again, I'll listen to the experts, not someone who's moaning because I mentioned a service she uses. The changes I have mentioned are all strong suggestions by these experts however PTE & operators haven't made them because of the vitriolic response from the public as evidenced by you. 

[RollingJ]

4 hours ago, Resident said:

So you think 10 buses, each with a capacity of ~80 passengers, per hour, each on average carrying just less 1/4 of their capacity is better than 5 carrying a minimum of half capacity. 

You're an idiot. Again had I mentioned any other service you wouldn't be arguing moronic points. High frequency services in Sheffield simple do not work, expecially on cross-city routes. 

Again, I'll listen to the experts, not someone who's moaning because I mentioned a service she uses. The changes I have mentioned are all strong suggestions by these experts however PTE & operators haven't made them because of the vitriolic response from the public as evidenced by you. 

And to think I used to enjoy @Annie Bynnol's once very useful and informative posts about our local rail network. 😞

[Annie Bynnol]

5 hours ago, Resident said:

So you think 10 buses, each with a capacity of ~80 passengers, per hour, each on average carrying just less 1/4 of their capacity is better than 5 carrying a minimum of half capacity. 

You're an idiot. Again had I mentioned any other service you wouldn't be arguing moronic points. High frequency services in Sheffield simple do not work, expecially on cross-city routes. 

Again, I'll listen to the experts, not someone who's moaning because I mentioned a service she uses. The changes I have mentioned are all strong suggestions by these experts however PTE & operators haven't made them because of the vitriolic response from the public as evidenced by you. 

Omission:

Both 120 operators already operate a advertised reduced frequency timetable in response to demand for several months each year.  "It would mean that they would have drivers and vehicles to improve other routes etc. ". but they don't and won't unless someone pays them to. 

 

Mathematics:

Ten buses an hour each carrying less than 20 people means equals less than 200 per hour are carried.

The same number carried on five buses an hour would mean they would be running a maximum of half capacity.

 

Reality:

Even fewer would be carried as they would get fed up of waiting and use alternative ways to travel.

Even fewer would be carried as the uneven spread would lead standing and overcrowding on some buses.

You are reducing physically disabled, reduced mobility, luggage and pram space by 50% on a route which has the highest demand.

A five bus system would inevitably lead to longer dwell times and therefore longer journey times.

A five bus system could not cope with surges therefore the timetable collapses. 

A five bus system is inflexible in dealing with shortages of available vehicles and drivers.

 

Selfishness:

"Again had I mentioned any other service you wouldn't be arguing moronic points."

Another fail:

My second nearest and most frequent service is the 52/52a. The reduced timetable of both and the change in route has led to a noticeable decline in reliability.  A "(h)igh frequency services in Sheffield simple do not work, expecially(sic) on cross-city routes"?

Actually my the third nearest is the120  but it is downhill and also has the advantage of a live display. Handiest for 'to town'' destinations.

My nearest bus service is the 51- which although vastly improved due to passenger efforts, suffers from the very problems I have described above. 

 

Public transport systems in densely populated urban areas always prefer a frequency timetable allowing the public to "turn up and go" during peak times. Timetable will often show ' first' and last' and service ' frequencies' at different times of the day.

 

A public transport operator on the 120 cannot micromanage the service to cope with demand fluctuations caused by normal use that you find on any route plus lecture times at two universities, clinic opening times at 5+ hospitals, different opening/closing/lunchtimes at four secondary schools, twirlies, the arrival and departure of several hundred support staff who arrive early and late etc. etc.

The biggest employers in the city are found along the 120 corridor and if we are to reduce pollution, parking issues, traffic problems then bus use needs to be encouraged.

 

Your solution of improving bus services by cutting them is very odd and will just lead to a race to the bottom for all users.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Annie Bynnol

[driver151]

i see a lot mentioned about high frequency routes, the reason there are high frequency is due to them been the money making routes regardless on them been 1/4 full or 100% full, there a lot more to it than meets the eye, the low frequency routes are the routes that struggle making a profit if any, the council have already look at few times at taking it over but the costs would be way to much this is not a cheap industry to do business in

you have to look at this a business (i know its not right but that's what it is) if i had 10 buses and i could get 9 of them buses on a route that made more money and then run 1 on a route that the council pays for and it make a little amount so i could claim we doing it for the public operating a service that is hardly used it make business sense i am sorry to say

 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by driver151

[hello1964]

Louise Haigh is trying to improve matters for bus users. It ain't easy though you know. 

[RollingJ]

17 minutes ago, hello1964 said:

Louise Haigh is trying to improve matters for bus users. It ain't easy though you know. 

How?

[Bilge]

12 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

.....Your solution of improving bus services by cutting them is very odd and will just lead to a race to the bottom for all users.

Thanks for all the effort you put into responding to public transport questions on here Annie. I fear your helpful information and reasoning is lost on many but don't let that put you off.

 

To have decent bus services we've got to have plenty of slack in the system. It can't be just whatever basic poverty level crappy service that 'pays' the big useless bus companies to provide. We can't seriously make buses a real alternative to cars unless they are reliable, frequent. green and quick. Trams and trains are not going to provide the answers for most people, buses will. We need to do much much better at making buses an attractive and efficient option for all.  At the moment in the UK the bus services are mostly very poor indeed and nowhere near what the country needs.

 

 

 

[Andy C]

20 hours ago, hello1964 said:

Louise Haigh is trying to improve matters for bus users. It ain't easy though you know. 

It would help if she actually understood what needs improving, how buses worked and what sort of extra cost to the taxpayer what she is proposing would involve rather than just regurgitating party political dogma.

 

Quite frankly the comments she has been making in public concern me given she is shadow transport secretary.

 

Sheffield's commercially operated bus network, although far from perfect, is actually quite comprehensive and the ticket prices very reasonable, especially the longer term commuter passes.  Despite recent reductions due to Covid related driver shortages, most major bus routes (such as 24/25, 52/52a, 75/76 and 120) are regular with a bus at least every 15 minutes in the daytime. The majority of the bus fleet is modern and well maintained.

 

There are gaps in the network of course - these are generally secondary routes that aren't commercially viable which were part of the tendered network that were cut after losing funding due to public sector budget cuts as part of the government austerity policies. The same issue has faced evening services in many areas.

 

The issue people that live in my area mention as putting them off bus travel is long journey times and reliability issues, these are caused mostly by road traffic congestion. This is not going to change until there are comprehensive bus priority measures along the main routes at the times they are needed and actually properly enforced by the council, whose parking enforcement team seem terribly under resourced.

 

Other public sector financial issues that have impacted bus travel includes the departure tax at Sheffield Interchange, closure of travel shops, withdrawal of printed timetables/publicity and reduction of Travel-Line opening hours.

 

The council (public sector) are also guilty of a lack of bigger picture thinking that has led to bus travel being less attractive for many. They give planning permission to new housing estates that don't include road infrastructure suitable for a bus route or new out of town industrial estates that aren't very well connected by public transport. They've also made changes in the City Centre that have seriously downgraded the experience of bus travel whilst over the years improved things for those coming by car by completing the inner ring road and giving permission for loads of new multi-storey car parks to be built.

 

A particular bug bear of mine living where I do is the parochial nature of local authorities meaning cross border bus services between South Yorkshire and Derbyshire aren't what they could be.

 

The private bus companies have been doing what they can, just need the public sector "partners" to do their bit.

 

Of course the more pressing issues are recovering post-covid. We've had 2 years of the government, local authorities etc demonising public transport with a tone of do not use it or you may die and encouraging other means of travel as well as of course some changes in how people work and shop (eg from home and online) meaning passenger numbers (and therefore operator revenue) are still significantly down compared to pre-covid and there is still a bit of a hangover with staff shortages due to a combination of drivers being off work sick with Covid along with new drivers not getting trained as quickly due to social distancing requirements being part of covid safe working practices.

 

The good news is that the government has announced a final chunk of covid service support funding to keep buses on the road until October, with a hope that the passenger numbers have recovered enough by then and networks & ticketing will have adapted to changes in demand.

 

It does however feel that Boris Johnson's Bus Back Better initiative that was to provide funding to local authorities across the country to launch enhanced bus partnerships is becoming dead in the water as the funding available seems to be getting smaller (money for electric bus grants and money for covid public service support has been taken out of the originally announced figure).

 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Andy C

[RollingJ]

Good post, @Andy C - but I'm afraid it will go over the heads of many, or be derided by the 'council-run is better' brigade.

[Andy C]

18 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Good post, @Andy C - but I'm afraid it will go over the heads of many, or be derided by the 'council-run is better' brigade.

To be fair the method of service delivery (public sector run, franchised, partnership or fully commercial with tendered support) can all work if the right level of funding is there along with good organisation and the difference is really political opinion which I won't get into here. However I don't believe the necessary level of public sector funding is available and we already have private operators in place with resource and experience who are already working in a partnership environment with the commercial network run (pre-covid) at no cost to the taxpayer even when making a loss - public funding is only generally provided for tendered services, concessionary fare schemes and infrastructure such as bus stops.

 

My key point is the people involved in the public debate really need to sit back, look at what we currently have and what the issues actually, understand what would actually improve the passenger experience and make bus travel more attractive and why the haven't already happened.

 

From where I'm sat the ownership/operator is irrelevant so changes to more public sector control would make no difference. We need to look at initiatives that make journeys faster and more reliable, then as the existing services become more attractive as a result and patronage grows then there will be the confidence to start making other improvements to the network, knowing that there should be revenue growth to pay for it.

 

The problem is the things that need to change are not in the control of the bus operators - the council need to do their bit. It has already proved that this could be politically difficult with the uproar at the proposal of making the bus lanes on Abbeydale Road and Ecclesall Road apply all day rather than being used as a makeshift free car park. If you want buses to be reliable and faster this needs to happen.  Again when I talk about bigger picture though, over the years this has become an issue due to city planning policies - really off street parking should have been provided so the bus lanes don't need to be used a car park for the businesses along the way, this could have been included in the redevelopments over the years for example where pubs and social clubs have been knocked down to make way for blocks of flats.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Andy C