01 Oct 2018, 8:43 pm
#133
(01 Oct 2018, 8:06 pm)Tamesider I assume it is the "messenger" rather than the message that shocks you. The only thing I would disagree with is the suggestion that Britain has a Walking Strategy, unless it is to outlaw walking in urban and suburban areas to legitimately give pavements over to cyclists.
I wonder when Go-Ahead sent their submission as I note (via the link on post #126) that the most recent submission is still dated 10th Sept
Quite a bit of the message shocks me.
I tend not to post the long rambling rants about public vs private or multi-national operators holding out their bowl and doing their best impression of Oliver Twist, begging the government for 'more sir'.
However, that shout for unity and the little nudge and wink to the begging bowl riled me slightly.
Yes, I agree that LA's have reduced funding and subsidies.
Operators have ways and means to counter that.
Raising fares and cutting services seems to be the flavour of the day.
As is holding out the begging bowl.
The new demand based service he mentions in Oxford benefits those in the city centre and suburbs.
It is designed to attract young folks using apps and technology.
It doesn't help those people living out in the rural hinterlands of Oxfordshire - often unable to take advantage of technology or too far out to benefit from the service.
The same passengers who lost out after Oxfordshire Council withdrew funding and operators turned down the chance to do anything commercial.
Rather than supplement the existing offer and demand improvements to roads (that are often clogged up with 3/4 buses queuing up at a time including their new services), why don't they look at kickstarting improvements to outlying areas? Why don't they adapt what they have?
Botley Road by the station in Oxford, is jam-packed with services heading to P&R sites or offering interurban, express type routes.
The same routes that grew over the years after seeing operators investment.
The ideal model to inspire growth on services in other areas.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
