BSIP Improvement Suggestions
BSIP Improvement Suggestions
We all have a feelings about some of the 'improvements' so far but thought there's no where to discuss suggestions which actually would be useful with severe gaps.
Some suggestions, mostly in Durham, from me:
1: Crook terminator extended to Stanhope via 101 route, 101 scrapped
6: Extended to Barnard Castle from Cockfield hourly, 85 scrapped
25/725: Merged to restore old route.
56: Upped to 2 BPH throughout and Sunday / evening service restored
X46: Extended to Stanhope every hour via it's one a day extension.
X46: Extended to Newcastle every hour and combined with X12 for 2 BPH.
N/A: Sedgefield to Newton Aycliffe, unsure on this one.
New direct links formed:
Barnard Castle to Durham
Stanhope / Tow Law to Durham
Langley Park to Newcastle
Crook to Newcastle
Darlington / Shildon to Stanhope
I'd invest in time and money to identify where the flows of traffic were at various times of the day, offer a service which stepped away from the traditional and look at how it could flex across the day to suit demand.
As an example:
Reduced morning peak 21 via core route.
Offer a '21P' which covered the bulk of the core route, but diverted via Team Valley.
This balance would change over the course of the day, with the TVTE service reducing in frequency, but the core 21 increasing.
Reversing for the evening peak, with the majority of the PVR switching back towards TVTE.
The old fashioned system of chucking resource on a concentrated corridor of City Centre services via slowly dying high streets in Chester, Birtley, Low Fell or Gateshead has long gone.
The numbers of people shopping or working in those High Streets have dropped massively. And they certainly don't live on them. I'd hazard a guess they don't want to get on a bus, to stand on a High Street, to then get on another bus to pass through more dead High Streets to then change on to another bus to get to where they're actually working.
I'd also look at putting the spanner in the hub and spoke model once and for all too.
But ultimately, whatever routes exist or come about, they need to differ from the network we have now.
It's not working.
Reinstating the GNE 62 would be a massive good use of BSIP money imo. Get rid of the stupid bit of the 61 doing a full loop around Murton as well as serving the Wembley estate, hell even send it back to Station Town making it an extended version of the old 202. Instead of increasing frequencies of already profitable routes, how about actually make services better?
(12 Feb 2024, 5:22 pm)Adrian Stop giving cash out like confetti, for operators to run services they should be running commercially.
It's a partnership after all, isn't it?
(12 Feb 2024, 5:22 pm)Adrian Stop giving cash out like confetti, for operators to run services they should be running commercially.
It's a partnership after all, isn't it?
Genuine Q Dan
I never knew that so as a member of the public it looks like chucking money as you have seen on this forum
Does this mean that it is FOI available if asked for the info like nexus secured services are?
(12 Feb 2024, 11:50 pm)DaveFromUpNorth Genuine Q Dan
I never knew that so as a member of the public it looks like chucking money as you have seen on this forum
Does this mean that it is FOI available if asked for the info like nexus secured services are?
(12 Feb 2024, 11:50 pm)DaveFromUpNorth Genuine Q Dan
I never knew that so as a member of the public it looks like chucking money as you have seen on this forum
Does this mean that it is FOI available if asked for the info like nexus secured services are?
(12 Feb 2024, 6:01 pm)Dan It’s worth noting that operators have to declare the amount of revenue taken to the Local Authority, where a commercial service has been enhanced in frequency or in terms of span of operation.
If these services are commercially viable, then the Local Authorities won’t be parting with any BSIP subsidy.
If they aren’t, then the subsidy covers the difference, until the point at which the service becomes commercially viable.
This is a good - and hopefully sustainable - use of the funding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(13 Feb 2024, 7:02 pm)RobinHood Any FOI would only tell you a £number and some specification details for what Nexus are paying operators to do (in respect of tenders, agreements, BSIP improvements).
It won't include any other information, such as how much revenue a service may already be carrying, as that is commercially sensitive (even though Nexus may know it).
Bus operators are generally private companies, FOI doesn't apply to private companies or their data.
(12 Feb 2024, 6:01 pm)Dan It’s worth noting that operators have to declare the amount of revenue taken to the Local Authority, where a commercial service has been enhanced in frequency or in terms of span of operation.
If these services are commercially viable, then the Local Authorities won’t be parting with any BSIP subsidy.
If they aren’t, then the subsidy covers the difference, until the point at which the service becomes commercially viable.
This is a good - and hopefully sustainable - use of the funding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(13 Feb 2024, 7:02 pm)RobinHood Any FOI would only tell you a £number and some specification details for what Nexus are paying operators to do (in respect of tenders, agreements, BSIP improvements).
It won't include any other information, such as how much revenue a service may already be carrying, as that is commercially sensitive (even though Nexus may know it).
Bus operators are generally private companies, FOI doesn't apply to private companies or their data.
(13 Feb 2024, 8:01 pm)Adrian It's worth noting that section 43 exemptions are subject to a public interest test. So, if you can make a good enough argument to Nexus, they could well have to release the revenue data.
(13 Feb 2024, 8:01 pm)Adrian It's worth noting that section 43 exemptions are subject to a public interest test. So, if you can make a good enough argument to Nexus, they could well have to release the revenue data.
(13 Feb 2024, 8:01 pm)Adrian It's a high-risk strategy imo. If the demand were there and it was zero or minimal risk, I'd imagine operators would be increasing the frequency anyway?
If it eventually becomes commercially viable, does the operator pay any of the previous subsidy back into the system to be reinvested?
(13 Feb 2024, 8:01 pm)Adrian It's a high-risk strategy imo. If the demand were there and it was zero or minimal risk, I'd imagine operators would be increasing the frequency anyway?
If it eventually becomes commercially viable, does the operator pay any of the previous subsidy back into the system to be reinvested?
(13 Feb 2024, 9:38 pm)Storx The 56 one is the most baffling one to me, surely there's not people about who think well I'm not using the 56 it's only every 15 minutes. Oh hang on, it's now every 12 minutes now I'm definitely using that.
Do people really care about those 3 minutes? I can understand the argument on an hourly service which is unusable pretty much for most people though.
(13 Feb 2024, 9:38 pm)Storx The 56 one is the most baffling one to me, surely there's not people about who think well I'm not using the 56 it's only every 15 minutes. Oh hang on, it's now every 12 minutes now I'm definitely using that.
Do people really care about those 3 minutes? I can understand the argument on an hourly service which is unusable pretty much for most people though.
(13 Feb 2024, 10:04 pm)Dan A change in frequency can and does have an impact upon patronage, even one as minor as an increase from 4 buses an hour to 5. Just in the same way that increasing a bus fare by 5-10p also has an impact.
Likewise there would have been a reduction in patronage when the service dropped from every 10 to every 12, then from every 12 to every 15.
Of course, adding 3 PVR is a significant investment, so continued marketing activity is crucial to deliver the growth in patronage required to generate the additional revenue.
I find it truly baffling that the operators and Local Authorities are facing criticism for improvements being made to the network. The comments about using the BSIP funding to start from afresh and try something new are completely fair and I don’t disagree (though I can understand reluctance as it will be difficult to prove sustainability), but I really don’t think the criticism for increasing frequencies on their existing network is fair. Hopefully they are sustainable and there is no need for a cliff edge once the funding is no longer available to be spent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(13 Feb 2024, 10:04 pm)Dan A change in frequency can and does have an impact upon patronage, even one as minor as an increase from 4 buses an hour to 5. Just in the same way that increasing a bus fare by 5-10p also has an impact.
Likewise there would have been a reduction in patronage when the service dropped from every 10 to every 12, then from every 12 to every 15.
Of course, adding 3 PVR is a significant investment, so continued marketing activity is crucial to deliver the growth in patronage required to generate the additional revenue.
I find it truly baffling that the operators and Local Authorities are facing criticism for improvements being made to the network. The comments about using the BSIP funding to start from afresh and try something new are completely fair and I don’t disagree (though I can understand reluctance as it will be difficult to prove sustainability), but I really don’t think the criticism for increasing frequencies on their existing network is fair. Hopefully they are sustainable and there is no need for a cliff edge once the funding is no longer available to be spent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(13 Feb 2024, 10:04 pm)Dan Hopefully they are sustainable and there is no need for a cliff edge once the funding is no longer available to be spent.
(13 Feb 2024, 10:04 pm)Dan Hopefully they are sustainable and there is no need for a cliff edge once the funding is no longer available to be spent.
I definitely don't think this money should be spent on increasing frequencies, bringing links back and trying new stuff yes. But the fact the 56 runs 22 hours of the day to me shows that it's a fairly profitable route as it is. You'd hope that improvement of services started at the bottom rather than the top, but I guess that's just a personal opinion.
(13 Feb 2024, 10:45 pm)Storx I understand your points, but personally I'd rather see this money on long term fixes. So instead spending money on forcing a frequency, go for the opposite option and reduce the journey times which naturally reduces the PVR.
Like in the other thread where we we're talking about the X7/X8 big issues, I'd rather see the money spend on investing in a bus lane from South Gosforth to Blue House Roundabout, or at least as far as they could, this would be better money spent as no doubt the changes on the 352-355 are all relating to same problems, noticed they were all over the place again tonight aswell. Similar with a bus gate at Peter Barratts, but this side of the BSIP has just vanished.
I don't know the 56 route, that well - but I'm sure there's places like Wrekenton where similar money could be spent, a bus would be much more attractive if it passed you on the road. It's not very attractive if you're parked behind it - regardless to frequency.
Obviously local and national government are more interesting about shoving cycle lanes in everywhere to carry fresh air, making public transport even worse in the process. Rake Lane in North Tyneside being a prime example of that, another place where a bus lane could've been built instead.
(13 Feb 2024, 10:45 pm)Storx I understand your points, but personally I'd rather see this money on long term fixes. So instead spending money on forcing a frequency, go for the opposite option and reduce the journey times which naturally reduces the PVR.
Like in the other thread where we we're talking about the X7/X8 big issues, I'd rather see the money spend on investing in a bus lane from South Gosforth to Blue House Roundabout, or at least as far as they could, this would be better money spent as no doubt the changes on the 352-355 are all relating to same problems, noticed they were all over the place again tonight aswell. Similar with a bus gate at Peter Barratts, but this side of the BSIP has just vanished.
I don't know the 56 route, that well - but I'm sure there's places like Wrekenton where similar money could be spent, a bus would be much more attractive if it passed you on the road. It's not very attractive if you're parked behind it - regardless to frequency.
Obviously local and national government are more interesting about shoving cycle lanes in everywhere to carry fresh air, making public transport even worse in the process. Rake Lane in North Tyneside being a prime example of that, another place where a bus lane could've been built instead.
(14 Feb 2024, 6:31 am)Dan The funding is divided into three different categories: fares and ticketing, network and highways and infrastructure.
All combined, this is a powerful combination to deliver sustainable growth - it isn’t a case of just choosing one of these categories.
It’s worth having a read of the TNE BSIP document:
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/wp...23-WEB.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(14 Feb 2024, 6:31 am)Dan The funding is divided into three different categories: fares and ticketing, network and highways and infrastructure.
All combined, this is a powerful combination to deliver sustainable growth - it isn’t a case of just choosing one of these categories.
It’s worth having a read of the TNE BSIP document:
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/wp...23-WEB.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
