|
Post by Craig on Apr 1, 2024 18:30:41 GMT 1
A lot of talk that the 9A is to be re-extended to cover the White Rose - Pudsey - Horsforth section (off-peak & Sundays) from May service changes with BSIP Funding Core services should be the priority for BSIP funding. Not minor routes. That would be wasted funding from my view. Iām quite surprised that someone who appears to be very pro WYCA taking back control of the local bus network, is also happy for non-core services to be cut back?
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 1, 2024 18:36:29 GMT 1
Surely if it was a core service, why would it need BSIP funding? If a service makes money why should it need to be propped up by BSIP funding? BSIP funding should be focused on marginal services.
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 1, 2024 19:38:53 GMT 1
A lot of talk that the 9A is to be re-extended to cover the White Rose - Pudsey - Horsforth section (off-peak & Sundays) from May service changes with BSIP Funding Core services should be the priority for BSIP funding. Not minor routes. That would be wasted funding from my view. Orbital routes like the 9/A/10 should be where funding is spent IMO, the 'core' network is mostly commercially operated & whilst orbital routes are not normally commercially viable they do serve a purpose in the local communities & compliment the core routes in/out of the city centre as alot of people don't like having to travel into the city centre to change buses, in fact that's one of the most common answers people say when asked why use cars for fairly short distance journies.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 1, 2024 19:42:54 GMT 1
I'll be very interested to see what service changes come at the end of May
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 1, 2024 22:14:16 GMT 1
Core services should be the priority for BSIP funding. Not minor routes. That would be wasted funding from my view. Iām quite surprised that someone who appears to be very pro WYCA taking back control of the local bus network, is also happy for non-core services to be cut back? It doesn't seem sensible to use temporary funding on minor routes. It will run out and once it does the cost transfers to the authority. If any service is propped up or improved by these funds it must be done with the intention that the service will run at a similar cost when the funding runs dry. If not we will end up with cuts. Is this really good value for money, when there's a mountain of core services which don't even run with a full timetable yet have more chance for success?
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 1, 2024 22:56:14 GMT 1
Surely if it was a core service, why would it need BSIP funding? If a service makes money why should it need to be propped up by BSIP funding? BSIP funding should be focused on marginal services. I guess you won't be happy to find out that the last batch of service improvements were almost all towards core services?
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 1, 2024 23:03:27 GMT 1
Surely if it was a core service, why would it need BSIP funding? If a service makes money why should it need to be propped up by BSIP funding? BSIP funding should be focused on marginal services. I guess you won't be happy to find out that the last batch of service improvements were almost all towards core services? If you suggest to use funding to fund major services? What is your suggestions with the minor services then? Cut them off altogether?
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 1, 2024 23:10:00 GMT 1
I guess you won't be happy to find out that the last batch of service improvements were almost all towards core services? If you suggest to use funding to fund major services? What is your suggestions with the minor services then? Cut them off altogether? No? I think you may be confused. I'm not saying we scrap of get rid of these routes. I'm saying the BSIP funding shouldn't be used to prop them up, because it isn't a good use of funding. What good is a minor bus network when we don't have a strong core network?
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 1, 2024 23:14:02 GMT 1
If you suggest to use funding to fund major services? What is your suggestions with the minor services then? Cut them off altogether? No? I think you may be confused. I'm not saying we scrap of get rid of these routes. I'm saying the BSIP funding shouldn't be used to prop them up, because it isn't a good use of funding. What good is a minor bus network when we don't have a strong core network? If you don't use the BSIP funding to fund minor routes? What do you do with them then? Where else you going to get the funding from? I can't see local authorities funding all these routes, especially if they are close to bankruptcy. To people in those areas, having a bus service is a huge lifeline.
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 1, 2024 23:24:12 GMT 1
No? I think you may be confused. I'm not saying we scrap of get rid of these routes. I'm saying the BSIP funding shouldn't be used to prop them up, because it isn't a good use of funding. What good is a minor bus network when we don't have a strong core network? If you don't use the BSIP funding to fund minor routes? What do you do with them then? Where else you going to get the funding from? I can't see local authorities funding all these routes, especially if they are close to bankruptcy. To people in those areas, having a bus service is a huge lifeline. We already have our own fund for bus services. The BSIP funding is EXTRA funding to improve services but it is only temporary, once we spend it the funding is gone. Meaning the cost of subsiding services we improve now would have to come from our existing budget, which is why we need to be careful! It's also worth noting that transport authorities are separate from councils so the council bankruptcy issue doesn't apply. Birmingham Council is bankrupt, but TfWM isn't!
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 2, 2024 0:18:41 GMT 1
Iām quite surprised that someone who appears to be very pro WYCA taking back control of the local bus network, is also happy for non-core services to be cut back? It doesn't seem sensible to use temporary funding on minor routes. It will run out and once it does the cost transfers to the authority. If any service is propped up or improved by these funds it must be done with the intention that the service will run at a similar cost when the funding runs dry. If not we will end up with cuts. Is this really good value for money, when there's a mountain of core services which don't even run with a full timetable yet have more chance for success? What do you define as 'full' timetables? If your meaning extra/later night journies then surely they are less likely to become commercially viable & still by your logic a waste of these funds compared to orbital daytime journies that have the potential to replace thousands of daytime car journies if done correctly.
|
|
|
Post by joshben on Apr 2, 2024 10:51:59 GMT 1
Core services should be the priority for BSIP funding. Not minor routes. That would be wasted funding from my view. I think funding would be far more useful on routes such as 55 and 62. The Cross Green is well used by passengers for buses but for some reason buses can't run early, on Sundays or during the evening. As for service 55, with a planned closure for Cottingley station it would be useful to increase the frequency maybe to every 15 minutes for coverage. Potentially also having all journeys extend to White Rose rather than just the 55C. Maybe rather than increasing the 55, maybe the 47 which also serves Cottingley and WRC but also Morley and other areas such as East Ardsley and Thorpe. Thanks to the continued cuts by companies, these villages have no bus after 1930 and 8 buses on a Sunday at a frequency of 1Bp2H.
|
|
pricel
Forum Member
Posts: 464
|
Post by pricel on Apr 2, 2024 21:43:13 GMT 1
I think funding would be far more useful on routes such as 55 and 62. The Cross Green is well used by passengers for buses but for some reason buses can't run early, on Sundays or during the evening. As for service 55, with a planned closure for Cottingley station it would be useful to increase the frequency maybe to every 15 minutes for coverage. Potentially also having all journeys extend to White Rose rather than just the 55C. Maybe rather than increasing the 55, maybe the 47 which also serves Cottingley and WRC but also Morley and other areas such as East Ardsley and Thorpe. Thanks to the continued cuts by companies, these villages have no bus after 1930 and 8 buses on a Sunday at a frequency of 1Bp2H. I think someone on this forum mentioned that the 48 will be coming back, so that's sorted for the 47/48 service. The reason I suggested 55 rather than 47 is to focus on the loss of the railway link between Leeds and Cottingley, from when White Rose opens. Service 47 takes a massive diversion through Middleton, Morley and villages of northern Wakefield.
|
|
|
Post by thelupineone on Apr 3, 2024 19:55:21 GMT 1
Change incoming for Stringers' 499
Received 13 Mar 24 Effective 19 May 24 Registered
Revised timetable
Operating between Castleford Bus Station and Castleford Bus Station given service number 499 effective from 19 May 2024. To amend Timetable.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 4, 2024 12:28:01 GMT 1
PB0000582/296 Cancelled ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LTD Route: Huddersfield to Mount Service number: 377 (378) Service type: Normal Stopping Effective date: 19 May 2024
Found this on VOSA today
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 4, 2024 15:23:38 GMT 1
PB0000582/296 Cancelled ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LTD Route: Huddersfield to Mount Service number: 377 (378) Service type: Normal Stopping Effective date: 19 May 2024 Found this on VOSA today That route apparently turned commercial in January, according to the registration. It has always been a very healthy route for a tendered route. It could be possible that they decided to stay true to the 'more service reinvestment' and 'less burden on the taxpayer' that was promised with the partnership but of course we decided to go for franchising.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 4, 2024 15:30:14 GMT 1
Also
PB1003659/96 Registered HARROGATE COACH TRAVEL LTD Route: Ikley Bus Station, Ikley to Ikley Bus Station, Ikley via Leeds Road, Ben Rhydding Service number: 960 Service type: Circular, Hail & Ride, Normal Stopping Effective date: 18 May 2024
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 4, 2024 16:57:29 GMT 1
PB0000582/296 Cancelled ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LTD Route: Huddersfield to Mount Service number: 377 (378) Service type: Normal Stopping Effective date: 19 May 2024 Found this on VOSA today That route apparently turned commercial in January, according to the registration. It has always been a very healthy route for a tendered route. It could be possible that they decided to stay true to the 'more service reinvestment' and 'less burden on the taxpayer' that was promised with the partnership but of course we decided to go for franchising. There's an error across most of Arriva's West Yorkshire registrations about if they receive subsidy or not as none of the BSIP funded services show it either. The 377/8 has been tendered since the days of the old K Line 368 I doubt they've suddenly become commercially viable, as whilst you do get busy loads the majority are only pass holders.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Apr 4, 2024 17:00:39 GMT 1
PB0000582/296 Cancelled ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LTD Route: Huddersfield to Mount Service number: 377 (378) Service type: Normal Stopping Effective date: 19 May 2024 Found this on VOSA today That route apparently turned commercial in January, according to the registration. It has always been a very healthy route for a tendered route. It could be possible that they decided to stay true to the 'more service reinvestment' and 'less burden on the taxpayer' that was promised with the partnership but of course we decided to go for franchising. That won't be coming in for several years. Why would that be a factor now? Why do you think any of the companies would stick to their partnership promises?
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 4, 2024 17:01:10 GMT 1
I thought the 377/378 was on a 3 year tender, since Arriva got the routes in October 2022? If Arriva got awarded it in 2022, it'd be up again next year won't it? October 2025?
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 4, 2024 17:32:54 GMT 1
I thought the 377/378 was on a 3 year tender, since Arriva got the routes in October 2022? If Arriva got awarded it in 2022, it'd be up again next year won't it? October 2025? Depends, they could of either been stripped of the contract early or decided to hand it back.
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites š
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 4, 2024 17:33:43 GMT 1
The registration turned commercial when the improvements took place and as mentioned with one of the benefits of a partnership being less reliance on public funding. I thought it would have been possible that they would have taken the route commercial to live up to that promise I of course don't think companies will stick to a partnership with the franchising decision which could be why the service has been registered as cancelled? It was probably a silly thought but if any tendered route they run had a chance of being commercial, it would probably be that one!
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Apr 4, 2024 18:10:59 GMT 1
I thought the 377/378 was on a 3 year tender, since Arriva got the routes in October 2022? If Arriva got awarded it in 2022, it'd be up again next year won't it? October 2025? Yes it was a three year tender www.wymetro.com/media/9467/leeds-wakefield-and-kirklees-batch-719-oct-2022.pdfThey may have handed it back There is a lot of it about, as contract prices are often now loss making due to the subsequent high inflation, high pay rises, high fuel costs etc since the contract was won
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 4, 2024 18:54:05 GMT 1
The registration turned commercial when the improvements took place and as mentioned with one of the benefits of a partnership being less reliance on public funding. I thought it would have been possible that they would have taken the route commercial to live up to that promise I of course don't think companies will stick to a partnership with the franchising decision which could be why the service has been registered as cancelled? It was probably a silly thought but if any tendered route they run had a chance of being commercial, it would probably be that one! For some reason in January all the Arriva services that changed ended up with saying no subsidy on the registrations, including routes that was confirmed to be getting BSIP funding although it's not known if it was a mistake from Arriva or VOSA. Not sure how a minibus of majority passholders would have a chance of being commercial when we've seen routes that could get a single (or double) deckers worth of passholders still not be viable.
|
|
pricel
Forum Member
Posts: 464
|
Post by pricel on Apr 4, 2024 19:48:15 GMT 1
The registration turned commercial when the improvements took place and as mentioned with one of the benefits of a partnership being less reliance on public funding. I thought it would have been possible that they would have taken the route commercial to live up to that promise I of course don't think companies will stick to a partnership with the franchising decision which could be why the service has been registered as cancelled? It was probably a silly thought but if any tendered route they run had a chance of being commercial, it would probably be that one!Ā For some reason in January all the Arriva services that changed ended up with saying no subsidy on the registrations, including routes that was confirmed to be getting BSIP funding although it's not known if it was a mistake from Arriva or VOSA. Not sure how a minibus of majority passholders would have a chance of being commercial when we've seen routes that could get a single (or double) deckers worth of passholders still not be viable. It's only a minibus because of the tight roads
|
|