The "Sixer" bus service

I was up in Sheffield last week for my regular Bank Holiday visit to my family - and I was really upset to hear that the "Sixer" - the little S6 bus that serves the Hillsborough/Wisewood area - is being withdrawn from the end of April. That little bus is a lifeline for my mum, who is elderly and not very mobile - and from the times that I've travelled on the Sixer with her, it seems that the largest percentage of regular users are elderly and infirm too! It appears to be a well-used service, so I don't understand why it's being axed. Ok - the 52A is a pretty decent and regular service that covers much of the same route - but not all of it - and I think the loss of the Sixer is going to impact negatively on many elderly and infirm people who currently use it.

Incidentally, what do people who live in Wisewood do for any kind of a bus service in the evenings and nights? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole of the Wisewood area seems to be a bus-free zone after about 7-8pm. Surely that's not right or fair?

Unfortunately, the bus doesn't make enough money to be viable. It is indeed a lifeline for the elderly, but they don't pay bus fares. A driver told me the other day it often takes less in fares than it costs to fill with diesel

Wisewood is served by service 31 in the evenings upto about 11pm i believe. The S6 is mainly used by OAP's as mentioned by feargal OAP's don't pay for their travel i don't know how much the PTE reimburse the company for this, but in this age with funding cuts etc i doubt it will be much. It's unfortunate but bus services all over the country are been reduced/cut especially in rural areas.

Unfortunately, the bus doesn't make enough money to be viable. It is indeed a lifeline for the elderly, but they don't pay bus fares. A driver told me the other day it often takes less in fares than it costs to fill with diesel

How are subsidies determined/paid? If such a bus service is removed, do the bus companies get a reduction in subsidy/payment in lieu of the

bus pass people who don't pay?

If someone who previously caught the bus every day now stays at home because there's no practical alternative, do the bus operators receive a corresponding reduction in payment?

How are subsidies determined/paid? If such a bus service is removed, do the bus companies get a reduction in subsidy/payment in lieu of the

bus pass people who don't pay?

 

If someone who previously caught the bus every day now stays at home because there's no practical alternative, do the bus operators receive a corresponding reduction in payment?

The service is a tendered service paid for by SYPTE, it is they who are cutting the service so as a result will not be paying the operator to run it for them possibly leading to redundancy of staff.

What?

Really? We need more buses up here not less.

I know this bus only runs between 8-6 but what happens when the 52a becomes unviable just like the other First bus did?

What I would really love is a Supertram Link, it wouldn't hurt Stagecoach to tie one in from either Middlewood Road, or Malin Bridge.

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 13:37 ----------

Unfortunately, the bus doesn't make enough money to be viable. It is indeed a lifeline for the elderly, but they don't pay bus fares. A driver told me the other day it often takes less in fares than it costs to fill with diesel

This doesn't surprise me.

A couple of years ago, there were certain drivers who never charged fares for 'family and friends' who used to just hop on the bus for free.

Bugged me then, because I knew this would happen. The only option soon will be on foot, OK going towards Hillsborough, but pretty tough on the way back

sth yorks had the best integrated transport system in the world b4thatcher came for it.

I live in that area and also does my ageing mum, I am afraid to say that when the bus finishes at the end of April my mum's independence will be taken away as she will no longer be able to get out. She is not great on her legs and it is a long way to walk from Studfield Rise/Grove to the Wisewood School for the 52 bus.

I totally agree that there should be a tram link bus like other areas have in place.

Yeah - I remember how proud we were of our good Sheffield bus services in the 70's - those lovely cream-coloured double deckers with the smart navy blue bands (which were suddenly inexplicably changed to that horrible, pale beige/dark beige combo). However, whatever colour the buses were, they seemed a lot more frequent and reliable way back then. The fares were a lot cheaper and simpler too!

I also blame Thatcher and her mad obsession for privatising everything and carving everything up! That's the beauty of having public ownership of public transport over private ownership. Private companies are understandably all about profit - so they just axe routes on a whim when they aren't making enough money. Under public ownership, the busy routes funded the less busy routes - so bus routes seldom got axed or dramatically changed just because fewer people were using them, or because their main passengers were the "olds"....travelling on their free bus passes!

I guess it's just the way life is these days, but I still think it's very sad that people like my old mum and Rosieposie's old mum are going to be robbed of their independence and left virtually housebound by the axing of the Sixer. They're old, frail and not so good on their feet, yet they'd jump on the Sixer with their shopping trolleys, do their "big shop" in Morrison's, then mooch along Hillsborough bottom, nipping in and out of Wilko's...The Precinct...their favourite butchers, bakers and greengrocers...B&M Bargains....then they'd catch the Sixer at the bottom of Dykes Hall Road, have a bit of banter with the nice, jolly drivers and each other...and be home having a cup of tea ten minutes later.

Axing these vital bus services is no biggie for younger, fitter people...but it's a rotten blow to our old 'uns!

My parents are pensioners and use public transport regularly. They often talk to other "oldies" and all of them support paying a small fare, eg 20p or 50p, which would support a lot of the daytime services. Apparently, they aren't allowed, as it goes against the nationwide rule of free transport for OAPs.

The service is a tendered service paid for by SYPTE, it is they who are cutting the service so as a result will not be paying the operator to run it for them possibly leading to redundancy of staff.

Thanks .

---------- Post added 25-04-2017 at 08:18 ----------

Yeah - I remember how proud we were of our good Sheffield bus services in the 70's - those lovely cream-coloured double deckers with the smart navy blue bands (which were suddenly inexplicably changed to that horrible, pale beige/dark beige combo). However, whatever colour the buses were, they seemed a lot more frequent and reliable way back then. The fares were a lot cheaper and simpler too!

 

I also blame Thatcher and her mad obsession for privatising everything and carving everything up! That's the beauty of having public ownership of public transport over private ownership. Private companies are understandably all about profit - so they just axe routes on a whim when they aren't making enough money. Under public ownership, the busy routes funded the less busy routes - so bus routes seldom got axed or dramatically changed just because fewer people were using them, or because their main passengers were the "olds"....travelling on their free bus passes!

 

I guess it's just the way life is these days, but I still think it's very sad that people like my old mum and Rosieposie's old mum are going to be robbed of their independence and left virtually housebound by the axing of the Sixer. They're old, frail and not so good on their feet, yet they'd jump on the Sixer with their shopping trolleys, do their "big shop" in Morrison's, then mooch along Hillsborough bottom, nipping in and out of Wilko's...The Precinct...their favourite butchers, bakers and greengrocers...B&M Bargains....then they'd catch the Sixer at the bottom of Dykes Hall Road, have a bit of banter with the nice, jolly drivers and each other...and be home having a cup of tea ten minutes later.

 

Axing these vital bus services is no biggie for younger, fitter people...but it's a rotten blow to our old 'uns!

I believe that the long term impact of bus deregulation has been greatly underestimated. Although I don't think it matters whether or not the provider is privatised. What matters is how it is funded. We used to have a very cheap bus service, with plenty of buses, which we paid for with general taxation. So, even if you had a car it wasn't necessary to use it, and it was cheap to use the bus. Now, you may need a car because there is no longer a suitable bus service. Also, people who have a car will use it because it is probably cheaper to use it than pay bus fares. So fewer people use the bus, so it becomes hard to justify keeping routes open. So we have busier roads (requiring increased public spending to build more roads to free up travel).

For the most part we pay for many parts of our infrastructure centrally, eg roads, Street lighting, bin removal, water and sewage infrastructure, etc etc. We do not expect each person to pay for, for example, the light from a street light as he uses it. We pay for it centrally, and then make it freely available to all. If we did the same with public transport, the country would be a much nicer place to live.

Thanks .

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2017 at 08:18 ----------

 

 

I believe that the long term impact of bus deregulation has been greatly underestimated. Although I don't think it matters whether or not the provider is privatised. What matters is how it is funded. We used to have a very cheap bus service, with plenty of buses, which we paid for with general taxation. So, even if you had a car it wasn't necessary to use it, and it was cheap to use the bus. Now, you may need a car because there is no longer a suitable bus service. Also, people who have a car will use it because it is probably cheaper to use it than pay bus fares. So fewer people use the bus, so it becomes hard to justify keeping routes open. So we have busier roads (requiring increased public spending to build more roads to free up travel).

 

For the most part we pay for many parts of our infrastructure centrally, eg roads, Street lighting, bin removal, water and sewage infrastructure, etc etc. We do not expect each person to pay for, for example, the light from a street light as he uses it. We pay for it centrally, and then make it freely available to all. If we did the same with public transport, the country would be a much nicer place to live.

The main problem with the deregulated bus services is that the local authorities are not fulfilling their role in the system as prescribed by the 1985 transport act. It is their responsibility to provide socially necessary services and they are not doing it.

Under the old system there were major flaws in that in the metropolitan areas the PTE's used public transport as a vote winner for their political masters at whatever cost it took and irrespective of actual need.

The PTE's were also given powers that were beyond their ability to handle for example the control of all transport in their area, the power to control registrations of services and the power to compulsorily purchase other operators. This removed small operators with lower overheads and put the services in the hands of the PTE to run at a higher cost. They could and in some cases did, restrict the services these operators could run to devalue their businesses prior to making an offer for the business.

A great many political ego's were massaged during this period and all the time maintenance was being cut and bodged to try and keep costs down rather then face the political climb down of putting fares up. This led to 2 instances where the Traffic Commissioners came in and put large amounts of vehicles off the road on the grounds of safety and having personally seen some of the vehicles in question all I can say is the People of South Yorkshires lives were being put at risk by the low fares policy.

There is a middle ground that could work but a priority has to be to keep local politicians well away and compel them to pay their bills when due.