Sheffield Bus Network Changes - September 2019

[Andy C 85]

some of the information on the Travel South Yorkshire website a little understated

 

25 and 86 : Minor timetable change = complete withdrawal of evening service on one side of the city!

[Andy C 85]

6 hours ago, Andy C said:

I'm particularly disappointed at the loss of a bus to the Blake Hotel....  nearest now would be walking down from the 95.

 

The new 135 route is Upperthorpe Road, Daniel Hill, Fox Road, Burgoyne Road, Whitehouse Road, Walkley Road, Burnaby Crescent and Langsett Crescent. 

 

I'm guessing Daniel Hill Street would be too narrow for a full size bus.

Also no Sunday service as the 135 will just be shuttling Grenoside-Hillsborough Interchange on Sundays (connections into City with tram or buses 52/52a/81/82)

[catmiss 12]

On 20/08/2019 at 23:52, Andy C said:

This is perhaps something to take up with your elected representative (councillor/MP).

 

Simply put the 31 isn't financially viable without public subsidy - it isn't really busy and many of the passengers travel for free on a concessionary pass.

 

our local authority SYPTE keep having their funding cut and simply cannot afford to pay to save the service. 

 

There are other issues too - carr road is often impassable due to inconsideratly parked cars for example.

 

Many parts of the current route 31/31b will be covered by other services - 52a, 61/62, 95 and 135/135a. However it does still leave a few bits around Walkley without.

 

Community transport had been running the 31 with no subsidy mon-fri daytime but having lost a lot of contracts to other operators such as Powell's and First that is non longer viable.

The 31 service is well used in the day time but I agree mainly by concession passengers. Carr Rd is a problem but recently only alternate busses have gone up to South Rd and I think there’s the same issue on Whitehouse Rd re parking. The road is also very steep so I can see the 135 being re-routed in icy conditions. Perhaps the eventual intention is to bypass  lower Walkley altogether. By all accounts there’s not going to be a stop between the bottom of Whitehouse Rd and half way down Burnaby Crescent so it’s not accessible for more than a few bits of lower Walkley

[Andy C 85]

On 22/08/2019 at 20:47, catmiss said:

The 31 service is well used in the day time but I agree mainly by concession passengers. Carr Rd is a problem but recently only alternate busses have gone up to South Rd and I think there’s the same issue on Whitehouse Rd re parking. The road is also very steep so I can see the 135 being re-routed in icy conditions. Perhaps the eventual intention is to bypass  lower Walkley altogether. By all accounts there’s not going to be a stop between the bottom of Whitehouse Rd and half way down Burnaby Crescent so it’s not accessible for more than a few bits of lower Walkley

Community Transport was running the Monday to Friday daytime service commercially but on quite thin margins, the problem I've heard is that because they've lost contracts for all tendered work except the H1  they've had to let drivers go and it was no longer viable to provide the resource for the 31/31b. Due to government austerity cuts SYPTE doesn't have the budget to provide a subsidy for the 31/31b so a cheaper alternative was First agreeing to divert the 135 to cover part of the route.

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Andy C said:

Due to government austerity cuts SYPTE doesn't have the budget to provide a subsidy for the 31/31b 

So where are they spending the BSOG money they are retaining?  Fact finding missions to the algarve? 

[catmiss 12]

I think there’s quite a campaign going on re this -see Sheffield Star this week. Met several distressed people who will be housebound as a result of this decision and some drivers who are to be made redundant. If you house elderly and disabled people at the top of hills with few facilities  do you not have a duty to support their access to necessary resources? The area is not particularly well off so-car ownership in the demographic is low and taxi fares prohibitive  for regular travel. Several passengers will now require hospital transport rather than public transport thereby pushing costs onto an already stretched health service. Several people I’ve spoken to would be prepared to pay a reasonable top up fee to travel up the hills. Sheffield transport and the Council are obviously not signed up to climate change objectives or preventing social isolation. It’s obvious that the tortuous journey the 135 will be taking will make the service unreliable and subject to weather affected diversions- probably leading to the eventual decision to bypass Lower Walkley altogether. Admittedly most of the passengers have bus passes but as one traveller said this week ‘they take your rates/poll tax/council tax for 50 years and then sell you down the river’

[Annie Bynnol 612]

8 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

So where are they spending the BSOG money they are retaining?  Fact finding missions to the algarve? 

Then:

All the Government  BSOG money went directly to the commercial  operators.

This did not affect the operation or profitability of a route.

Authorities subsidised some routes/times.

Now:

Government directed some of the BSOG money to be used by local government  for infrastructure.

Government reducing the local government grant, so less cash available to  local government for subsidy.

 

 Most Local Government across the country is having to deal with this problem.

 

The problem is far, far worse in rural areas, including parts of South Yorkshire.

[Andy C 85]

On 24/08/2019 at 16:45, busdriver1 said:

So where are they spending the BSOG money they are retaining?  Fact finding missions to the algarve? 

The thing is the 31/31b daytime service on weekdays is not currently subsidised. To continue it needs to become subsidised. SYPTE doesn't have the money to subsidise more buses than it does now.

 

However not many fare paying passenger use the service, most are on free concessionary passes. The bus operator does get reimbursed for each concessionary pass scanned, but the level of reimbursement is nowhere near the proper fare.

 

Community Transport, due to its status, are able to run a bus like that commercially on thin margins where a normal commercial operator can't, however in a lot of these cases it relies on shared resource with tendered routes. Community Transport have lost every contract they had except the H1 hospital shuttle so their public bus operating side is pretty much out of business with drivers presumably made redundant other than a few for the NHS contract. 

 

So, no operator finding it viable to run buses in that area and no money to subsidise a tendered service.

 

Solution for Upperthorpe and Langsett was found in diverting the 135/135a. Solution for Loxley and Wisewood found (and funded) in extending the 52a and diverting the 61/62.

 

Walkley has the 95 on the main road, but the estates below are narrow roads with parked cars so cannot be covered by diverting a main bus service, it has to be a minibus. If only more fare paying commuters had supported the 31 rather than just sticking with the 95...

 

If local politicians are getting involved with a campaign to save the 31, maybe the council may find an alternative source of funding... fingers crossed!

Edited August 26, 2019 by Andy C

[Andy C 85]

incidentally not sure if anyone has noticed but the 135a won't be serving the area on Sundays as it operates as a Hillsborough-Grenoside shuttle on Sundays.

 

 

[Andy C 85]

just a bump note to remind these changes take place from this coming Sunday 1st September.

 

The new network maps and timetables are available at www.travelsouthyorkshire.com.

 

Also from this weekend is the end of the Supertram rail replacement works with trams going back to their normal timetable on the entire network.

[Vaati 11]

Andy, you may know the answer to this. If not would you be able to point me in the right direction?

When the companies put in their tenders for the routes, do they have to state what changes they will make to the route? I.e the 268 to 58. Every 2hrs and 10mins, rather than roughly every hour that it was before?

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Groose said:

Andy, you may know the answer to this. If not would you be able to point me in the right direction?

When the companies put in their tenders for the routes, do they have to state what changes they will make to the route? I.e the 268 to 58. Every 2hrs and 10mins, rather than roughly every hour that it was before?

The times and route are laid out in the specification of the tender. A company can however submit what is called a non conforming tender for consideration. For example (this may be the answer to your question) if it takes 2 hours and 5 minutes to complete the round trip on a route, they may off to run it every 2 hours and 10 minutes for a much lower price so the same bus can do all the trips. They may also offer to run it with a route revision for a similar reason. It is then up to the PTE  to decide if they want to accept the lower priced bid and lose out on what they originally asked for.