Scr South Yorkshire Bus Review

[Guest busdriver1]

I have read the report in full and it makes scary reading. Stand by for massive hikes in Council tax and a reduced service.

This is just political pipe dreams aimed at vote winning with little actual substance. 

Claims that an "expert" will be hired to advise on the process of taking buses back into ownership of the devolved authority sound like "we havent got a clue how to do it so we will pay somebody lots of money to advise us" when this has not been done and where it was thought of was abandoned when they realised the complexities and cost.

This is going to be fun to watch but expensive to pay for with little possibility of any change let alone for the better.

 

I love the idea to ban any changes to services for a year, just as operators are planning their way out of the covid 19 situation they according to this hair brained scheme will not be allowed to change services. 

 

This is why local politicians and public transport should never be connected. They have not got a clue

[Phili Buster 10]

9 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The 52 route has always had regular multiple destinations particularly in the east. Darnall, Ballifield, Handsworth and Woodhouse would appear on short workings on the route daily.

The introduction of the 52 a reflected the shared core but different routes near the ends. While the 120 does not. 

The problem is that 52a does not go to Woodhouse village (only to Furnace Lane/Woodhouse Station) and the 52 does not go along Beaver Hill Road.  The 52a was not a new route, just a renumbering of First's existing route numbered 52.

 

I wasn't aware the 120 went near to Woodhouse?

[Baron99 795]

I wonder what happened to the much trumpeted SCC / bus operators 'Transport Partnership', signed a few years ago, that was going to revolutionise public transport in Sheffield with improved transport links, better connectivity, a generally better bus service for the city as a whole? 

[Andy C 86]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

I wonder what happened to the much trumpeted SCC / bus operators 'Transport Partnership', signed a few years ago, that was going to revolutionise public transport in Sheffield with improved transport links, better connectivity, a generally better bus service for the city as a whole? 

Its still going, now branded as "Buses for Sheffield".

You can find the all operator bus map here: https://travelsouthyorkshire.com/en-gb/journeyplanning/public-transport-maps#bus

You can find the all operator tickets here:  https://sytravelmaster.com/

 

The bus operators have been doing their bit investing in modern buses as much as possible for example. The public sector partners - Sheffield City Council and SYPTE perhaps less so thanks to funding cuts. This has meant those socially necessary but loss making services that are subsidised and put out to tender and been scaled back. Travel shops have been closed. Bus stop maintenance has been reduced. Bus priority measures are not being properly enforced. Bus reliability and journey times are suffering due to road traffic congestion. 

 

Something mentioned in the report is the local planning policy issue being campaigned on nationally - councils are granting planning permission to housing developments where the entire estate has roads that aren't suitable for buses, making them car dependent, with the resulting impact on traffic congestion. Likewise new business parks are allowed to be built out of town with no consideration for public transport provision.

 

Another issue may well prove to be that tickets are too cheap as well. Compare the cost of a weekly commuter pass in Sheffield with well regarded award winning operators in the Nottingham/Derby area..

Edited June 19, 2020 by Andy C

[sheffbag 229]

The PTE gets a kicking in the report, not surprisingly one of the recommendations is for SCR to take over (like they haven't been planning that since day 1). It would be interesting considering the report essentially gives the management and partnership people the blame but it would still keep the same people in place doing the same job, just with another layer of political influence over the top

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

The PTE gets a kicking in the report, not surprisingly one of the recommendations is for SCR to take over (like they haven't been planning that since day 1). It would be interesting considering the report essentially gives the management and partnership people the blame but it would still keep the same people in place doing the same job, just with another layer of political influence over the top

Exactly, failed people from a failed organisation moving to another office and I will bet getting a pay rise as well

[Annie Bynnol 612]

4 hours ago, Phili Buster said:

The problem is that 52a does not go to Woodhouse village (only to Furnace Lane/Woodhouse Station) and the 52 does not go along Beaver Hill Road.  The 52a was not a new route, just a renumbering of First's existing route numbered 52.

 

I wasn't aware the 120 went near to Woodhouse?

The problem of a  52 driver going past a stop because there is another 52 is already there is not new, historically it always had two destinations, Ballifield and Woodhouse, which are on a relatively quieter section of the route and even the Stagecoach 52 made no difference to the vast majority of users whose journeys were in the core between Crookes and Darnall. More recent major extensions and changes in the west did make a case for adding the suffix to the services beyond Heavygate Road(which Stagecoach  call Walkley on the timetable). 

 

 

Not stopping is something you should report directly to the operator and if it is a subsidised service -SYPTE. The operator will reply they are "frequent anyway"or "catching up" or "there are none at the other end"

 

The westbound 52/52a bus stop on Glossop Road can resemble a relay race handover with passengers jostling  in order to flag down their bus amongst the 12 others at that call this one stop.

 

 

 

 

[Phili Buster 10]

11 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The problem of a  52 driver going past a stop because there is another 52 is already there is not new, historically it always had two destinations, Ballifield and Woodhouse, which are on a relatively quieter section of the route and even the Stagecoach 52 made no difference to the vast majority of users whose journeys were in the core between Crookes and Darnall. More recent major extensions and changes in the west did make a case for adding the suffix to the services beyond Heavygate Road(which Stagecoach  call Walkley on the timetable). 

 

 

Not stopping is something you should report directly to the operator and if it is a subsidised service -SYPTE. The operator will reply they are "frequent anyway"or "catching up" or "there are none at the other end"

 

The westbound 52/52a bus stop on Glossop Road can resemble a relay race handover with passengers jostling  in order to flag down their bus amongst the 12 others at that call this one stop.

 

 

 

 

I remember this problem personally of 52 buses passing a 52 already at a stop from the early 60's (I am sure it occurred before that). This was on the run into city centre from Handsworth.    An almost full 52 would pull into the stop and the following almost empty 52 would 'sail' past. This could be repeated a number of times with following convoys of buses.   Before the cries of 'get to the stop earlier' are issued, how early do you think one needed to be at the stop in order to arrive in the city centre for half 8. (a 30 minute journey at the most)?    Even getting to the stop at qtr to 7 could not guarantee arrival by half 8.

[Resident 1,193]

On 18/06/2020 at 14:54, sheffbag said:

OK i'll bite 

Considering "We've" (by that i presume you mean you are part of the "We") been saying this for ages. How would you improve it? Whats your ideas that would benefit all of SY not just Sheffield.

 

consider that you are dealing with private companies. If you want it all back under public control who's going to pay to buy out the operators and how would it then be funded. If you are keeping it private then how do you improve it?

People are stuck in the 80s when it comes to the buses, when the council ran it and had an almost limitless budget.

 

If the council took back control of buses, services that exist now would not exist under them. Any service not making enough to cover costs that could not be offset by the profit from other routes would be dropped in a heartbeat. Councils now have severely restricted budgets. 

 

I have been told in conversation that a bus, over the course of a year, costs around £30,000 to operate. That's including tax,  op licence, fuel, personell (drivers, office staff) & maintainence (parts, labour etc)

If you say that between all operators, which would become council controlled, there are around 700 buses then that would be a cost to the council of £21,000,000 per year. 

 

In a time of budgetary restrictions and council services being scaled back, where is that coming from?

Nottingham Council operate buses, considered one of the cheapest in the country (but not as cheap as SY). A single fare will cost you upto £4.50. At present the most expensive single fare (to the best of my knowledge) is £3.50 and with that it will get you a considerable distance, for example Maltby, Quilter Rd to Sheffield Moorfoot. For reference, you'd be looking at £39 by taxi (calculated by taxi-calculator.com)

 

Can you imagine the uproar if SCC/RMBC etc took over and set the prices at that?

 

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

In a time of budgetary restrictions and council services being scaled back, where is that coming from?

 

The "gain share" (ie extra government funding)money from the mayoral devolution deal is £30m per annum. Its most likely they are looking at that as a source to at least help to pay for what is needed. But, there will be quite a few uses it could be put to, 

[Resident 1,193]

15 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The "gain share" (ie extra government funding)money from the mayoral devolution deal is £30m per annum. Its most likely they are looking at that as a source to at least help to pay for what is needed. But, there will be quite a few uses it could be put to, 

£8.6 million. 

 

That's the loss FSY filed 2018/2019 if I'm reading the statement correctly.  (Link, Profit/Loss on Page 9).

 

In current times I very much doubt a council can justify that loss on a yearly basis. 

[Planner1 438]

21 minutes ago, Resident said:

£8.6 million. 

 

That's the loss FSY filed 2018/2019 if I'm reading the statement correctly.  (Link, Profit/Loss on Page 9).

 

In current times I very much doubt a council can justify that loss on a yearly basis. 

It isn't a Council looking at this, it's the Combined Authority (CA).  They are the transport authority for Sheffield City Region (South Yorkshire) and have representatives from each District Council on their governance board. So, any financial risk is shared among all the local authorities.

 

The financial aspects and the complexity of doing it are the reasons why the report suggests a phased approach with a lot of detailed study work being done to assess the true potential and likely costs.  It would be a very long time before they got to a position to move to a public ownership model.

 

Far more likely that as the report suggests, the enhanced partnership option (an upgraded version of what is in place now)  is pursued in the first instance and study work is commissioned on franchising and pubic ownership. As the report says, Greater Manchester have been doing a lot of work on franchising, so a prudent approach would be to see how they get on with it and see what can be learned from their approach.

 

The UK bus industry isn't in great shape. Up to a few months ago, First were looking to sell off their entire UK bus operation and they did sell off their Greater Manchester operation last year. The financial risks are a reason why local authorities need to follow a very prudent approach and understand the likely costs of intervening in the current bus arrangements. The report acknowledges this which is why they've made the suggestions for a phased approach.