|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 20:53:29 GMT
these changes will cost money to implement, so in the PTEs eyes this is an improvement, spending money on public transport is a good thing , money spent = good
what you all moaning about
then.. they will listen again and spend more money changing it back, even more money spent = even more good
its a good job we have people willing to spend money on public transport
|
|
|
|
Post by dougie on Nov 1, 2013 21:46:22 GMT
Positives -
...a direct link from ASDA at Handsworth to Manor Top, Brinsworth etc ...an improved service from Brinsworth/ Blackburn/ Kimberworth ...an increase in the service from Catcliffe to Sheffield City Centre
...but apart from that, I'm a bit confused. The idea of the Sheffield "partnership" seemed to be to manage the competition between Stagecoach and First (e.g. the way that the 79 was amended in Parson Cross). Scanning down this list, it's ignored the duplication of the 11/12/56/57 but seems to have reduced the frequency on routes with no competition (e.g the Rotherham Hospital to Aston corridor going down to just one service number - so only an hourly service? - quite a loss in Aughton). Will believe some of it when I see it.
Quite a few missed opportunities - like tidying up the 31/87 in Brinsworth, giving more places a direct link to the Hospital/ Meadowhall/ Parkgate, integrating the A1 with "normal" services.
Still, good news if you live in Treeton, which seems to get quite an improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 2, 2013 2:04:29 GMT
It has raised the point that if I walk out of my front door and a No 10 is at the bus stop. it will be quicker to walk half a mile to the bottom of Addison Road to catch a 1 or 2 to Rotherham than board the bus thats actually at the stop. The PTE leaflet says that this revision is aimed at getting people back on to public transport. How can that be? Other revisions are half baked and in the main manage to re-route buses INTO pinch points. If this goes through as it is, I think several of our staff will be looking for other jobs as this will wipe out any customers we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig79 on Nov 2, 2013 13:41:24 GMT
This proposal really draws a sigh out of me. As dougie says, it's not really a Bus Partnership that Rotherham needs, there aren't that many multiple operators doing the same routes. I think what Rotherham really needs is a complete network overhaul.
What I'd like to see is a proper understanding from both the PTE and the bus operators of where the demand is for bus routes. Quick way is to find out where bus users are travelling to/from and then if you want to grow the network, ask the non bus users the same question (and why they don't use the bus). Take Wickersley as an example. There are 14 daytime buses per hour to Rotherham (1/2/3/10/19), 4 to Dinnington (19), 10 to Maltby (1/2/10/87), 4 to the Hospital (10/19) but only 1 to Meadowhall (87)- and that is via a long route round Brinsworth. Does that reflect actual demand? I'm not sure it does.
The Meadowhall question for Rotherham's network is the one that I'm always confused by. Isn't Meadowhall more than a shopping centre for the Rotherham network? The onward train, bus and tram connections are significant at Meadowhall and so I don't understand the reluctance to have more buses serving it. Going back to the Wickersley example, if you were travelling from there to Barnsley, Leeds, Manchester (even Doncaster), doesn't it make most sense to go via Meadowhall in which case, why no good direct bus service?
As an aside, it really seems like First have 'picked winners' in the Rotherham network - namely the Maltby Corridor and the X78 - so the rest of the network is badly overlooked. Outcome is probably what we see today, a fragmented and confused network, but really Rotherham deserves a lot better. I'd like to think this consultation could try and root that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 20:25:14 GMT
The website for the Rotherham bus partnership consultation is now live & available to view. There is also a map available to download, along with a downloadable questionnaire to take part in the survey. Link to website below: www.rotherhambuspartnership.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
Post by dougie on Nov 4, 2013 23:36:01 GMT
Cheers for the update.
27 every 20 minutes to Crystal Peaks sounds good (so retains current combined frequency from Rotherham/ Hospital/ Aston/ Swallownest)
37 via Fitzwilliam Road (instead of Doncaster Road)?
78 looks like a runt route - its going to be slower than the X78 between Rotherham and Meadowhall, and not carry anyone from the other side of Rotherham (as the 34, 29, 29a etc used to), can't see it getting that much use
As previously mentioned, the only areas with competition seem to keep their conflicting routes (no plans to rationalise the 11/12/56/57, for example), whilst the only real changes are to places without any competing services (why bring in a "partnership" if the only real changes are going to be on First services (e.g. around Swallownest).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 23:56:45 GMT
I still struggle to understand the 32/46 splitting, the 46 seems to almost go to Treeton as somewhere to turn it round rather than at Catcliffe or Brinsworth, yet can't interwork with anything due to the 33 extensions. It also runs from Richmond to Catcliffe via Parkway which seems odd as at peak times this will be very slow along here & suffer with reliability. The current 32 routing seems a much better idea, just run as now but have the X14 as now with the X13 running daytimes providing the enhanced frequency to Catcliffe via Parkway & diverting via Hospital & College for a link which was previously mentioned as being an idea.
With regards the 34 you could in theory renumber it to 68 & extend it to Sheffield via Attercliffe as the old 130 did, woud provide new links, a different routing to Brinsworth from Sheffield & an increased frequency of 15 minutes between Sheffield & Tinsley co-ordinated with 69.
The 78 would be better joined with the 11/12 or the 14 to create a cross town route, or the 27 to Crystal Peaks, the old 29/29A idea for me had lots of positives running Meadowhall to Dinnington via Rotherham, Hospital & Aston, it needed more time to grow & develop.
The 37 rerouting seems strange, the 4 currently picks up almost nobody along here so i can't see that being any different.
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 5, 2013 0:34:28 GMT
The 32 / 46 split is one of the few positives. It can happily then interwork at Sheffield. This links the East Bank bit with something useful and will fill the empty bit between Richmond and Catcliffe. @jasem - the 46 goes to Treeton to give a link from there to Sheffield. No other will exist. The 78 is Bizarre, good in that it removes cross town routes (with all the problems they are famous for), but should still go Down Ferham Road as this is often quicker and offers alternative links as well as serving Corporation Street. The 34 currently is struggling with cross town passengers, there are some but not enough. The extension of the 33 is a disaster waiting to happen. The exit from Aughton crossroads is notorious for delays so routing a service that way by choice seems strange. The provision of a joint 15 minute frequency from Brinsworth to Meadowhall is strange. The 31 and 87 struggle for trade as it is. I can not see this helping them. The 43 seems to carry a fair few to Kimberworth Park at times, looks like they will have to walk or go via Rotherham if this goes ahead. The 10 going round Flanderwell is also a c*ck up, this service carries kids from Maltby and Whiston to Wickersley comp. So they are diverting it away from the school. Brilliant. The 69 missing Arundle Gate is good but to take it Round Meadowhall way is crazy. Now in the rush hour it will get the benefit of sitting in an even longer queue to Tinsley roundabout. This looks to me like a partnership between the PTE and First as everyone else seems to have shunned it by the looks of it. Personally I can see the PTE's fingerprints all over this. Nobody else could create such a b*lls up.
|
|
|