Menu
 
North East Buses Local Bus Scene Operations, Management & Infrastructure Stockton-on-Tees Public Transport Forum

Stockton-on-Tees Public Transport Forum

Stockton-on-Tees Public Transport Forum

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
 
Pages (2): Previous 1 2
Cock Robin



2,778
11 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm #21
(23 Nov 2014, 10:14 am)Adrian It seems a really good forum actually. Structured and organised, with minutes being published. It's a shame no one else (to my knowledge!) do this.


Exactly. Just noticed this thread and seen the negative comments. At least Stockton Council bother organizing one which is more than the other Tees Valley districts do. And always gets a good attendance. Having said that they can't do much constructive regarding the bus services as they just say they've got no money.

Today's was a bit of a farce however, with the operators sat in one room and the public in another, and the Stockton Council bloke attempting to type questions onto Twitter in less than so many digits. Seemed a bit of a cop out for the operators who weren't put on the spot as at previous forums.
Cock Robin
11 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm #21

(23 Nov 2014, 10:14 am)Adrian It seems a really good forum actually. Structured and organised, with minutes being published. It's a shame no one else (to my knowledge!) do this.


Exactly. Just noticed this thread and seen the negative comments. At least Stockton Council bother organizing one which is more than the other Tees Valley districts do. And always gets a good attendance. Having said that they can't do much constructive regarding the bus services as they just say they've got no money.

Today's was a bit of a farce however, with the operators sat in one room and the public in another, and the Stockton Council bloke attempting to type questions onto Twitter in less than so many digits. Seemed a bit of a cop out for the operators who weren't put on the spot as at previous forums.

Adrian



9,566
11 Jun 2016, 12:45 pm #22
(11 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm)Cock Robin Exactly. Just noticed this thread and seen the negative comments. At least Stockton Council bother organizing one which is more than the other Tees Valley districts do. And always gets a good attendance. Having said that they can't do much constructive regarding the bus services as they just say they've got no money.

Today's was a bit of a farce however, with the operators sat in one room and the public in another, and the Stockton Council bloke attempting to type questions onto Twitter in less than so many digits. Seemed a bit of a cop out for the operators who weren't put on the spot as at previous forums.

That seems a bit of a strange 'layout', if you like? I've not known many public meetings where the 'top table' are segregated from the public. I hope it reverts for the next meeting.

I agree. I was sceptical when I'd first heard of the forum (see above), but it does appear to be a good setup. I can't see why more councils aren't doing it, especially when they have the operator buy-in at Stockton.

My only criticism is the age demographic that Tony mentioned for today's meeting. I'd hope that it's a one off, and that most meetings are representative of public transport users. Not just by age, but by gender as well.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
11 Jun 2016, 12:45 pm #22

(11 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm)Cock Robin Exactly. Just noticed this thread and seen the negative comments. At least Stockton Council bother organizing one which is more than the other Tees Valley districts do. And always gets a good attendance. Having said that they can't do much constructive regarding the bus services as they just say they've got no money.

Today's was a bit of a farce however, with the operators sat in one room and the public in another, and the Stockton Council bloke attempting to type questions onto Twitter in less than so many digits. Seemed a bit of a cop out for the operators who weren't put on the spot as at previous forums.

That seems a bit of a strange 'layout', if you like? I've not known many public meetings where the 'top table' are segregated from the public. I hope it reverts for the next meeting.

I agree. I was sceptical when I'd first heard of the forum (see above), but it does appear to be a good setup. I can't see why more councils aren't doing it, especially when they have the operator buy-in at Stockton.

My only criticism is the age demographic that Tony mentioned for today's meeting. I'd hope that it's a one off, and that most meetings are representative of public transport users. Not just by age, but by gender as well.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Cock Robin



2,778
11 Jun 2016, 12:56 pm #23
I don't think there's any issue with gender, plenty of women there. Think that was the idea of the Twitter to try to get the younger element in, but they said it was an experiment, and looks like however successful it was the idea was to have alternate meetings at least of the traditional format.
Cock Robin
11 Jun 2016, 12:56 pm #23

I don't think there's any issue with gender, plenty of women there. Think that was the idea of the Twitter to try to get the younger element in, but they said it was an experiment, and looks like however successful it was the idea was to have alternate meetings at least of the traditional format.

Kuyoyo



6,846
11 Jun 2016, 1:32 pm #24
(11 Jun 2016, 12:45 pm)Adrian That seems a bit of a strange 'layout', if you like? I've not known many public meetings where the 'top table' are segregated from the public. I hope it reverts for the next meeting.

I agree. I was sceptical when I'd first heard of the forum (see above), but it does appear to be a good setup. I can't see why more councils aren't doing it, especially when they have the operator buy-in at Stockton.

My only criticism is the age demographic that Tony mentioned for today's meeting. I'd hope that it's a one off, and that most meetings are representative of public transport users. Not just by age, but by gender as well.

That was part of today's experiment to try an online forum if you will. The chairman and two of the three representatives from the Council department responsible for transport were in the main room. The third member of the council, along with the representatives from Stagecoach and Arriva, were in a separate room answering pre-submitted written questions and those coming in via Twiiter whether asked in the room or from anywhere.


The age demographic is regularly the same - I am usually the youngest in the room.
Kuyoyo
11 Jun 2016, 1:32 pm #24

(11 Jun 2016, 12:45 pm)Adrian That seems a bit of a strange 'layout', if you like? I've not known many public meetings where the 'top table' are segregated from the public. I hope it reverts for the next meeting.

I agree. I was sceptical when I'd first heard of the forum (see above), but it does appear to be a good setup. I can't see why more councils aren't doing it, especially when they have the operator buy-in at Stockton.

My only criticism is the age demographic that Tony mentioned for today's meeting. I'd hope that it's a one off, and that most meetings are representative of public transport users. Not just by age, but by gender as well.

That was part of today's experiment to try an online forum if you will. The chairman and two of the three representatives from the Council department responsible for transport were in the main room. The third member of the council, along with the representatives from Stagecoach and Arriva, were in a separate room answering pre-submitted written questions and those coming in via Twiiter whether asked in the room or from anywhere.


The age demographic is regularly the same - I am usually the youngest in the room.

Andreos1



14,155
13 Jan 2017, 11:34 am #25
Probably the most suitable place to post this, without creating a new thread.

Tees Valley CA have agreed to join up with the Urban Transport Group (formally PTEG).
NECA are already members.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
13 Jan 2017, 11:34 am #25

Probably the most suitable place to post this, without creating a new thread.

Tees Valley CA have agreed to join up with the Urban Transport Group (formally PTEG).
NECA are already members.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1



14,155
06 Sep 2019, 11:37 am #26

Rather than create a new thread, I thought it worthwhile adding to this existing one


https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/consultations/


Details of the TVCA draft strategic transport plan and dates of consultation events.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
06 Sep 2019, 11:37 am #26

Rather than create a new thread, I thought it worthwhile adding to this existing one


https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/consultations/


Details of the TVCA draft strategic transport plan and dates of consultation events.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1



14,155
11 Jan 2020, 5:02 pm #27
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...t-17520167

Will operators listen and do anything about it though?

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
11 Jan 2020, 5:02 pm #27

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...t-17520167

Will operators listen and do anything about it though?


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

RobinHood



631
25 Jan 2020, 5:10 pm #28
(11 Jan 2020, 5:02 pm)Andreos1 https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...t-17520167

Will operators listen and do anything about it though?

It's not new though. You ask anyone and you will always get the same answers. High frequency, low fares etc.

What they don't tell you though, the people who answer the surveys probably use the bus very infrequently and still expect a 10 minute service just incase they need it a week on Tuesday.

Unfortunately a business model like that wouldn't exist very long. Large parts of Teesside have very frequent services.

The TVCA need to focus on reducing congestion, making towns less car friendly and only then will the bus actually be a reasonable option for those who can afford to run a car.

Material increases in passengers will be default create higher frequency as bus operators take advantage of the demand. It's not rocket science, just basic business.

Imagine if the TVCA actually pump primed bus improvement, using some of Ben Houchens war chest? That would break the 'chicken and egg' cycle.

Labour are unrealistic as well. Moving buses back to local authority ownership won't improve things. The same number of cars will still be on the road - the same congestion will still be there.
RobinHood
25 Jan 2020, 5:10 pm #28

(11 Jan 2020, 5:02 pm)Andreos1 https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...t-17520167

Will operators listen and do anything about it though?

It's not new though. You ask anyone and you will always get the same answers. High frequency, low fares etc.

What they don't tell you though, the people who answer the surveys probably use the bus very infrequently and still expect a 10 minute service just incase they need it a week on Tuesday.

Unfortunately a business model like that wouldn't exist very long. Large parts of Teesside have very frequent services.

The TVCA need to focus on reducing congestion, making towns less car friendly and only then will the bus actually be a reasonable option for those who can afford to run a car.

Material increases in passengers will be default create higher frequency as bus operators take advantage of the demand. It's not rocket science, just basic business.

Imagine if the TVCA actually pump primed bus improvement, using some of Ben Houchens war chest? That would break the 'chicken and egg' cycle.

Labour are unrealistic as well. Moving buses back to local authority ownership won't improve things. The same number of cars will still be on the road - the same congestion will still be there.

Andreos1



14,155
27 Jan 2020, 9:41 am #29
(25 Jan 2020, 5:10 pm)RobinHood It's not new though. You ask anyone and you will always get the same answers. High frequency, low fares etc.

What they don't tell you though, the people who answer the surveys probably use the bus very infrequently and still expect a 10 minute service just incase they need it a week on Tuesday.

Unfortunately a business model like that wouldn't exist very long. Large parts of Teesside have very frequent services.

The TVCA need to focus on reducing congestion, making towns less car friendly and only then will the bus actually be a reasonable option for those who can afford to run a car.

Material increases in passengers will be default create higher frequency as bus operators take advantage of the demand. It's not rocket science, just basic business.

Imagine if the TVCA actually pump primed bus improvement, using some of Ben Houchens war chest? That would break the 'chicken and egg' cycle.

Labour are unrealistic as well. Moving buses back to local authority ownership won't improve things. The same number of cars will still be on the road - the same congestion will still be there.

Buses have to be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable. 
Making a town centre 'less car friendly' doesn't determine whether or not people will use the bus. Particularly when it's a lot easier to do shopping online.
There's no natural order which determines a modal shift, based on a town centre being 'less car friendly'. 

Town centres across the UK are slowly dying. Alienating car owners isn't going to save them.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
27 Jan 2020, 9:41 am #29

(25 Jan 2020, 5:10 pm)RobinHood It's not new though. You ask anyone and you will always get the same answers. High frequency, low fares etc.

What they don't tell you though, the people who answer the surveys probably use the bus very infrequently and still expect a 10 minute service just incase they need it a week on Tuesday.

Unfortunately a business model like that wouldn't exist very long. Large parts of Teesside have very frequent services.

The TVCA need to focus on reducing congestion, making towns less car friendly and only then will the bus actually be a reasonable option for those who can afford to run a car.

Material increases in passengers will be default create higher frequency as bus operators take advantage of the demand. It's not rocket science, just basic business.

Imagine if the TVCA actually pump primed bus improvement, using some of Ben Houchens war chest? That would break the 'chicken and egg' cycle.

Labour are unrealistic as well. Moving buses back to local authority ownership won't improve things. The same number of cars will still be on the road - the same congestion will still be there.

Buses have to be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable. 
Making a town centre 'less car friendly' doesn't determine whether or not people will use the bus. Particularly when it's a lot easier to do shopping online.
There's no natural order which determines a modal shift, based on a town centre being 'less car friendly'. 

Town centres across the UK are slowly dying. Alienating car owners isn't going to save them.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

RobinHood



631
28 Jan 2020, 8:54 pm #30
(27 Jan 2020, 9:41 am)Andreos1 Buses have to be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable. 
Making a town centre 'less car friendly' doesn't determine whether or not people will use the bus. Particularly when it's a lot easier to do shopping online.
There's no natural order which determines a modal shift, based on a town centre being 'less car friendly'. 

Town centres across the UK are slowly dying. Alienating car owners isn't going to save them.

You are correct, they are dying - but offering free parking isn't going to change that. 

It will simply move a proportion of existing bus passengers, who already go to the town, to the car (of which there probably are a fair few who luckily have a choice). In turn, makes the bus service less viable and the resulting frequency hit or ultimate withdrawal affects many, many more people.

Alienating car owners is the way forward in my view (and I own a car). Climate change will ensure that and hopefully towns and cities will follow York's plans. Buses, trains, trams etc are much more sustainable, they just need room to grow. Only then, will they be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable (simply because demand exists at a level to sustain it all and congestion is reduced by removing cars from city and town centres).
RobinHood
28 Jan 2020, 8:54 pm #30

(27 Jan 2020, 9:41 am)Andreos1 Buses have to be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable. 
Making a town centre 'less car friendly' doesn't determine whether or not people will use the bus. Particularly when it's a lot easier to do shopping online.
There's no natural order which determines a modal shift, based on a town centre being 'less car friendly'. 

Town centres across the UK are slowly dying. Alienating car owners isn't going to save them.

You are correct, they are dying - but offering free parking isn't going to change that. 

It will simply move a proportion of existing bus passengers, who already go to the town, to the car (of which there probably are a fair few who luckily have a choice). In turn, makes the bus service less viable and the resulting frequency hit or ultimate withdrawal affects many, many more people.

Alienating car owners is the way forward in my view (and I own a car). Climate change will ensure that and hopefully towns and cities will follow York's plans. Buses, trains, trams etc are much more sustainable, they just need room to grow. Only then, will they be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable (simply because demand exists at a level to sustain it all and congestion is reduced by removing cars from city and town centres).

Andreos1



14,155
29 Jan 2020, 8:57 am #31
(28 Jan 2020, 8:54 pm)RobinHood You are correct, they are dying - but offering free parking isn't going to change that. 

It will simply move a proportion of existing bus passengers, who already go to the town, to the car (of which there probably are a fair few who luckily have a choice). In turn, makes the bus service less viable and the resulting frequency hit or ultimate withdrawal affects many, many more people.

Alienating car owners is the way forward in my view (and I own a car). Climate change will ensure that and hopefully towns and cities will follow York's plans. Buses, trains, trams etc are much more sustainable, they just need room to grow. Only then, will they be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable (simply because demand exists at a level to sustain it all and congestion is reduced by removing cars from city and town centres).

I'd argue alienating car users isn't going to do that either. 

When I'm at home (I've got a property in T&W), it's 2 or 3 buses to get to Newcastle and the last bus back anywhere near home (this involves a mile walk cos other connections stop running), is at 11pm.

There's no incentive for me to use the bus to go to Newcastle.

If Newcastle introduced a system which made it harder for me to drive in, it wouldn't mean an automatic switch to the bus. Far from it. 
I'd look for alternative shopping/social options and I'd bet I wasn't the only one.

When I'm staying in R&C, there's a change of buses in Middlesbrough when I want to go to Newcastle. That, or I can get the train. 
Middlesbrough doesn't offer me the things that I can get from visiting Newcastle.
It still won't if cars are banned from Newcastle. 

Taking a gamble and hoping/praying/being convinced there would be a modal switch for thousands of people a day, is both naieve and foolish. 
Even if a fraction of those car users from the tens of thousands parking daily in Newcastle switched to using the bus, the effect on footfall and businesses would be massive.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
29 Jan 2020, 8:57 am #31

(28 Jan 2020, 8:54 pm)RobinHood You are correct, they are dying - but offering free parking isn't going to change that. 

It will simply move a proportion of existing bus passengers, who already go to the town, to the car (of which there probably are a fair few who luckily have a choice). In turn, makes the bus service less viable and the resulting frequency hit or ultimate withdrawal affects many, many more people.

Alienating car owners is the way forward in my view (and I own a car). Climate change will ensure that and hopefully towns and cities will follow York's plans. Buses, trains, trams etc are much more sustainable, they just need room to grow. Only then, will they be attractive, affordable, frequent and reliable (simply because demand exists at a level to sustain it all and congestion is reduced by removing cars from city and town centres).

I'd argue alienating car users isn't going to do that either. 

When I'm at home (I've got a property in T&W), it's 2 or 3 buses to get to Newcastle and the last bus back anywhere near home (this involves a mile walk cos other connections stop running), is at 11pm.

There's no incentive for me to use the bus to go to Newcastle.

If Newcastle introduced a system which made it harder for me to drive in, it wouldn't mean an automatic switch to the bus. Far from it. 
I'd look for alternative shopping/social options and I'd bet I wasn't the only one.

When I'm staying in R&C, there's a change of buses in Middlesbrough when I want to go to Newcastle. That, or I can get the train. 
Middlesbrough doesn't offer me the things that I can get from visiting Newcastle.
It still won't if cars are banned from Newcastle. 

Taking a gamble and hoping/praying/being convinced there would be a modal switch for thousands of people a day, is both naieve and foolish. 
Even if a fraction of those car users from the tens of thousands parking daily in Newcastle switched to using the bus, the effect on footfall and businesses would be massive.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Rob44



1,472
02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am #32
Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work. The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel. It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)
Rob44
02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am #32

Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work. The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel. It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)

Adrian



9,566
02 Feb 2020, 3:53 pm #33
(02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am)Rob44 Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work.  The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel.  It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)

Have to agree with this. I'm hugely critical of Newcastle CC's decision to punish bus operators and let car drivers off scot-free with their plans to combat emissions, but there needs to be an incentivised way forward to *encourage* people to use public transport instead of their private cars.

Where I live and work in Durham, there is a problem with emissions and an even bigger problem with congestion, especially through the Elvet area of the City. But despite that, I'd struggle to try and sell it to people to use the bus instead of their car. At the times people need to travel, buses are often late, don't turn up or when they do, they're full. I get and agree with the arguments that less cars would mean less congestion, and therefore improve the running time of buses.

Something has to give first, and I cannot see it being car owners on a voluntary basis.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
02 Feb 2020, 3:53 pm #33

(02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am)Rob44 Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work.  The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel.  It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)

Have to agree with this. I'm hugely critical of Newcastle CC's decision to punish bus operators and let car drivers off scot-free with their plans to combat emissions, but there needs to be an incentivised way forward to *encourage* people to use public transport instead of their private cars.

Where I live and work in Durham, there is a problem with emissions and an even bigger problem with congestion, especially through the Elvet area of the City. But despite that, I'd struggle to try and sell it to people to use the bus instead of their car. At the times people need to travel, buses are often late, don't turn up or when they do, they're full. I get and agree with the arguments that less cars would mean less congestion, and therefore improve the running time of buses.

Something has to give first, and I cannot see it being car owners on a voluntary basis.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Andreos1



14,155
03 Feb 2020, 12:56 pm #34
(02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am)Rob44 Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work.  The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel.  It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)

And what incentive is there for you to change, if using the car is more convenient (forgetting the actual environment comparison between bus and car)?

No matter how many fewer cars are on the road; until public transport is quicker, reliable and attractive with pricing - without the inconvenience of having to get a connection, then it's not going to appeal to the majority.

At the weekend, I made a trip to a retail park, to visit B&M and Asda. I had a boot full of stuff. Managed to get there and back within the hour and wasn't in any particular rush. 
The cost in getting up there and back, was pennies. 

If I used the bus, there was one an hour.
Regardless of costs, there was no way I would have been able to transport the same stuff on the bus. 
The overall trip from door to door would have taken 2hours plus. Including waiting time.

If I had taken the bus to the nearest town centre, there would have been the issue of cost and also loading the stuff on to the bus. 
If there was a tax on taking the car in, the decision to visit the out of town retail park - would have been even easier. 
It wouldn't have made me use the bus.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
03 Feb 2020, 12:56 pm #34

(02 Feb 2020, 10:19 am)Rob44 Coming down hard on the car driver is never going to work.  The carrot and stick approach is the way forward.
I've mention this loads of times before but I'd rather run a car then pay 68 quid a month on the "appt" for unlimited travel.  It seems like a good deal at just over £2.50 per day but its no good if the bus your hoping to travel on doesn't turn up. Make buses more reliable, and ALOT cheaper than my car and this will cancel out the negatives i've got about getting bus to work ( noisy passengers, dirty buses, waiting around for a connection etc etc)

And what incentive is there for you to change, if using the car is more convenient (forgetting the actual environment comparison between bus and car)?

No matter how many fewer cars are on the road; until public transport is quicker, reliable and attractive with pricing - without the inconvenience of having to get a connection, then it's not going to appeal to the majority.

At the weekend, I made a trip to a retail park, to visit B&M and Asda. I had a boot full of stuff. Managed to get there and back within the hour and wasn't in any particular rush. 
The cost in getting up there and back, was pennies. 

If I used the bus, there was one an hour.
Regardless of costs, there was no way I would have been able to transport the same stuff on the bus. 
The overall trip from door to door would have taken 2hours plus. Including waiting time.

If I had taken the bus to the nearest town centre, there would have been the issue of cost and also loading the stuff on to the bus. 
If there was a tax on taking the car in, the decision to visit the out of town retail park - would have been even easier. 
It wouldn't have made me use the bus.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Pages (2): Previous 1 2
 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average