(23 May 2021, 10:20 am)peter wrote Likewise I completely agree with what you're saying about new areas! While there's some doubt as to whether an additional bus service running through an already served area is that much of an improvement. I can't argue that a new service running to places without a bus service would be far more beneficial. Having said that I would infer that the reduction on the 6 has more to do with COVID than the X21, as frequencies aren't down on the 43 or 49/49a atm because of competition, having said that another bus along that corridor won't be helping with recovery.
I agree that a lot of new housing estates are popping up and being left out by bus operators. It's unfortunate but a lot of these new housing estates and amazon warehouses are only being served when contracts are being put in place to make sure it happens. I think the only reason for the X5/X15 extension to Shotley Bridge was because of a housing estate only being granted planning permission as long as the developer paid for a bus service into Consett, likewise I believe Amazon in Darlington has contributed financially to the 2A bus service. Again, what it might come down to is that because there are no pre-existing services, where is the incentive to begin one if they cannot guarantee passengers will use it. If an operator spend time and money setting up a service to an unserved area and then it turns out everybody in that area uses cars anyway and nobody ends up using the bus, it'll end up withdrawn and a big waste of money. On the other hand, of course, if a bus service were there, people might use it, the problem is the operator doesn't know if they don't try. But setting up in an area without a bus service already, where people are obviously going to have to be using cars - trying to lure people onto the bus from cars is no mean feat. I'd gather there's a lot more risk involved with that compared with operating a service in an area that your company might not operate in but a competitor does, going back to Brandon, prior to COVID Arriva had a 10 minute frequency so clearly the demand for passengers must have been there.
I highly doubt a Durham Uni contract would be involved, as far as I'm aware they have no Uni developments out there. But you can't say it doesn't bring anything new for passengers because if you lived in Brandon and regularly commuted to Newcastle or regularly went shopping at the Arnison Centre, the extension of the 21 would mean you wouldn't have to change buses anymore. The initial extension of the X21 did partially replace the 18, however in itself the 18 largely competed with the 6, and GNE chose to extend beyond the route of the 18 first to Tindale Crescent and secondly to West Auckland which are already served by Arriva's 6. The 6 and the X21 I suppose are a unique case - two services which compete over a lot of the route, even more so when you consider the X21 used to terminate at Bishop Auckland and now runs all the way through to West - the 6 offers the more frequent service while the X21 is less frequent but offers the Newcastle connection. Clearly the demand for both services must be there and I don't see why the same model couldn't work at Brandon with Arriva operating the frequent service in to Durham and GNE offering the less-frequent link through to Newcastle.
Some interesting points here and one a pro-active operator would have overcome.
As it is, the passive 'probably won't work' attitude which courses through the corridors of bus operator towers, still rings true.
I feel this is emphasised by fact people can get a bus from the shops in Birtley, but not to the shops or to several sites of major employment (which has been the case for too many a year).