(15 Jul 2023, 1:01 am)L469 YVK wrote As part of a commercial service such as the 307, it would be.

Using Hadrian Park as an example, the 57 & 58 had that exact same issue as people on other parts of the route between Battle Hill and Newcastle wanted the 306/308/309/310 instead. And to some extent, the 311 suffered the same issue given that it ran 6 or 7 minutes behind the 310.

My whole point about the 22, 307 and 351 is that commercial resource where available needs to be better utilised rather than throwing more money at tendered services. The 351 through Wiltshire Drive still won't do anything to get people out of their cars with an 'hourly' service. But a slight re-jigg of the 307 and 22 could change that and offer better services to more people.

The Wiltshire Drive is pointless. I've used the 51 through there and the amount of people that use it wouldn't warrant a service every 30 minutes. The 307 would have to be approved for the Coast Road Agreement. If that was the case then the 309 would have to go via Wiltshire Drive as well as part of the agreement. The 41A is the only service I've seen that gets busy through that section. Also how the 22 would work is anyone guess. It doesn't even go anywhere near Wiltshire Drive. The 22 is fine going to Silverlink and Cobalt. And has been since 2015