Michael Euston
A point of view from a 'random' that lives in Brotton. Arriva provide a good service with the 5 that gets me to Skelton, Guisborough and Boro. And the X4 with the new Evoras up and down to coast to Whitby, Saltburn, Redcar and Boro again. What's missing is a link to Skelton retail park with Asda, Aldi, B and M and others. The Stagecoach buses miss the High Street and go up the bypass before dropping in to the hospital grounds. Fine for me but not so more elderly and frail residents. A simple re-routing of the 1 and 2 and the service would be used more. Same for re-routing through North Skelton and New Skelton. It costs £500,000 a year so surely it makes sense to make it more reachable. As for James Cook Hospital for residents of East Cleveland. I swap buses at Ormesby. But would it be so difficult for every other 5 to go down Marton Road and one of the 63s go down the 5 route?

It’s a-lot more difficult than you’d think due to timing differences (5 minutes on a Sunday daytime for example), you’d essentially be ruining 2 routes for the sake of a connection that would realistically wouldn’t be used too much, and an easier connection for James Cook for those challenged mobility wise would be to swap onto a 28 at Guisborough.

(Yesterday, 9:44 am)Michael Euston wrote A point of view from a 'random' that lives in Brotton. Arriva provide a good service with the 5 that gets me to Skelton, Guisborough and Boro. And the X4 with the new Evoras up and down to coast to Whitby, Saltburn, Redcar and Boro again. What's missing is a link to Skelton retail park with Asda, Aldi, B and M and others. The Stagecoach buses miss the High Street and go up the bypass before dropping in to the hospital grounds. Fine for me but not so more elderly and frail residents. A simple re-routing of the 1 and 2 and the service would be used more. Same for re-routing through North Skelton and New Skelton. It costs £500,000 a year so surely it makes sense to make it more reachable. As for James Cook Hospital for residents of East Cleveland. I swap buses at Ormesby. But would it be so difficult for every other 5 to go down Marton Road and one of the 63s go down the 5 route?

Like I said, the bus from Brotton to Skelton retail park is a fair shout, and worth a try if it can be done without too much hassle. However, realistically every time a village in the area asks for a bus service and get one, they don't use it in any great numbers. Brotton may turn out to be different than Loftus, Skinningrove and Easington whose residents all were demanding a bus there, but when they got one don't bother using it.

Re-routing one of the 5's to serve Marton Road would just create a mess of a timetable and have a knock on effect on the stops it would miss down Ormesby Bank. Many more people use all those stops than would want to go from East of Guisborough to Marton Road or the hospital.

If you live in Guisborough, you can already get a direct bus to the hospital. Anywhere else you just change at Ormesby roundabout, Redcar, Guisborough or Middlesbrough Bus station to go to James Cook. Plenty of options.

Imo the 1/2 are completely useless for links to a supermarket.

They're every 2 hours so completely unusable for most people as if you miss a bus your going to be standing around for a long time.

People might aswell just get on the bus to Guisborough or Redcar instead where you have similar shops.

Looking at the times it appears it's either 20 minutes there or 2 hours 20 minutes there. Both completely unrealistic either being too short or too long.

I've often thought about this? What do you do at Skelton Asda/Aldi when you've done your shopping. No-one spends 2 hours doing their shopping, do they?

Regarding the rest of the services? Yes it would be difficult in the present operating conditions to effect connections between services. It did used to work back in the day when we had the "four bus stops" referred to. Things were easier (better) from an operational viewpoint and drivers were told to wait for connecting services-to a point.

The majority - I'd say as high as 90% of people living in East Cleveland and dependant on public transport have gotten used to Arriva and what's provided. They've made/make plans accordingly. Sadly the remainder having been offered the various options mentioned didnt use them sufficiently and lose out. Things aren't gonna change anytime soon!

The current timings of the 1 / 2 depend which you use - if you're coming from Easington, Loftus Zetland road or Liverton Mines you get into Skelton on the service 1 for example at 09:36 and can get the 2 back from there at 10:46, so that's pretty good.

Of course that doesn't suit everyone, if you have to walk to the bank top side of Loftus with shopping, but that's just another example of not being able to please everyone.

(Yesterday, 4:32 pm)tvd wrote The current timings of the 1 / 2 depend which you use - if you're coming from Easington, Loftus Zetland road or Liverton Mines you get into Skelton on the service 1 for example at 09:36 and can get the 2 back from there at 10:46, so that's pretty good.

Of course that doesn't suit everyone, if you have to walk to the bank top side of Loftus with shopping, but that's just another example of not being able to please everyone.

Aye that's true, forgot about the opposite route.

Imo, from a council point of view, the best way to get buses serving ASDA would be to deal with the ownership issues in the industrial estate. If they can take ownership of the roads, which I'm sure the industrial estate wouldn't be bothered about, then you could easily just have a 5/5A one going via the ASDA and the other as now tbh. 

I'm sure Arriva would jump at the chance to run through there.

Just been looking at a news clip about changes and improvements to services in Greater Manchester? For me it puts what is been said about services in East Cleveland etc into some sort of perspective. A quick search on Google tells me the population of East Cleveland is in the region of 140,000 compared to the population of Greater Manchester is almost 3 million. The gulf is enormous as is the revenue potential which drives investment and what can and can't be done. I'm afraid here in East Clevland - where I'd rather be - we get what we pay for and companies can afford.

Re RobisDave:
The difference in the network is not just because of the population. It also reflects that Tees Valley and its councils until recent times had basically abandoned subsidising buses to meet social needs - choices taken under the impact of cutbacks in funding for councils under the Cameron/Osborne "austerity" from 2010. It's only a few years since Houchen was insisting the local bus network was nothing to do with TVCA/him. Until relatively recent things like TeesFlex and service 1/2 etc which use special government funding, pretty much all the services in TV have been commercial (not subsidised) aside from services from Durham and North Yorks funded purely by those councils. (Darlington did spend some ring-fenced government funding on the local service 16 after it ceased to be commercial.)

Only pretty well-used services are able to survive commercially. That is basically why for years evening and Sunday services in places like Hartlepool have been so thin or absent, and why in East Cleveland links that the community would value have disappeared. It has contributed to Tees Valley seeing among the biggest declines in bus travel.

Councils in Co Durham and T&W (and Greater Manchester) had similar pressures from austerity from 2010. While they had to make considerable cuts in the buses they supported, they did not stop subsidising buses from core council budgets, and the different scope of the networks in these areas is plain to see. The improvements under franchising in TfGM are partly due to more government funding, just like TV latterly has more funding for bus services.

A lot that your average traveling public don't know or understand about public transport provision effecting the blame onto the various operating companies for making cuts.

(Today, 6:26 am)robisdave4554 wrote A lot that your average traveling public don't know or understand about public transport provision effecting the blame onto the various operating companies for making cuts.

Perhaps some on this forum, too ! Of course, under franchising the choices that need to be made about which services to provide and how - and fares - will not be down to the bus campanies. That hopefully should bring more stability, but only if there is sufficient funding. There will be times when tricky decisiuons have to be grasped, and I hope the organisations and leaders will prove up to it ...

Bring back good old days when none of this affected the buses - I can't help but reminiss, maybe there should be, or already is, a thread. 

Service 65 operated hy United ran between Middlesbrough and Whitby. I remember times when it was so busy it was duplicated. There were always spare crews and vehicles.

We've talked about the 4 Bus Stops model which worked so effectively.

There were independent operators filling the gaps through the villages and estates

We didn't on the flip side have the direct provision provided by the X4 and X93.

Some things were better than they are now and some things worse.

(4 hours ago)robisdave4554 wrote Bring back good old days when none of this affected the buses - I can't help but reminiss, maybe there should be, or already is, a thread. 

Service 65 operated hy United ran between Middlesbrough and Whitby. I remember times when it was so busy it was duplicated. There were always spare crews and vehicles.

We've talked about the 4 Bus Stops model which worked so effectively.

There were independent operators filling the gaps through the villages and estates

We didn't on the flip side have the direct provision provided by the X4 and X93.

Some things were better than they are now and some things worse.

Car ownership, even 20 years ago, was much lower than it is now. For many people, buses were the main way of getting around. That has changed significantly, and while some point to privatisation, I think it is mostly down to generational change.

Buses are no longer seen as an attractive option. For many young people, having a driving licence is expected. Cars represent freedom and status, and the cost is treated as a normal household expense. Even frequent bus services are unlikely to change that. Some argue service cuts caused this shift, but a private company would not reduce a profitable operation, it simply would not make sense.

At the same time, bus operating costs have risen, while second hand cars remain relatively affordable. In most cases, the desire to own a car outweighs cost considerations.

Buses are also stuck in the same traffic as cars, and there is little political appetite to restrict car use in town centres. So there is very little to make buses a better option. Franchising will not change that, journey times and delays will remain, and cars are unaffected by who runs the buses.

While services have reduced, private operators have largely responded to falling demand. A local authority would likely be slower to react, while still needing additional funding behind the scenes (this is then perceived as by the public or even politically spouted as "doing the right thing by maintaining these services for the small numbers who use them").

Buses will always have a role, but as usage declines, maintaining current service levels becomes unsustainable. Franchising is unlikely to be viable long term without ongoing public subsidy. As more areas adopt it, government support will be stretched, meaning either local taxes or similar service reductions. It will not work out. Companies who run buses now, may show millions of profit in their accounts, but if you dig deeper, Arriva for example make most of their money from European franchised markets, not UK Bus. However, politicians and public are seduced by the top number and assume its their to be had.

Local authorities would be better focusing on supporting the edges of the network and making changes that genuinely encourage bus use. Instead, it remains an emotive, vote winning issue. Bus operators these days are happy to take franchising, as they guarantee a profit margin and focus on the operation.

Give it 10 to 15 years and many will be saying “I told you so.”

You think about it there is another current dynamic? The National Concessionary Travel Scheme I wonder sometimes what percentage of passengers using these free passes is against those tendering fares. And then how would these people get around or in some cases., spend their time. In that situation the social value of buses cannot be underestimated.

(3 hours ago)Superman wrote Car ownership, even 20 years ago, was much lower than it is now. For many people, buses were the main way of getting around. That has changed significantly, and while some point to privatisation, I think it is mostly down to generational change.

Buses are no longer seen as an attractive option. For many young people, having a driving licence is expected. Cars represent freedom and status, and the cost is treated as a normal household expense. Even frequent bus services are unlikely to change that. Some argue service cuts caused this shift, but a private company would not reduce a profitable operation, it simply would not make sense.

At the same time, bus operating costs have risen, while second hand cars remain relatively affordable. In most cases, the desire to own a car outweighs cost considerations.

Buses are also stuck in the same traffic as cars, and there is little political appetite to restrict car use in town centres. So there is very little to make buses a better option. Franchising will not change that, journey times and delays will remain, and cars are unaffected by who runs the buses.

While services have reduced, private operators have largely responded to falling demand. A local authority would likely be slower to react, while still needing additional funding behind the scenes (this is then perceived as by the public or even politically spouted as "doing the right thing by maintaining these services for the small numbers who use them").

Buses will always have a role, but as usage declines, maintaining current service levels becomes unsustainable. Franchising is unlikely to be viable long term without ongoing public subsidy. As more areas adopt it, government support will be stretched, meaning either local taxes or similar service reductions. It will not work out. Companies who run buses now, may show millions of profit in their accounts, but if you dig deeper, Arriva for example make most of their money from European franchised markets, not UK Bus. However, politicians and public are seduced by the top number and assume its their to be had.

Local authorities would be better focusing on supporting the edges of the network and making changes that genuinely encourage bus use. Instead, it remains an emotive, vote winning issue. Bus operators these days are happy to take franchising, as they guarantee a profit margin and focus on the operation.

Give it 10 to 15 years and many will be saying “I told you so.”

imo the biggest problem is the UK treating public transport as a profit and loss exercise. If you can reduce the number of cars on the roads, then you can start to reduce to amount of money on 'fixing' roads.

Even the yanks in the big cities understand that and that's the American's who hate state control of anything. 

The lack of trains and metros/trams in the urban areas are the bigger problem though. Saltburn should be an interchange station picking out East Cleveland, with the X4 being an extension of the rail line not being a duplicate service as it does nothing unique between Middlesbrough and Saltburn. There's no need for trains and buses doing the same thing imo.

It's one massive benefit that Manchester has as they have a decent tram and rail network unlike everywhere else bar London which a lot of people don't like to discuss because for some people have an obsession with Bus vs Rail vs Bike vs Car when it should be Public Transport vs Car

So the 3 started today

Seems the 2nd morning journey is the only service to interwork with the X30. The first run seems to go bavk to Blyth and do the 3rd run.

Thought Ive noticed something is that the first journey is timed 4 minutes after the X9 is. Which kinda confuses me as why would you time a service to the station 4 minutes behind a route that people are more than likely gonna get on first and just walk to the station

The evening services just seem to come off whatever is available

(1 hour ago)Nerd4321 wrote So the 3 started today
Seems the 2nd morning journey is the only service to interwork with the X30. The first run seems to go bavk to Blyth and do the 3rd run.
Thought Ive noticed something is that the first journey is timed 4 minutes after the X9 is. Which kinda confuses me as why would you time a service to the station 4 minutes behind a route that people are more than likely gonna get on first and just walk to the station
The evening services just seem to come off whatever is available

I suspect the arrival time at the station on the morning peak is the key driver of what time the bus runs, along with where the bus needs to drop back in afterward.

Arriving around 15 minutes before the train feels sensible, which is what the 3 looks to be doing.

The X9 currently arrives at the end of the road when the Newcastle-bound train is due for most of the day, at 15 and 45 minutes past. Its unlikely to be attractive at those times. Arguably, it needs to run around 10 minutes earlier to be a viable connection option throughout the day, in both directions to be honest.

I would hazard a guess that the fact the morning X9 runs on top of the 3 is probably more linked to the extra time the X9 needs to get into Newcastle at the other end of the route, after all, if it was on its normal headway, they would be almost evenly spaced.

(3 hours ago)Superman wrote Car ownership, even 20 years ago, was much lower than it is now. For many people, buses were the main way of getting around. That has changed significantly, and while some point to privatisation, I think it is mostly down to generational change.

Buses are no longer seen as an attractive option. For many young people, having a driving licence is expected. Cars represent freedom and status, and the cost is treated as a normal household expense. Even frequent bus services are unlikely to change that. Some argue service cuts caused this shift, but a private company would not reduce a profitable operation, it simply would not make sense.

At the same time, bus operating costs have risen, while second hand cars remain relatively affordable. In most cases, the desire to own a car outweighs cost considerations.

Buses are also stuck in the same traffic as cars, and there is little political appetite to restrict car use in town centres. So there is very little to make buses a better option. Franchising will not change that, journey times and delays will remain, and cars are unaffected by who runs the buses.

While services have reduced, private operators have largely responded to falling demand. A local authority would likely be slower to react, while still needing additional funding behind the scenes (this is then perceived as by the public or even politically spouted as "doing the right thing by maintaining these services for the small numbers who use them").

Buses will always have a role, but as usage declines, maintaining current service levels becomes unsustainable. Franchising is unlikely to be viable long term without ongoing public subsidy. As more areas adopt it, government support will be stretched, meaning either local taxes or similar service reductions. It will not work out. Companies who run buses now, may show millions of profit in their accounts, but if you dig deeper, Arriva for example make most of their money from European franchised markets, not UK Bus. However, politicians and public are seduced by the top number and assume its their to be had.

Local authorities would be better focusing on supporting the edges of the network and making changes that genuinely encourage bus use. Instead, it remains an emotive, vote winning issue. Bus operators these days are happy to take franchising, as they guarantee a profit margin and focus on the operation.

Give it 10 to 15 years and many will be saying “I told you so.”

How much of that is due to operators failing to adapt routes and schedules to reflect demand, journeys, and travel patterns though?

I live around about 4 miles from my workplace. In the morning I can use two buses, operated by separate companies, which get me to work within around 50 minutes of leaving the house. Driving to the nearest interchange, paying £1.50 to park, and walking for 15 minutes gets me to work in 30 minutes. In the evening, the two buses I need to use on the way to work do not connect - so by bus I would need to go via Newcastle. Traffic dependent, I can therefore drive home and be on my sofa before I'd even be on a bus out of Newcastle. 

I won't be alone in having the above situation. I'd much rather use the bus, it means I don't have any dead time sat in traffic, but the bus means nearly an extra hour per day commuting - for a journey of 4(ish) miles! There are so many places in the NE where people will be without any usable connection between their home and major hubs. If, like me, a connection does exist it is often scheduled in such a way that doesn't work around a workday. 

On younger people preferring to drive, for sure they might prefer that and during the week that (as per above) might be their only realistic option. But then on a weekend, or in an evening, the bus service is that poor that most people don't even consider it as an option - taxis or asking for a lift are the first choice, maybe a Metro if they live on the route. Given that all routes in the region are Newcastle centric, that is an extremely poor place to have left the perception of the network in. 

I'm absolutely convinced that this is a result of having people running the show who never use the product, think that travel patterns are exactly how they were 40 years ago, and that have zero ability to think even slightly outside of the box.