(06 Dec 2021, 4:21 pm)streetdeckfan wrote Since I didn't want to be all negative, I did agree that zero emission buses can improve the lives of people living in rural communities in the North East, in the context that one of the proposed corridors would serve rural areas, including towns and villages, and connect to the World Heritage site of Hadrian’s Wall, Northumberland National Park and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I think it largely depends on how you define an improvement. The statement is leading in my opinion, and if you don't look at the numbers behind it, you're not going to disagree with it.
If you do look at the numbers though:
- 74 - 3 buses per day
- 185 - 3 buses per day
- 680 - 8 buses per day (generally 2 hourly)
- 681 - 2 buses per day
- X81 - 1 bus per day
- 682 - 4 buses per day
- 683 - hourly/shorts every half hour - but a town service and not rural
- 686 - 5 buses per day
- 687 - hourly
- 688 - 8 buses per day (generally 2 hourly)
- AD122 - seasonal
Replacing diesel buses with electric removes the carbon impact of the fuel burning whilst the bus is moving, but this is not a case of having a diesel bus go past your window every 8-12 minutes in each direction, stuck in traffic congestion and creating a pollution hotspot. In some cases it's 2 buses each direction per day, with minimal traffic outside of that.
I think we can all agree that electric buses are a good thing for the environment, and along with other technologies such as hydrogen, we need to see more of them, but lets not gloss over the cracks. Those people are still going to have the same level of access to public transport, and not more.