Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Liverpool suffered multiple whammy's on dergulation Before restrictions were put on buses using the Mersey Tunnels to protect the ferries and Merseyrail
Dereg lifted those restrictions and many buses which used to terminate at Birkenhead Woodside gradually extended to Liverpool. NOT ONE INCH of extra infrastructure was put in place to accommodate the extra services, choking the narrow B'head tunnel and congesting the city centre, and this is still happening in 2020. Convoys of buses circle around the city centre. There should be limits on buses using bridges and tunnels, for example no more than 15 buses per hour per tunnel. If buses have to turn short at Birkenhead again so be it. Other cities like Manchester had extra buses on all corridors but no equivalent of the "Wirral Invasion". Again the LEGACY of deregulation still applies here still even though it's just ARRIVA and Stagecoach now.
Interesting as this debate might be, I can't see anything earth shattering happening unless/until the financial consequences of Covid have been totted up and decisions taken as to who will pay for it. In the meantime, pots of public money seem to be available for doing something about cleaning up those nasty smelly buses which the Government doesn't really want anyone to travel on, while a blind eye will continue be turned on those nasty smelly private vehicles - after all the people who drive them have votes.
So because something was done over 30 years ago, nothing can be done about it until the end of time? What if the people devising deregulation thought "It can't be done. We've had the existing system for a long time."? If it was possible to do something as insane and radical as deregulation then anything is possible. Things can change. The Tube was supposed to be "unfixable" 20 years ago but Ken Livingstone brought in the man who fixed the New York Subway. So you can find people who know their stuff. They do exist. Who would have thought in 1986 that not only would you not be able to smoke on a bus, you won't even be able to smoke in a pub! Who would have thought that rail would become an important mode of transport again with a huge increase in usage? Tendering is not even that radical as it keeps all the bus companies in private ownership. If you were talking about nationalisation, then that would be quite radical, but still not impossible. Who would have thought in the 90s that rail would be nationalised in the future by a Tory government?
No - that wasn't what I said. The fact is that you are talking about a whole industry and moving a whole new model and the authorities that you expect to run this simply don't exist; the skills don't exist in local government. Deregulation wasn't brought in overnight either; the trial areas were in 1980 and the government was preparing the ground for years beforehand, through rate capping of local authorities to ensure fare levels were raised to sustainable levels and through the reduction in funding to the NBC that led to the Market Analysis Projects and the cutting of services/fleets and consequent reduction in new vehicle investment. Same with the splitting up of the larger NBC monolithic businesses, and the SBG as well.
Now if you're saying that can that ever be changed? Well, yes it can but you're starting at ground zero. Most local authorities can't even manage their existing responsibilities. Bob Kiley came into LU but there was a whole framework there; it wasn't like you were starting anew. You may be unaware of this but as well as Cornwall, we have also seen debacles with Dorset and Powys. When Nexus went to argue for taking control under a QBF, it was brutally highlighted how poor their understanding was in transport economics. These are - not a good sign. It's much easier when you have some sort of structure to build upon.
Who could have foreseen rail passenger usage increase? Well, it was already increasing from the mid 1980s from a number of factors such as the resurgence of London commuter traffic as London began growing again (matched with improved management as NSE), targeted investment to replace early DMUs (I'm no expert but I think the government had to replace them - a rail expert will know) and a decline in industrial action after various legislation to make it more difficult. However, the real growth came when those evil private firms got involved!!
Also, the justification for starting again is to improve bus services. I wholly support that. However, when I see Greater Manchester saying what they will do, there are some things that just don't ring true. Claiming to provide a London style network yet without the London style money is akin to alchemy. Notwithstanding that, they could have a congestion zone, they could sort out the crippling traffic congestion and improve bus priority without pursuing their current course. Perhaps something more like Brighton where the LA supports buses actively rather than uses them as a political pawn might be better.
Out of interest.... what is your experience of the bus industry?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Liverpool suffered multiple whammy's on dergulation Before restrictions were put on buses using the Mersey Tunnels to protect the ferries and Merseyrail
Dereg lifted those restrictions and many buses which used to terminate at Birkenhead Woodside gradually extended to Liverpool. NOT ONE INCH of extra infrastructure was put in place to accommodate the extra services, choking the narrow B'head tunnel and congesting the city centre, and this is still happening in 2020. Convoys of buses circle around the city centre. There should be limits on buses using bridges and tunnels, for example no more than 15 buses per hour per tunnel. If buses have to turn short at Birkenhead again so be it. Other cities like Manchester had extra buses on all corridors but no equivalent of the "Wirral Invasion". Again the LEGACY of deregulation still applies here still even though it's just ARRIVA and Stagecoach now.
When the T&W Metro was opened, a substantial number of bus services that served the Gateshead suburbs (e.g. Lobley Hill, Saltwell Park) and had travelled to Newcastle were instead truncated at Gateshead Metro. Instead, passengers were forced to interchange onto the Metro whether they wanted to or not, to reduce "duplication" and ensure the Metro got plenty of passengers. In 1986, Go Ahead Northern (as it was then) decided that they would reverse this and run through to the city centre so that passengers didn't have to change; not surprisingly, people quite liked not having to change.
So replace Birkenhead with Gateshead, Liverpool with Newcastle, Ferry with Metro, and QueenswayTunnel with Tyne Bridge and, yeah, you're about there!
I mean, I can sit on my Arriva or Stagecoach bus and ride through to Liverpool city centre in 10-15 mins from Birkenhead OR I can stay on to Woodside, then walk to a Ferry Terminal, spend 5-10 mins on a ferry to take me to Pier Head and then walk into the City Centre? And that promotes public transport use?
Might I suggest that the bigger problem is the infrastructure and the inability to limit private car use? I mean, it's not like the mayor axed a load of bus lanes......
I don't have anything to do with buses apart from being a passenger. Not so much these days as I have a car and a bike so no real need for buses, although I use them now and again when going to the airport. It would be nice to be able to use buses more frequently in the future but no real incentive at the moment with the fares as they are although I realise Metrobus is one of the better operators out there.
I don't have anything to do with buses apart from being a passenger. Not so much these days as I have a car and a bike so no real need for buses, although I use them now and again when going to the airport. It would be nice to be able to use buses more frequently in the future but no real incentive at the moment with the fares as they are although I realise Metrobus is one of the better operators out there.
As those who frequent this side of the forum, I will sometimes post my captivating, exhilarating exploits of travelling by bus (Note - some or all exploits may be less interested than watching a door warp ). I really do want to see an improvement in bus services. I just think that there's more benefit in having a good partnership between a local authority (Oxford, Brighton) and the operators - invest the money in the infrastructure and make sure the operators are similarly locked into the partnership.
The worst thing is that it becomes a political trial of strength or empire-building, as I fear in Manchester. I also don't want to see councils burning money on services for political or ideological reasons. As an example
One of the main bus corridors in Cornwall runs, every 15 mins, from Truro via Redruth to Camborne.
It continues on to Hayle where it splits
Every 30 mins to Penzance
Every 30 mins to St Ives
Evening service was hourly Truro to Camborne and every TWO hours to Penzance
Cornwall has just let tenders for supported services and has received a load of central government money as part of a devolved spending plan. Cornwall Council could have improved the service West of Camborne, perhaps a service to St Ives every two hours? Nope, they've spent it plotting places on a map that don't have a bus service and sending a route there instead. Is it politics or ineptitude - I don't know but possibly both!
Fifty years plus as a passenger with interest and knowledge of the industry. No passengers, no bus industry.
People might not like to change modes but do they want to get killed trying to cross congested streets? I agree the city mayor hasn't helped by scrapping bus lanes and he is a disaster for Liverpool. Merseyrail have benefitted from the city's poor bus services of the past couple of decades . This is how the tunnel buses would run with a 15 bus per hour limit
BIRKENHEAD tunnel
464/487 Liverpool -New Ferry/Neston 4 bph
437 Liverpool-West Kirby 5 bph
471/472 Liverpool-Heswall 6 bph
423 Moreton Wallasey (eve/Sun)
WALLASEY tunnel
1 Liverpool-Park STN -Birkenhead -Chester switching to Birkenhead Tunnel Sundays. 2 bph
X1 Liverpool -Chester 2 bph
432/433 Liverpool-New Brighton
6 bph.
This would reduce congestion EXCEPT when the Birkenhead Tunnel is closed, but diversions are common anyway.
Fifty years plus as a passenger with interest and knowledge of the industry. No passengers, no bus industry.
People might not like to change modes but do they want to get killed trying to cross congested streets? I agree the city mayor hasn't helped by scrapping bus lanes and he is a disaster for Liverpool. Merseyrail have benefitted from the city's poor bus services of the past couple of decades . This is how the tunnel buses would run with a 15 bus per hour limit
BIRKENHEAD tunnel
464/487 Liverpool -New Ferry/Neston 4 bph
437 Liverpool-West Kirby 5 bph
471/472 Liverpool-Heswall 6 bph
423 Moreton Wallasey (eve/Sun)
WALLASEY tunnel
1 Liverpool-Park STN -Birkenhead -Chester switching to Birkenhead Tunnel Sundays. 2 bph
X1 Liverpool -Chester 2 bph
432/433 Liverpool-New Brighton
6 bph.
This would reduce congestion EXCEPT when the Birkenhead Tunnel is closed, but diversions are common anyway.
Arguably, if the trade wasn't there, bus companies simply wouldn't run them. Especially as it's a partnership between Arriva and Stagecoach anyway on the 471/472.
I might argue that the main issue with pedestrians being killed crossing congested streets has more to do with too many private cars than too many buses! In the past, with the array of deregulation upstarts from Liverline, Fareway, Liverbus without even thinking of ones like Village, I'd agree it was over-bussed and to a low quality.
Things are better and, up to 2019, bus patronage was going up thanks to the Bus Alliance. However, there are certainly some big issues to solve on both sides. New vehicle investment still needs to be better, the MyTicket for 18 year olds needs to be revised to stop the abuse of it, and most importantly, restricting car usage in a way that benefits bus companies without being a cause celebre.
Liverpool suffered multiple whammy's on dergulation Before restrictions were put on buses using the Mersey Tunnels to protect the ferries and Merseyrail
Dereg lifted those restrictions and many buses which used to terminate at Birkenhead Woodside gradually extended to Liverpool. NOT ONE INCH of extra infrastructure was put in place to accommodate the extra services, choking the narrow B'head tunnel and congesting the city centre, and this is still happening in 2020. Convoys of buses circle around the city centre. There should be limits on buses using bridges and tunnels, for example no more than 15 buses per hour per tunnel. If buses have to turn short at Birkenhead again so be it. Other cities like Manchester had extra buses on all corridors but no equivalent of the "Wirral Invasion". Again the LEGACY of deregulation still applies here still even though it's just ARRIVA and Stagecoach now.
I find it hard to believe that Arriva/Stagecoach are running lots of empty buses around Liverpool. I suspect these buses buses are carrying people who want to get from A to B without being turfed out half way through their journey and made to transport themselves to a convenient place for the the network to move them on what it perceives to be the 'correct' mode of transport. If there is an issue with conjection a logical approach would be to limit the vehicles that use the road space least efficiently, not limit those that have the least road space and environmental impact.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Are you sure? Can you give an example? I find it really hard to believe it can be a majority, unless you are including informal services using vans that you get in some poorer countries which are more akin to a shared taxi service which may or may not run on a fixed route. I'd be really surprised if you can find developed countries with British style full deregulation.
The majority of countries in the world are the poorer countries. Most of them would, correctly, identify the UK system as being fairly highly regulated by vehicle regs, company regs and route registration and operation regs. Limiting the scope to developed countries; I don't imagine that any country has adopted the UK system in it's entirety. However I suspect that the UK has one of the lower investments in road transport as a percentage of GDP of any of the developed counties as well.
So because something was done over 30 years ago, nothing can be done about it until the end of time? What if the people devising deregulation thought "It can't be done. We've had the existing system for a long time."? If it was possible to do something as insane and radical as deregulation then anything is possible. Things can change. The Tube was supposed to be "unfixable" 20 years ago but Ken Livingstone brought in the man who fixed the New York Subway. So you can find people who know their stuff. They do exist. Who would have thought in 1986 that not only would you not be able to smoke on a bus, you won't even be able to smoke in a pub! Who would have thought that rail would become an important mode of transport again with a huge increase in usage? Tendering is not even that radical as it keeps all the bus companies in private ownership. If you were talking about nationalisation, then that would be quite radical, but still not impossible. Who would have thought in the 90s that rail would be nationalised in the future by a Tory government?
And who's up next for a game of Auntie knows best? Step forward Edinburgh City Council, determined to rip the bus network apart because it's served the citizens for a hundred years so it's time they realised they should be using the tram.
Bletchleyite - Cars do cause most congestion but in the centre of Liverpool buses from the Wirral bunch together and have to do a circuit of the core city centre. Comparing with Newcastle-Gateshead is not totally accurate as there was no restriction on the Tyne bridges. The Birkenhead Tunnel was built in 1934 and is narrower than the1971 Wallasey tunnel. While there was no multi layered competition on the cross River buses there have been odd skirmishes. And COVID19 has affected loads with fewer commuters. The 1934 tunnel cannot be widened and to reiterate no extra infrastructure whatsoever has been provided for extra buses and even my suggestions don't eliminate the problem, only eases it slightly . My scheme gives particular priority to Heswall routes as rail links have been relatively poor compared to West Kirby.
Bletchleyite - Cars do cause most congestion but in the centre of Liverpool buses from the Wirral bunch together and have to do a circuit of the core city centre. Comparing with Newcastle-Gateshead is not totally accurate as there was no restriction on the Tyne bridges. The Birkenhead Tunnel was built in 1934 and is narrower than the1971 Wallasey tunnel. While there was no multi layered competition on the cross River buses there have been odd skirmishes. And COVID19 has affected loads with fewer commuters. The 1934 tunnel cannot be widened and to reiterate no extra infrastructure whatsoever has been provided for extra buses and even my suggestions don't eliminate the problem, only eases it slightly . My scheme gives particular priority to Heswall routes as rail links have been relatively poor compared to West Kirby.
Perhaps you've already mentioned it but how many buses travel through the Kingsway tunnel per hour?
As I've said before, the bad days of dereg did see incumbents increase service levels to higher frequencies as a defensive move, and yet still we saw independents with elderly vehicles turning out onto the roads. However, those days are largely gone; if there's one argument now, it's that we hardly see any real competition as operators retreat into their own fiefdoms and as such, frequencies have tended to settle down to what is financially sustainable. In fact, aside from West Lothian, it's hard to see where there is much meaningful on-road competition. In fact, what has happened is that major operators have tended to focus on key corridors and have pulled out of less lucrative or marginal areas. Whilst that has provided opportunities for more agile, smaller operators, it has also transferred some of the burden onto hard-pressed local authorities so some links have been lost whilst there has been a reduction in network and through ticketing etc.
However, the biggest issue is congestion and that's not because there are too many buses. It is an exorable growth in car usage that no government, of any political persuasion, has done anything to staunch. It doesn't matter who runs the buses if they can't get through the lava flow of brake lights. Similarly, online shopping has promoted the preponderance of panel vans, parked on kerbs with hazards flashing, whilst parcels are dropped off in people's porches or wheely-bins. If you can't solve the reliability issue, it doesn't matter about the colour of the bus or its ownership.
Point on the Tyne Bridges.... the High Level Bridge was also used as a major route between Gateshead and Newcastle. It did have a restriction on it (no HGVs) and is now one way only for buses and taxis.
The Tyne Bridge was not barred to buses in the same way that the Mersey Tunnels were to protect rail and ferry services(some buses operated as well as Crosville North Wales and London coaches). I do fully accept cars cause most congestion and I refer to Liverpool City Central area only in relation to buses.
The Tyne Bridge was not barred to buses in the same way that the Mersey Tunnels were to protect rail and ferry services(some buses operated as well as Crosville North Wales and London coaches). I do fully accept cars cause most congestion and I refer to Liverpool City Central area only in relation to buses.
No, but between 1981 and 1986, many local bus services were truncated at Gateshead Metro. It was only the long distance services that passed through Gateshead (e.g. from Darlington, Durham, Hartlepool) that were allowed to cross the Tyne. That was literally to ensure that passengers were forced onto the Metro and to support it. In 1985/6, 11.9% of all Metro boardings were at Gateshead Metro; by 1988/9, that had reduced to 8.6%, predominantly as bus services that had been truncated in 1981 were largely reinstated across the bridges after deregulation.
Again, I ask, how many buses per hour currently traverse the Kingsway tunnel?
Surely it would be better for Merseytravel to extend the partnerships between Arriva and Stagecoach to make buses more attractive and have fewer cars?
And what happens to the vehicles once they are 7 years old? If no operator can have a vehicle over 7 years old it will kill the secondhand market and put some smaller operators out of business
And what happens to the vehicles once they are 7 years old? If no operator can have a vehicle over 7 years old it will kill the secondhand market and put some smaller operators out of business
That'll de-facto happen anyway - at some point diesel vehicles will be banned in most towns, and rural services are increasingly few and far between. It won't be a dissimilar situation to the way low-floor started then after a while became mandatory.
That'll de-facto happen anyway - at some point diesel vehicles will be banned in most towns, and rural services are increasingly few and far between. It won't be a dissimilar situation to the way low-floor started then after a while became mandatory.
The move from diesel will happen in some point. The inescapable fact is the economics as @Deerfold cited. Currently, operators are perhaps replacing on an average of 17 years (Solos and Darts a bit less, Deckers a bit more or that's what First are doing) so the cost of depreciation is about 6% per year not 14%.
So a notional batch of 12 e400mmc that currently costs about £155k to depreciate p.a. would instead cost £377k p.a.
Firstly the Merseyside Bus Alliance has been a joke, it has presided over cuts in services which have inconvenienced many on the Wirral and inner city Liverpool. Regarding the tunnelsIt is the Birkenhead (Queensway 1934 tunnel) which is heavily used, the Wallasey (Kingsway 1971 tunnel) was built for "modern" traffic requirements but only has Arrivas 432 and 433 using it. However when the B'head tunnel is closed (usually at night) the Wallasey tunnel takes diverted Birkenhead traffic. My suggestions are that the Chester buses are taken from the B'head tunnel and sent via the Wallasey tunnel. The 437 is slightly reduced and the 407 West Kirby would be curtailed to Birkenhead as it runs parallel to the West Kirby Merseyrail line. Diversions of cross river buses are common.
This all seems to be a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In my part of the world I don't recognise any of this overbussing at all - the only congestion caused by buses has been in a nearby town where the local authority redeveloped the spacious bus station into one too small for the number of buses using it. Completely changing the system, to an administration which simply lacks the capacity to deal with it, without proper preparation and thought into the mechanics, is a route to disaster. (with pots of money disappearing to consultants, without trace!)
That is not to say that the capacity can't be built up, but first must come the overhaul of funding, Citing a few duplicative bus routes (the likes of which do not appear in most of the country) the resources of which could be diverted to areas with few bus routes, just doesn't cut it. Cross subsidy has not worked since the mid 1950s, before which the passengers had little other option to the bus.
I do not know if there is really a problem with too many buses in the Birkenhead Tunnel, never having seen the responsible highway authority complaining about it. However, there are means at the Local Authorities' disposal to deal with the problem if they so wished. The fact that they haven't used these powers may indicate that they wouldn't do anything about it in a regulated environment either. Perhaps the politics get in the way?
As others have pointed out in this thread, funding and congestion are the two main problems to be tackled before worrying about who owns what.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Firstly the Merseyside Bus Alliance has been a joke, it has presided over cuts in services which have inconvenienced many on the Wirral and inner city Liverpool.
Is it a joke because it has done things which you don't like, or things which the signatories of the Alliance don't like? Has the Local Authority brought funding for these cut services and the bus companies refused it? I thought not. There is a limit as to what these Alliances can achieve.........
Firstly the Merseyside Bus Alliance has been a joke, it has presided over cuts in services which have inconvenienced many on the Wirral and inner city Liverpool. Regarding the tunnelsIt is the Birkenhead (Queensway 1934 tunnel) which is heavily used, the Wallasey (Kingsway 1971 tunnel) was built for "modern" traffic requirements but only has Arrivas 432 and 433 using it. However when the B'head tunnel is closed (usually at night) the Wallasey tunnel takes diverted Birkenhead traffic. My suggestions are that the Chester buses are taken from the B'head tunnel and sent via the Wallasey tunnel. The 437 is slightly reduced and the 407 West Kirby would be curtailed to Birkenhead as it runs parallel to the West Kirby Merseyrail line. Diversions of cross river buses are common.
I'm genuinely confused now. I thought your general belief was that there were too many buses, rather than cuts that had been made because of the Bus Alliance being too large? Also, and apologies if I got this wrong, but that the main issue was that there were too many buses going through the tunnels, rather than being concerned with which particular tunnel they use? I really do think that concerns about the number of vehicles running under the Mersey are detracting from the bigger picture though.
Getting out of the weeds and back to the main point about current de-reg vs franchising vs outright direct ownership vs a different model.... For the reasons I've said earlier, the idea of direct ownership just doesn't make sense to me. Talk about a political football! To a lesser extent, you have the same issue with franchising.
My view was, before Covid, to adopt the model that has been shown to work in Brighton, Nottingham and other selected locations. However, it requires true partnership and enlightenment from all parties. You have a partnership that all buy into.... perhaps underpinned by some legal framework and safeguards in the beginning. Local authorities find out what the bus companies actually want or need in terms of bus priority and other infrastructure. Now that isn't easy to deliver everything - local authorities are responsible to their local electorate and local businesses so blithely taking away on-street parking and imposing red routes is not straight-forward but what if they can deliver 20% or 25% of that.
On the flip-side, the operators have to come to the party as well. That means flexible, inter available ticketing - remember that operators cannot cooperate or collude because of competition legislation but the local authority can broker such deals. It also means commitments to investment in newer, low emission vehicles, and some guarantees on frequencies etc. The pay off is that buses move more quickly through lower congestion levels, and lower PVRs. Do that and you might have more passengers and then you actually need to increase frequencies and the PVRs.
As an example,
You have a 20 min frequency with a 52 min journey time and so PVR = 6
LA puts in measures that cut the journey time down to 45 mins (plus bus stops that don't look like they're from a war zone or a Parisien pissoir) and the PVR would drop to 5
At the same time, the operator is obliged to put new vehicles on there with the bells and whistles, promotion etc.
That should hopefully generate more passengers and more profit
Depending how you structure any agreement (as you may wish to safeguard against the operator taking all the benefits), then the LA might get a share of the increased profit (to pay for the improvements) or it might trigger an increase frequency to every 15 mins with a PVR of 7
Now this is all very theoretical and perhaps aspirational but it can and has been done; it was how the old Kickstart worked. It does need a) a good LA not obsessed with political considerations and b) operators who are also prepared to buy in.
Back to Eyersey68 - I have had second thoughts on the 7 y.o age limit but buses, with limited heritage exceptions should retire at 15 y.o. NEW operators would have to adhere to stricter standards so they can't swamp area with fleets of old bangers.
The Bus Alliance has been no help whatsoever to those areas that have no service in the evenings (Beechwood and Noctorum in Birkenhead) and parts of Wallasey unserved since the demise of Avon Buses. People without cars do have to work outside Mon-Sat daytime.
Again I say that it's the over bussed routes that need to have a layer removed not those areas with no (or a limited) service. Before dereg Merseyside PTE ran a 7/8 minute frequency on the 86 Garston service. Now it's every 4 to 6 minutes. 6 minutes is enough.
I have explained the unique tunnel situation in Liverpool transport history. Tunnels and bridges should hàve a limit of X buses per hour. There may be finite money for buses but also FINITE road space too.
Looking at the current timetables on the Merseytravel website, gives me a figure of 23 per hour in one direction through the Queensway (Birkenhead) tunnel and 6 through the Kingsway (Wallasey) tunnel - although I don't know if they're running full timetables over in the region.
Surely to try and ease the traffic issues in the tunnel, wouldn't you try and reduce the number of cars through it. I would think that reducing the number of buses through the tunnel would be more likely to increase car usage.
.I have explained the unique tunnel situation in Liverpool transport history. Tunnels and bridges should hàve a limit of X buses per hour. There may be finite money for buses but also FINITE road space too.
Why should tunnels and bridges have a limit of X buses an hour? Aren't these usually built to benefit most (if not all) forms of transport? Why make public transport less convenient in one format to 'protect' other parts of it?
Just because it appeared to work back in the 'good old days' doesn't mean that it actually did then or will now...
Looking at the current timetables on the Merseytravel website, gives me a figure of 23 per hour in one direction - although I don't know if they're running full time tables over in the region.
Surely to try and ease the traffic issues in the tunnel, wouldn't you try and reduce the number of cars through it. I would think that reducing the number of buses through the tunnel would be more likely to increase car usage.
Well, apparently there are 57k journeys per day, and 45k go via the Wallasey Tunnel. So 12k go via the Birkenhead. Therefore, a rough guess is that 93% of traffic going through there is private cars or light vans. Not only that but would the congestion have anything to do the discounted tolls for local residents....?
Back to Eyersey68 - I have had second thoughts on the 7 y.o age limit but buses, with limited heritage exceptions should retire at 15 y.o. NEW operators would have to adhere to stricter standards so they can't swamp area with fleets of old bangers.
The Bus Alliance has been no help whatsoever to those areas that have no service in the evenings (Beechwood and Noctorum in Birkenhead) and parts of Wallasey unserved since the demise of Avon Buses. People without cars do have to work outside Mon-Sat daytime.
Again I say that it's the over bussed routes that need to have a layer removed not those areas with no (or a limited) service. Before dereg Merseyside PTE ran a 7/8 minute frequency on the 86 Garston service. Now it's every 4 to 6 minutes. 6 minutes is enough.
I have explained the unique tunnel situation in Liverpool transport history. Tunnels and bridges should hàve a limit of X buses per hour. There may be finite money for buses but also FINITE road space too.
Again you've lots of things you want.
But I'm struggling to see why you want them, what good it will do (except for the positive of more evening services).
I have explained the unique tunnel situation in Liverpool transport history. Tunnels and bridges should hàve a limit of X buses per hour. There may be finite money for buses but also FINITE road space too.
Road space is finite, I fail to understand why reducing the vehicles that make the most efficient use of it is in some way going to help the situation? Wheras reducing the number of taxis and cars would actually make a difference.
As a non-driver I have no quarrel with limiting private cars but it's pointless to hav e operators effectively competing with themselves on a tiny minority of routes. Also in Liverpool at peak times about 30 Stagecoach buses have to run EMPTY out of service between Garston and Gillmoss ( a 10 mile journey). Which is why I suggested that the COVID 19 pandemic would be a good reason for ARRIVA and Stagecoach to exchange mileage, to massively reduce but not totally eliminate the cross city empty bus convoys. An efficient measure blocked by the illogical 1985 Transport Act .
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Looking at the current timetables on the Merseytravel website, gives me a figure of 23 per hour in one direction through the Queensway (Birkenhead) tunnel and 6 through the Kingsway (Wallasey) tunnel - although I don't know if they're running full timetables over in the region.
Surely to try and ease the traffic issues in the tunnel, wouldn't you try and reduce the number of cars through it. I would think that reducing the number of buses through the tunnel would be more likely to increase car usage.
Why should tunnels and bridges have a limit of X buses an hour? Aren't these usually built to benefit most (if not all) forms of transport? Why make public transport less convenient in one format to 'protect' other parts of it?
Just because it appeared to work back in the 'good old days' doesn't mean that it actually did then or will now...
In the pre dereg era the only tunnel buses were the overnight service, which was axed in spite of our "Bus Alliance". Then there was the 31/32 New Brighton service and the 418/419 Heswall service (the rail service was poor and involved a change at Bidston). One proposal which I forgot to mention was that the Birkenhead Tunnel be used for buses, taxis and 999 services and cars and other vehicles limited to the wider 1971 Wallasey tunnel with its M53 motorway links. But even this still has the problem of hitting the same congested streets and no added extra stops since before 1987. Cars would have to be banned from the city centre. People really need to witness what I have observed in Liverpool to realise that too many (usually empty) buses are the problem.
And finally... .the approach roads to the Wallasey tunnel were built on the route of the Seacombe to Wrexham railway line which is now Bidston-Wrexham operated by DMUs.
As a non-driver I have no quarrel with limiting private cars but it's pointless to hav e operators effectively competing with themselves on a tiny minority of routes. Also in Liverpool at peak times about 30 Stagecoach buses have to run EMPTY out of service between Garston and Gillmoss ( a 10 mile journey). Which is why I suggested that the COVID 19 pandemic would be a good reason for ARRIVA and Stagecoach to exchange mileage, to massively reduce but not totally eliminate the cross city empty bus convoys. An efficient measure blocked by the illogical 1985 Transport Act .
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In the pre dereg era the only tunnel buses were the overnight service, which was axed in spite of our "Bus Alliance". Then there was the 31/32 New Brighton service and the 418/419 Heswall service (the rail service was poor and involved a change at Bidston). One proposal which I forgot to mention was that the Birkenhead Tunnel be used for buses, taxis and 999 services and cars and other vehicles limited to the wider 1971 Wallasey tunnel with its M53 motorway links. But even this still has the problem of hitting the same congested streets and no added extra stops since before 1987. Cars would have to be banned from the city centre. People really need to witness what I have observed in Liverpool to realise that too many (usually empty) buses are the problem.
And finally... .the approach roads to the Wallasey tunnel were built on the route of the Seacombe to Wrexham railway line which is now Bidston-Wrexham operated by DMUs.
I can appreciate the view about the dead mileage of vehicles heading from Gillmoss to Garston, and that an exchange of mileage would be seen as sensible. That's a fair enough point. It's been a while since I looked at the 1985 Act, I don't think the Act itself does not preclude route exchanges. It would be under the CMA to investigate and adjudicate? A more learned person might be able to confirm or deny that! Certainly, there have been route exchanges in the past to greater or lesser degrees; when Stagecoach purchased Cleveland Transit and National Express owned Tees & District/TMS, they undertook a massive rationalisation to remove competition and parts of Stockton and Middlesbrough were ceded to one or the other. Indeed, it might be something that Merseytravel would be able to broker.
It's the second point that I perhaps don't get. The congestion in the city centre isn't because the city is massively overbussed. It's a fallacy because as the market has matured, operators don't need to flood corridors with extra buses as a pre-emptive protective measure. They run what they need to run, and they run from the Wirral to Liverpool because that is what passengers want, rather than having to change onto a ferry.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't like centralised control. Dogmatic things like enforced changes onto a ferry aren't going to do anything other than put passengers off. Robbing Peter to pay Paul seems attractive but all it does is reduce ridership on one route, with the resources then employed on grinding around Meols or Wallasey on services that, whilst socially necessary, will never pay their way.
As for city centre or tunnel congestion... It isn't the 23 buses per hour that are the problem. It's the 56,000 other vehicles that use the tunnels every day.
23 buses per hour works out at one bus every 2 mins 20 secs approximately. Could I suggest when Tier 1, 2,3 ,4 is over you visit the Dale Street area of Liverpool. A Victorian would recognise the street pattern if not all the buildings. Don't forget the local ,non Wirral buses share the same narrow 19th century streets with the daily Invasion. Before 1987 just New Brighton and Heswall buses ran. Passengers used the ferries and the Merseyrail underground (which had reliability problems)
Recently the Birkenhead ferry was suspended and there was UPROAR from people who if they were honest used the tunnel buses, (currently only the Seacombe ferry is running)The ageing Gerry Marsden was dragged out to commiserate. Park And Ride could be the answer but car owners object and there is nowhere to site a car park or an adequate bus station. Perhaps a parkway could be set up in Birkenhead but where will the extra buses or train carriages come from?. Now surely there has been with COVID 19 a reduction in commuters crossing the river. During the lockdown a Sunday service applied on the tunnels, although that wouldn't be adequate in less than normal traffic.
Who'd be a public transport planner in Merseyside?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
). I really do want to see an improvement in bus services. I just think that there's more benefit in having a good partnership between a local authority (Oxford, Brighton) and the operators - invest the money in the infrastructure and make sure the operators are similarly locked into the partnership.
