In the minor hit “Elstree”, The Buggles sang the chorus line “Life is not what it used to be”. And so it is in Allestree, Derby, as bus operator Trent Barton & city council seem to be heading towards something of a very broken relationship.
According to the council, it’s retaliation. According to the operator, it’s just common sense. Who do you believe?
Not the current Allestree incarnation
It all started over the council’s decision to abandon at some future point its Kedleston Road bus lane. This has been in place for some six months. Bus lanes are never popular with many in the community motorists. I’ve yet to see any similar priority measure that’s been wholeheartedly welcomed by other than those you would expect. It seems Kedleston Road is no exception.
The world’s only non-contentious bus lane? Linking Creekmoor Lane & York Road via Broadstone Way, near Poole
Then came an email from Trent Barton’s managing director, stating that he intended to withdraw his Allestree service from the bus station. This, he said, was nothing to do with the council’s decision over the aforesaid bus lane along which the Allestree operates. Instead, it was to save time and save a bus in the Allestree cycle. All very noble.Not surprisingly, the council struck back. Stated someone, “I sometimes think the bus companies believe they run the city as well as the bus services”.
Trent Barton then clarified matters more publicly. Relations between company and council were at their “lowest ebb”. The withdrawal of the Allestree from the bus station again had nothing to do with the bus lane. Usage on the Allestree to and from Derby’s new bus station was, according to Trent Barton, low. People preferred central city centre destinations. By terminating in a loop along which people actually want to travel, Trent Baron would save the cost of a peak vehicle (£110,000) plus it maintains the frequency because punctuality & reliability will improve.
But you cannot win in such circumstances. Trent Barton has been here before. In one of Omnibuses’ most commented upon posts, Trent Barton threaten to withdraw the Mickleover from Derby bus station. This was for the self-same reasons as now argued about the Allestree. For the Mickleover, there were sound reasons why Trent Barton should do this. And yet there was a high profile campaign spearheaded by the local press that resulted in a Trent Barton concession. The operator is even believed to have slotted in an *extra* resource on the Mickleover to assist punctuality.
It may be less comfortable that passengers wait on street that the bus station. Then again, it would appear that street side stops are where passengers want to go. And with a bus at every 7½ minutes, waiting on-street isn’t long. But these are arguments that Trent Barton probably cannot win.
Perhaps another line from Elstree might apply. “They stop the orchestra if you get it wrong”. It would be nice to think that both parties might pause for breath, take stock and come to some understanding, a sort of quid pro quo. It would be good to see the best of both worlds for the Allestree: the retention of the Kedlestone Road bus lane *and* the bus station. “There’s no reality and no one dead…”
23 comments:
same old same old argument.the bus company wont pay for using bus station instead they want to clutter up the streets.nothing changes.
And last night, Trent Barton were again in the Derby headlines after leaving an 11-year-old girl at a bus stop.
Alex Hornby - yes, him again - said that their drivers "usually pulled over when they see people waiting at bus stops" and that TB had now "reminded our srivers of what our customers expect".
They've got to remind drivers that people waiting at a bus stop expect the bus to stop for them?
Wonderful stuff.
The e-mail was sent last week but when the Derby Telegraph contacted Trent Barton for a response, the company's commercial director, Alex Hornby, denied the service was being removed, saying: "Trent Barton has no plans to change the Allestree service."
Yet from 1st May the Allestree service will no longer use the bus station, and operate a different route around the city centre.
Trent are justifiably angry over the Kedleston Road bus lane. It was promised for several years before it materialised and the council, which has changed colour in the meantime, have given it six months. The officer report says that each bus has saved an average 3.5 mins, which is significant when layover time between runs is 4 or 7 mins dependent on the route round Allestree estate. The report says that other data is inconclusive, mainly due to roadworks at the city end. So it would be logical to keep the bus lane for another 12 months and then review it.
The 3.5 mins can be saved by not detouring into the bus station, but no-one believes that the proposals are not connected. There is less interchanging between Allestree and other routes than there is between Mickleover and other routes, so there is less reason to use the Bus Station. Incidentally there is still an extra vehicle on Mickleover, to allow longer "recovery time" from roadworks due to finish next month.
Re anonymous at 9.57:
The Derby Telegraph report said the girl was stood at the stop but didn't put her arm out, ie it wasn't obvious that she wanted that bus. Her mum seemed more concerned that she hadn't had an apology from Trent than anything else.
What is it about this bus station in Derby that makes it so controversial? I haven't been to Derby for about 30 years, so can only recall the old bus station, which was the subject of some effort to save it, but seemed to me to be slightly remote from the shopping area, and rather bleak (even if it was historic!). The new one seemed to get reasonably favourable comments in the article in 'Buses' a few months ago, and I don't recall any suggestion that it was remote from the likely ultimate destinations in Derby city centre.
Yet I would have thought that an operator like Trent Barton, who have previously been praised for their marketing campaigns, would not withdraw service to a stop or bus station if it was being used by a significant number of their passengers. The fact that relations between the company and the local authority are at a 'low ebb' is clearly unfortunate, but TB's principal interests are commercial, and one must assume that they believe that withdrawing this service from the bus station is in their best commercial interests. Given that the previous issue with the Mickleover service seemed to arise, partly at least, from inadequate consultation with the affected passengers, I imagine that they would have taken trouble to ensure that the same thing has not happened again, and that they can be 'sure of their ground'.
From the local authority's perspective, providing infrastructure that assists bus operators would seem to be a positive method of assisting public transport without incurring the ongoing costs of 'subsidised' operations. If they provide such infrastructure, and then take it away again after 6 months, they cannot really be surprised if the bus operators become frustrated with them - and, apart from that, they would seem to have wasted the money spent on the infrastructure. With respect to bus lanes in particular, these often result in reduced travel times for all traffic, and not just the buses - this was even the case with the controversial M4 bus lane, that the current Minister of Transport has decided to remove.
Closing a bus lane can extend journey times, negatively affect punctuality and cost the bus company double, firstly through lost patronage due to lower service quality, and secondly as longer journey times and lower predictability may call for extra vehicles out on the street without any corresponding improvement in productivity or income.
When motorists or traders demand bus lanes be turned over to traffic or parking, they should be reminded that these measures are benefitting few at the expense of many.
cirdan05 said...
"When motorists or traders demand bus lanes be turned over to traffic or parking, they should be reminded that these measures are benefitting few at the expense of many."
If all of the traffic flows quicker with the bus lane in place, then I would say that those measures benefit nobody at all!
As you say, closing the bus lane is a double hit for the bus operator. Unfortunately, these decisions are being made by politicians, so I suppose it is a little optimistic to expect much better from them!
I seem to missing something, what does RC169 mean by speeding up traffic benefitting nobody??
anon @ 0957 - if you actually read the story it was all about the fact that the girl did not hail the bus, and then accused the company of leaving her stranded, not that the driver drove past of their own accord.
Clutter up the streets, anon at 0948? They use the stops anyway! Or are you unaware of the facts, as well as punctuation?
Anonymous said...
"I seem to missing something, what does RC169 mean by speeding up traffic benefitting nobody??"
Sorry, I was quoting from cirdan05's comment, second paragraph, where he referred to "...these measures are benefitting few...". 'These measures' means turning bus lanes over to all traffic or car parking, as demanded by motorists or traders.
Naturally, speeding up the flow of traffic will be of benefit, and if all of the traffic is speeded up, then everybody benefits. Unfortunately, the notion that bus lanes might speed the flow of all traffic does not seem to be widely recognised, although it does happen - including the M4 bus lane.
The M4 bus lane is of course now no more.
Blimey, I do hate the unenlightened whinging about bus lanes from some quarters - in London of course there are loads of them, and they make a real difference, especially given that they're really enforced properly these days.
(That comment isn't addressed at anyone here - I can see that RC169 was trying to put across a pro-bus lane point.)
Perhaps 'no car lanes' as found in certain places might sometimes be more appropriate than just 'pure' bus lanes, and might help to garner somewhat wider public support.
Though ultimately, some motorists are simply of the mindset that anything which gets in their way is an affront to their rose-tinted ideal of the open road. (To which I'm tempted to suggest that others should fully exercise their rights on the public roads rather more - so lots of farmers moving cattle around, plenty of cyclists taking it slow, hoards of caravanners en route to conventions, etc etc - that should get the blood pressure up and the veins throbbing!)
One thing that has been missed by many is that when the transfer from on-street stops to the bus station no time was added onto the timetable. So removing the bus lanes will increase journey times, something which the timetable can't afford.
So in TrentBartons point of view they have two options, put another vehicle on the route a la Mickleover, or remove the service from the Bus Station. One will upset a few, although, probably the most important interchange - from the Allestree to the Mickleover (which goes past the Hospital) is still avaliable on Victoria Street. The other will possibly put the route on shaky ground if the service can't support an extra vehicle on the route.
I cost a lot of money to but the bus lanes there, and it'll cost a lot to remove them. Money the country doesn't have anymore. So why are the Torys jumping up and down to get them removed?
It benefits nobody that these arguments end up in local papers. Provided the bus lane is designed accordingly, capacity at junctions and therefore a stretch of road remains largely unaltered meaning that the bus can jump the queue. Publicity about time saved tends to show X seconds per bus which sounds minimal, but when grossed by the number of buses per hour becomes important. Roads are there primarily for the passage of road users, not for parking.
Now in Derby the bus station is some way beyond the centre. It is in a sort of location that would traditionally have housed "country services". Unfortunately, bus operators weaken their argument for removing parking to allow bus priority when they then park on street at busy termini.
Finally, what is happening at Wellglade? They had positioned themselves at the premium sector in the market, but following management changes they appear to be moving to the lower middle ground favoured by the large groups. This is evidenced by their bargain buses and the use of branded vehicles on any service (TM Travel mainly).
Do the Dutch find it acceptable to allow buses to get stuck in traffic?
My apologies to RC169.I misunderstood the context.Sorry about the punctuation also.My main concern about non use of the bus station is the dwell time spent at on street termini.I used to live in a large southern town whose sole operator attempted to not use a modern town bus station situated next to the main shopping mall.Ironically for other reasons this operator gave up its services in this town.regards
The other option is to reduce the frequency and continue using the bus station.
The situation is that the revised service will be operated with just 5 buses instead of the current 6.
On a separate note, the transpeak service has lost another coach, this being replaced by an Excel. This now means that at least one journey from Nottingham - Manchester will be operated using a bus. Not good for a 3 1/2 hour journey.
The trent barton website states: "For the journey there's a choice of coach comfort or modern easy access low floor buses." But don't be fooled, there is no choice, you get what turns up!
Well, I was waiting for this one to get in the news - having commented on this in the local paper (I live locally) then it is obvious to me the issue of bus lanes was going to be divided down party lines. The council has changed colour and the affluent neighbourhood of Allestree was always going to be very anti.
There are two bus lanes entering the city from the Allestree area - Kedleston Road and Duffield Road. The Duffield Road one was the subject of a very loud campaign from a very small group who appeared to be well connected to the media. Claiming all sorts of imaginary safety concerns the local paper, ever anxious for a non-story to splash about, gave them a lot of space. Thankfully that has now subsided, only to be replaced by a Kedleston Road row from a similar group, who have found an ally on the Tory run city council.
Despite the fact they claim to support public transport, there is nothing further from the minds of the council and TrentBarton and Arriva have every right to feel aggrieved.
Arriva recently suffered much vitriol from the local paper and the council when it cobined some little used services on a late Sunday evening. - both the council representative and the media disaster it was a disaster for the tavelling public - nobody was using them anyway.
To put it in a nutshell the Tory run council caves in the minute some noisy influential minority starts shouting - nothing new there then.
As for the bus station, I urge anyone who hasn't been there to go and watch the action at even off-peak times - passenger experience is good but its hell on earth for the bus companies who hate it - ill-designed so as every bus arriving conflicts with another one (or several) leaving, a very difficult turn from the Morledge into the bus station, buses having to go round a loop several times until their stand is free, inadequate "spare" vehicle standage and arranged so that just one car driver who tries to get across the lights a little bit late stops the whole thing.
Dreadful place and Trent Barton is perfectly justified in removing the Allestree service out of there and go where the passengers want to go, not the local paper or the council want.
I use TrentBarton a lot and they justifiably are the best operator I encounter with helpful drivers, good vehicles and, until now, good press.
The council and the local press are the villains here - not TrentBarton
Sorry things got a little mixed up in the middle - it should have read :-
Arriva recently suffered much vitriol from the local paper and the council when it combined some little used services on a late Sunday evening. - both the council representative and the media claimed it was a disaster for the traveling public - ignoring the fact that nobody was using them anyway.
Anonymous said...
"My apologies to RC169."
Don't worry - you don't need to apologise! I can see the comment wasn't 100% clear as first written!
Thanks to the additional local information provided in the comments, I am wondering if TB aren't missing a trick by not linking the two issues - i.e. the withdrawal of the Allestree service from the bus station, and the closure of the bus lane? Perhaps the closure of the bus lane is not yet finally decided upon? Otherwise, I would have thought that it would be logical to make a connection between the two issues, and use this to shift the blame for any inconvenience suffered by passengers away from the operator and onto the council. Of course, they would need to wait until the decision to close the bus lane was final for that line of argument to work.
This quote from the original post amuses me:-
'Not surprisingly, the council struck back. Stated someone, “I sometimes think the bus companies believe they run the city as well as the bus services”.'
I would suggest that particular representative of the council shouldn't push his luck too far with that thinking. Given the wastage that will be caused if the bus lane is closed so soon after it has opened, I would think that there is a good chance that a lot of bus companies could make a better job of running the city than the council does!
Anonymous 25 Feb 21:20 - that would be Crawley then would it?
Crawley fits in with all the other clues but I don't see how you can easily run services there *without* using the bus station (which is essentially on street stops in a bus-only road) without lengthy diversions just to get from side side of the town centre to the other. If it's Crawley we're talking about, how were London & Country missing out the bus station?????
Derby should keep its bus lanes. All bus operators in Derby should use the Bus Station. Simples!
Post a Comment