Apologies for the delay in replying. A combination of a lot of work stuff (customer meetings, project meetings etc) combined with my domestic duties!!
Firstly, it isnt a case of rubbishing anything. With FTVs proposals, I have really tried to be balanced in my approach. Throughout this thread, its been recognised that theres a lot of thought gone into FTVs plans (from a number of people). For my part, Ive continued to stress that and to highlight those areas that I think its more right than otherwise. However, FTV has put his thoughts out there and asked for peoples views and that invites criticism, both positive and negative and I hope that Ive been balanced and reasoned in my responses.
Theres one main area where I think some of the ideas fall down and this is what Carl was getting at (I think). The theory is that you can take an existing service that requires a set amount of resource. You can either redeploy resource through dropping the frequency or perhaps a reroute, and therefore that can be used to provide some new service or to shore up or enhance an existing service. That seems quite logical and persuasive in a theoretical sense e.g. dropping the A4 from 2 to 1 bus per hour allows new services to the Airport and to Blagdon via Chew Valley; the theory is used (as Carl says) by various PTEs etc and it all seems very laudable.
The reality is actually quite different and Ill use an analogy. You have two seabirds. Ones really good at flying, the other one isnt. So, with the miracle of microsurgery, you can do a wing transplant. You can take a wing from the good flyer, and graft it onto the other and vice versa. We are resource neutral (both have two wings) and so both birds should be able to fly ok. However, one bird is an albatross and the other is a penguin. Now you have two birds that dont fly! By doing that, youve tried to make a bird fly that could never do so, whilst at the same time, knackering the one that could.
To go back to the Chew Valley services, I checked my old GBBTT. There WAS a 752 that ran three journeys per day from Blagdon and Chew to Bath about 15 years ago. The fact that it doesnt run anymore on a daily basis probably indicates something?
The view of before anyone starts, there is demand
.. I can fully accept that theres demand for services in the Chew Valley. However, how much demand? Experience (like the 752) has shown that it doesnt justify daily services 6-12 times a day; instead, youre likely merely to dilute whatever passenger volumes you do have. Remember, this is an area that is very affluent with very high levels of car ownership and, despite what has been said, the numbers of new houses in the area are minimal. In fact, BaNES are trying to protect the Chew Valley (and other nice villages) from developers by concentrating development in places like Paulton, MSN, Peasedown. What I could see is perhaps a two car working 672/3
Now, to Mr Harriss ideas and dont worry, I wont be rubbishing or shredding unduly but will provide what I hope are seen as balanced and reasonable views. Ive said my piece on Chew so Ill not go over that ground again but look at the other stuff.
I agree that the 126 could do with bolstering but the real volume is the other end. Until First entered endless chopping mode with Moir, it was half hourly between Cheddar and Weston and thats where the real passenger volume is.
175 not certain it requires a 30 min service but agree that the timetable could certainly be more clockface (albeit with an hour gap for the drivers break).
161/184/776 it was something that I mentioned on here about a while ago. Not as a circular service but more a way of interworking by cutting the old 184 and 161 and using Solos rather than Darts
185 to Trowbridge it may carry a few twirlies to Trowbridge but will they travel every day? I think it will just dilute that ridership. The 185 costs £3k a year in subsidy which tells its own story
Your 181 to be honest, Im sort of struggling to picture it and thats more me than you. My thought was to increase the 179 to include the 82 on an hourly basis. You mention the 179 running to Frome (again something Id floated before via the 184) but via the 414? Fair enough but have you missed out Kilmersdon and Haydon
The Bristol to Street corridor Id leave as it is. Before it became clear that WS depot could be modified to take deckers, Id have gone with a 20 min frequency (and that clearly looked to be the plan). Now, Id go with JFs plan.
The Wells to Taunton chestnut has come up again and its something weve seen before. To give some history, its gone from about 5 journeys a day (Glastonbury to Taunton) in the early 90s before extension to Wells in c.1994, pushed to hourly about 2000 (RBC funding) then down to 90 min frequency and back to hourly for 6 months and now back to almost where we were 20+ years ago. Fact is
.it doesnt go through very populated territory once past Ashcott. I think another try at an hourly frequency will merely prove Einstein to be right about the definition of lunacy. Also, smaller buses fraught with all sorts of trouble if youre going to run e200s into Bristol. Id also question how running buses on 40 mile long journeys will improve reliability believe me, it doesnt.
As for later journeys on the 376, well I think it could happen (not 24/7) and as an aside, Im still a little surprised the 39 hasnt gone 24/7.
If I were looking at the areas where real passenger growth could be effected, then Id said that the 376 was one (and the deckers will drive that further) and, to be honest, the 173 was another that I pointed out before. The Swindon to Oxford service is a textbook example of how to grow a service. Another textbook example, but for the wrong reasons, is the 231. Abject complacency in the past means competition reigns, a lack of finance to improve things when in reality, that should be a corridor to rival the 173 in some respects.
Best regards and peace and love abounding; told you, Im a pacifist