Cambridgeshire Bus Franchising?

johncrossley said:

Public car parks are already scarily expensive. For example, Grafton East car park:

Grafton East car park

Grafton East car park is located at the Grafton shopping centre, about a 15-minute walk from the city centre. It’s the nearest car park to the Crown Court and Anglia Ruskin University.

www.cambridge.gov.uk

Click to expand...

Could it be that the jobs in the area are so well paid that people can stomach the costs?


One thing that would probably help massively would be to make buses more convenient and start focussing not on making cars less attractive, but buses more attractive. Why does everything have to be a race to the bottom and forcing people to use certain transport modes rather than trying to make things the best that they can be? Racing to the bottom only infuriates drivers.

Purely for example, Something that I have noticed, Luton Busway has 17 buses per hour (not including those which only do the small bit and come off at Challney). Cambridge Busway between the Station and Addenbrookes, despite the rather large flows, has only 8 buses per hour. The other around 19 buses per hour, plod along Hills Road getting seemingly, increasingly delayed. Granted not all buses would/should move to the busway as it's probably important the keep a route running along Hills Road and it wouldn't be worth the costs for irregular services (mostly those operated by A2B) but a number of other services could move.

There are only 2 reasons really why any bus should use Hills Road over the busway (other than . That being the bus needs to access the education establishments on Hills Road, or the route is operated by double deckers.
A solution to the former, is to install an intermediate busway stop at the top end of Shaftesbury Road and build a pedestrian bridge linking over the train tracks to this new stop? See below photo for an idea of stop placement (red marks the stop, orange is the rough layout of a bridge) This stop would be within 5 minutes walk of the Sixth Form college and Homerton university buildings. This would enable the U2 to transfer to the busway and perhaps also Whippets X2/X3 services.
The solution to the latter is easy to suggest but perhaps less easy in terms of funds and politics. If Hills Road bridge was rebuilt so deckers could be accommodated on the southern busway, that would change things drastically. As I say though, not sure if this is likely to be possible.

Essentially, make the buses easier to access and stop the buses being caught in such congestion (which is what brings motorists to say such things as 'slow and unreliable'). Got to be better shorter term and also politically to make buses better so people choose to use buses, rather than restricting motorists and forcing them to use buses which will only stir up hatred.

johncrossley said:

Obviously timed connections on rural/inter-urban services are common outside the UK. A lot of the time they have lengthy dwell time at one or both of the ends (in order to ensure that buses meet at the same time) so that means that a fair amount of delay can be accommodated.

Click to expand...

They may be common, but they are outside the UK and conditions outside the UK are not usually easily translatable to the UK.

johncrossley said:

Luckily Cambridge has particularly dry weather. Cambridge's climate is even classed as 'semi-arid' so combined with the flat terrain it should be even easier to encourage cycling than in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands almost all school kids cycle to school. Do we know what proportion of traffic in Cambridge is short distance (say under 2 miles?)

Click to expand...

In the Netherlands they probably don't have the same quantity of 'parental choice', Grammar Schools and Private Schools which give rise to lengthy journeys to School by so many. Do they have the same propensity for enormous schools with catchment areas of 10+ miles? Surely they are not cycling that distance?

This country has rejected turning its society into a mainland Europe look a like, so good luck with trying to change UK habits on driving, street space allocation, schooling etc.

Magdalia said:

Stagecoach do try to do this in Cambridge, if you want to look at a good example see the timetable for route 7 to Sawston and Saffron Walden in the evening peak. But the congestion is erratic, sometimes the buses are waiting time for 10 minutes at Addenbrookes, other times they are running very late even on the extended schedules. When the journey is expected to take 15 minutes when the roads are clear, but anything between 15 minutes and 45 minutes when they are congested, what can they do?

Click to expand...

Quite apart from driver failures / road works on the route, or elsewhere but displacing traffic onto the route / bus faults and breakdowns / other vehicles' breakdowns and accidents causing obstructions etc etc.

RT4038 said:

They may be common, but they are outside the UK and conditions outside the UK are not usually easily translatable to the UK.

Click to expand...

Using connections costs less than duplicating a large portion of route unnecessarily, otherwise there would be no point doing it.

RT4038 said:

In the Netherlands they probably don't have the same quantity of 'parental choice', Grammar Schools and Private Schools which give rise to lengthy journeys to School by so many. Do they have the same propensity for enormous schools with catchment areas of 10+ miles? Surely they are not cycling that distance?

Click to expand...

On the other hand, you have parents desperate to move to a catchment area of a good school. Obviously some kids travel long distances to school nowadays, but there are also still plenty of kids travelling short distances to school by car.

It is easy to argue that nothing can ever change because of the existing culture. But then what would be the point of discussion groups such as this? Things do change surprisingly. Who would have predicted 10 years ago that there would be widespread bus franchising planned and fare caps?

johncrossley said:

From what I've seen when visiting and taking my bike for a ride on what passes for 'infrastructure', it is clear that there is significant untapped potential here. Cambridge has a good reputation for cycling, but it is probably people who cycle 'despite' the infrastructure rather than 'because' of it. So it seems pretty obvious to me that cycling should be the priority for investment.

Click to expand...

From various villages into Cambridge there are Greenways being developed see here:

Making school runs safer and easier. Helping you get to shops, friends and family under your own steam. Connecting the places you need to go.​

• Safer streets and roads for walking, wheeling and cycling
• Better crossings on main roads, side-streets and big junctions
• New and improved paths

Click to expand...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2025 ==

markymark2000 said:

Could it be that the jobs in the area are so well paid that people can stomach the costs?

Click to expand...

You have hit on an important point here. Cambridge is a very unequal city. One of the reasons that the sustainable travel zone collapsed was a strong feeling that rich people could afford to pay, and would carry on driving, while, for poor people, it was another tightening of the screw in the cost of living crisis, and they would be unable to afford to make essential journeys.

It is particularly relevant with regard to the school run, where use of cars is dominated by the journeys to/from private schools.

johncrossley said:

On the other hand, you have parents desperate to move to a catchment area of a good school. Obviously some kids travel long distances to school nowadays, but there are also still plenty of kids travelling short distances to school by car.

Click to expand...

In Cambridge the inequality is reflected in house prices, with houses convenient for good schools demanding premium prices. And Cambridge has a very peculiar school system, going back to the establishment of the village colleges almost 100 years ago. For 11-16s, the village colleges are generally regarded as superior to the old Cambridge secondary moderns, so there are significant outflows of students from the city to the villages. This then reverses for 16-18s, where the Hills Road and Long Road VIth form colleges are ex the boys and girls county high schools, and attract big flows from the villages into the city. As a result the Cambridge area has a lot of long distance school travel.

markymark2000 said:

Purely for example, Something that I have noticed, Luton Busway has 17 buses per hour (not including those which only do the small bit and come off at Challney). Cambridge Busway between the Station and Addenbrookes, despite the rather large flows, has only 8 buses per hour. The other around 19 buses per hour, plod along Hills Road getting seemingly, increasingly delayed. Granted not all buses would/should move to the busway as it's probably important the keep a route running along Hills Road and it wouldn't be worth the costs for irregular services (mostly those operated by A2B) but a number of other services could move.

Click to expand...

I agree with you very strongly here, especially with regard to the Whippet routes. The U2 does get diverted via the busway sometimes, when there is road works in the relevant part of Hills Road, but I think all U2 should use the busway, especially at peak periods. It is particularly bonkers that inbound U1s form outbound U2s, and vice versa, so even the U1s get delayed. The X2/X3 are a bit more complicated as they don't always use buses fitted for the guideway, but that isn't an insurmountable problem. I have used the U2 and X3 and there isn't much use of the intermediate stops between the railway station and the biomedical campus.

markymark2000 said:

A solution to the former, is to install an intermediate busway stop at the top end of Shaftesbury Road and build a pedestrian bridge linking over the train tracks to this new stop? See below photo for an idea of stop placement (red marks the stop, orange is the rough layout of a bridge) This stop would be within 5 minutes walk of the Sixth Form college and Homerton university buildings.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately there isn't the space for this, either for the bus stops or for the bridge ramps. Bear in mind also that the cycleway/footpath is between the end of Shaftesbury Road and the busway, and this is approximately the location of 2 of the fatalities. There would be significant health and safety issues.

markymark2000 said:

If Hills Road bridge was rebuilt so deckers could be accommodated on the southern busway, that would change things drastically. As I say though, not sure if this is likely to be possible.

Click to expand...

Hills Road is not the only height restricted bridge, there is also Long Road and 2 more bridges in Trumpington, including the bridge under Hauxton Road being single track because of the restricted clearance. Getting the busway under Hills Road was a nightmare, even for single deckers, and the road to/from the guideway has a significant dip to achieve the necessary clearance.

Had a rather full day so just returning to the thread, and some of the comments from @Magdalia @johncrossley and @greenline712...

Cambridge is already one of the leading places in the UK for cycling. So within what is a compact city, attractive topography and a younger than average age profile, it's little wonder that many already do cycle. That it isn't higher (and nearer to Dutch levels) is probably due to the prevailing attitude/view of cycling. Quite simply, the Netherlands has a much greater cycling culture - it's ingrained into their psyche in a manner that it simply isn't in the UK. Of course, once you begin to increase the distances (i.e. Greater Cambridge and into more rural areas) then it becomes less practical though I support the creation of better cycle infrastructure.

In respect of the question of rural buses, I don't doubt the reasons behind why the Fens are sparsely populated or why settlements are built as they are. However, getting away from the percentages, it's clear that places like Ely, Chatteris and March are small, have limited passenger potential, especially when they are rail connected. The real opportunity to generate meaningful passenger numbers has got to be within Peterborough (and Cambridge), and into the two main commercial centres.

Hourly buses trundling around the Fens, costing thousands and millions, is simply a waste of money.

johncrossley said:

Using connections costs less than duplicating a large portion of route unnecessarily, otherwise there would be no point doing it.

Click to expand...

Only if the connections work, consistently and reliably, and the intending passengers have confidence in that and they use them. None of which conditions are present in the majority of the UK, which is why they pretty much universally are not a feature of UK bus timetables at present. With the road conditions of 1950 and technology of 2025 I am sure we could get them to work well. Unfortunately, rather a lot has happened (or, it could be argued, not happened) in the intervening 75 years to road conditions and changing this now is well nigh impossible.

johncrossley said:

It is easy to argue that nothing can ever change because of the existing culture. But then what would be the point of discussion groups such as this? Things do change surprisingly. Who would have predicted 10 years ago that there would be widespread bus franchising planned and fare caps?

Click to expand...

You can always dream, but I think it unlikely that our culture on schooling, and school transport, is going to change towards much more cycling - if anything the safeguarding paranoia amongst some parents may well get worse. And yes, I predicted reregulation in some way, later rather than sooner, from the passing of the Transport Act 2000 ............ I don't see anything on the horizon for private road traffic reduction in any meaningful way.

TheGrandWazoo said:

In respect of the question of rural buses, I don't doubt the reasons behind why the Fens are sparsely populated or why settlements are built as they are. However, getting away from the percentages, it's clear that places like Ely, Chatteris and March are small, have limited passenger potential, especially when they are rail connected. The real opportunity to generate meaningful passenger numbers has got to be within Peterborough (and Cambridge), and into the two main commercial centres.

Hourly buses trundling around the Fens, costing thousands and millions, is simply a waste of money.

Click to expand...

Even in the golden era of buses, when car ownership was few, regular (i.e. at least every 2 hours) bus services in the Cambridgeshire Fens were very limited. I don't think Chatteris or similar towns has had a huge increase in bus travelling population.

RT4038 said:

You can always dream, but I think it unlikely that our culture on schooling, and school transport, is going to change towards much more cycling - if anything the safeguarding paranoia amongst some parents may well get worse. And yes, I predicted reregulation in some way, later rather than sooner, from the passing of the Transport Act 2000 ............ I don't see anything on the horizon for private road traffic reduction in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

I think you may well be right. We are wedded culturally to car ownership and car use, even in those cities where more liberal politics are in play. The idea that there is some great cultural shift is likely is frankly for the birds. Ask people if they want better cycling and public transport... resounding yes. Anything that curbs their ability to drive...er no.

The consultation on the Sustainable Travel Zone encapsulates it perfectly. 70% of people want better buses and cycling and walking options. 58% were against the STZ especially those who are older (and so more likely to vote) but they supported having better buses.

johncrossley said:

From what I've seen when visiting and taking my bike for a ride on what passes for 'infrastructure', it is clear that there is significant untapped potential here. Cambridge has a good reputation for cycling, but it is probably people who cycle 'despite' the infrastructure rather than 'because' of it. So it seems pretty obvious to me that cycling should be the priority for investment.

Click to expand...

The completed works on Milton Road are a great illustration of the untapped potential - since safe cycling infrastructure has been available throughout, the amount of cycling along it has really blossomed. This is probably helped by the network effect of it connecting to other good bits of infrastructure like the bridge over the A14 and the Chisholm Trail. I'm a regular user of the PR5 and it's reliably punctual these days!

TheGrandWazoo said:

I think you may well be right. We are wedded culturally to car ownership and car use, even in those cities where more liberal politics are in play. The idea that there is some great cultural shift is likely is frankly for the birds. Ask people if they want better cycling and public transport... resounding yes. Anything that curbs their ability to drive...er no.

The consultation on the Sustainable Travel Zone encapsulates it perfectly. 70% of people want better buses and cycling and walking options. 58% were against the STZ especially those who are older (and so more likely to vote) but they supported having better buses.

Click to expand...

I think this is pretty much correct . . . the car has won; much though I hate to say it. What we have to do now is try to mitigate the negatives . . . traffic congestion, air quality and so on. Attempting to provoke modal shift through choice is unlikely to succeed in any other than limited examples. Increasing bus services, other than in built-up areas where there is sufficient populations to make a difference, is the only chance . . . in rural areas, with low population densities, it's just not going to happen.

About 15 years ago, I took a call from a BMW owner who couldn't use her car because the roads were too icy. I informed her about the bus times (every 30 minutes), which she said wasn't adequate for her needs. When I asked if she might be convinced to use the bus regularly if the frequency was greater, she said no way . . . she only wanted to use the bus when she couldn't drive her car. I see nothing in the ensuing 15 years to change that.

Enhancing P&R services and making parking more difficult might work . . . at least it might improve air quality. We should target resources there, or improving service frequencies to "turn-up-and-go" on corridors with decent populations . . . rural buses and DRT is just wasting money.

greenline712 said:

I think this is pretty much correct . . . the car has won; much though I hate to say it. What we have to do now is try to mitigate the negatives . . . traffic congestion, air quality and so on. Attempting to provoke modal shift through choice is unlikely to succeed in any other than limited examples. Increasing bus services other than in built-up areas, where there is sufficient populations to make a difference, is the only chance . . . in rural areas, with low population densities, it's just not going to happen.

About 15 years ago, I took a call from a BMW owner who couldn't use her car because the roads were too icy. I informed her about the bus times (every 30 minutes), which she said wasn't adequate for her needs. When I asked if she might be convinced to use the bus regularly if the frequency was greater, she said no way . . . she only wanted to use the bus when she couldn't drive her car. I see nothing in the ensuing 15 years to change that.

Enhancing P&R services and making parking more difficult might work . . . at least it might improve air quality. We should target resources there, or improving service frequencies to "turn-up-and-go" on corridors with decent populations . . . rural buses and DRT is just wasting money.

Click to expand...

The way to do it, and Oxford has shown the way, is to very gradually make changes to limited accessibility to cars. It's also the way that some European cities do it. Similarly, if you can't improve bus priority because of limited road space... then red routes to stop the people simply parking on roadsides is a better way of improving traffic flow. If you can do both, then why not. A balanced approach of a bit of traffic flow improvement and some bus priority will stop some of the culture war (e.g. anti cyclist, freedom to drive) stuff.

Rural Cambridgeshire has many similarities to my home and adoptive counties. Low population density, relative affluence, etc. Most small towns are lucky to have an hourly service (perhaps one) and the rest are a mix of supported services at lesser frequencies shaped by the resource/cost. That there are socially necessary services is something that must be catered for but the idea of any significant modal shift is barking. Better to use the DRT vehicles for a schools contract and then run on rural routes off peak (on fixed routes) to provide a service at a lower cost.

Something like pump-priming a fast Whittlesey to Peterborough service (and restoring the half hourly frequency) would deliver much more "bang for buck" that carting fresh air around Chatteris. Even better if there was some priority in Peterborough!!

greenline712 said:

I think this is pretty much correct . . . the car has won; much though I hate to say it. What we have to do now is try to mitigate the negatives . . . traffic congestion, air quality and so on. Attempting to provoke modal shift through choice is unlikely to succeed in any other than limited examples. Increasing bus services other than in built-up areas, where there is sufficient populations to make a difference, is the only chance . . . in rural areas, with low population densities, it's just not going to happen.

Click to expand...

I don't think you mean those words in red to be included?

greenline712 said:

Enhancing P&R services and making parking more difficult might work . . . at least it might improve air quality. We should target resources there, or improving service frequencies to "turn-up-and-go" on corridors with decent populations . . . rural buses and DRT is just wasting money.

Click to expand...

Aside from those corridors where frequent services are justified (and even then, there are issues with consolidating routes and making passengers walk to them is discriminatory to the elderly and disabled), a skeletal service to be provided for those few who are unable to use private transport (and for those who choose to, but they are of lesser consideration). Much like has happened naturally really. When this skeleton starts becoming overcrowded then we'll know the tide is turning.......

RT4038 said:

I don't think you mean those words in red to be included?

Click to expand...

Ah . . . the power of the comma !! I meant to say . . . "Increasing bus services, other than in built-up areas where there is sufficient population to make a difference . . . "

Eats Shoots Leaves . . . !! Thanks very much . . . original now edited.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2025 ==

RT4038 said:

a skeletal service to be provided for those few who are unable to use private transport (and for those who choose to, but they are of lesser consideration).

Click to expand...

Absolutely . . . a basic service, maybe at school times and shopping times . . . only to last where there is actual usage. If no passengers (or very few), then it shouldn't last.

johncrossley said:

Using connections costs less than duplicating a large portion of route unnecessarily, otherwise there would be no point doing it.

Click to expand...

Pertinent to the thread....Stagecoach East actually did this with the 26 to/from Royston and curtailed it at Trumpington P&R. It was so unpopular they ended up extending the Bus way service to Hertfordshire due to the backlash.

Megafuss said:

Pertinent to the thread....Stagecoach East actually did this with the 26 to/from Royston and curtailed it at Trumpington P&R. It was so unpopular they ended up extending the Bus way service to Hertfordshire due to the backlash.

Click to expand...

We keep hearing that buses in the UK are pitifully funded. So given how scarce funding is, it is quite baffling to waste it through duplication when other countries who enjoy more generous funding use connections to get best value, even though they could easily afford to do what Britain does and provide mass duplication.

johncrossley said:

We keep hearing that buses in the UK are pitifully funded. So given how scarce funding is, it is quite baffling to waste it through duplication when other countries who enjoy more generous funding use connections to get best value, even though they could easily afford to do what Britain does and provide mass duplication.

Click to expand...

In black and white terms that is right. But the travelling public are smart. They know changing from one bus to another is a backwards step, no matter how the waste and value for money is sold to them.

Megafuss said:

In black and white terms that is right. But the travelling public are smart. They know changing from one bus to another is a backwards step, no matter how the waste and value for money is sold to them.

Click to expand...

I've never seen the concept of network design sold properly. They are never told that duplication means fewer services or lower frequency.

johncrossley said:

I've never seen the concept of network design sold properly. They are never told that duplication means fewer services or lower frequency.

Click to expand...

How would you sell or explain that in simple terms to the public?
For starters, I'd draw a spider web diagram superimposed on a map of their local area.

johncrossley said:

We keep hearing that buses in the UK are pitifully funded. So given how scarce funding is, it is quite baffling to waste it through duplication when other countries who enjoy more generous funding use connections to get best value, even though they could easily afford to do what Britain does and provide mass duplication.

Click to expand...

There is an element that the British are different to other countries in there deep dislike of enforced changes (amongst other features that mean extrapolating solutions from what is done in other countries is risky), why is something that can be debated and is probably multi-faceted and deep seated. British public transport users don't like changing, whether between modes or just between trips, if they feel it is something forced for the convenience of the provider rather than because it makes sense to them as the trip they are doing is not one they would expect to go through (guaranteed seamless changes, as you sometimes get on split registration long services, sit in the middle as they aren't necessarily popular as it is inconvenient to have to gather yourself to move between vehicles but if done well the general uncertainty of waiting and reboarding aren't there so it isn't as much an issue) or the change makes the trip faster (bus to rail over medium or long distance interurban for instance). The Tyne & Wear Metro most clearly highlight this idea of forced being unpopular vs choice being acceptable - when Tyne & Wear tried to force all buses, broadly speaking, to terminate at the first Metro station they reach and everyone to change to the Metro doing so at Gateshead within sight (due to the geography of the river between) of your destination in Newcastle (made worse due to the stations by this point being underground so you also have to negotiate lots of steps at both ends etc) was so unpopular that Low Fell Coaches were able to prove demand for a through service even before deregulation but go only a couple of stations out to somewhere like Heworth and you will see everyone happily do the change (there is probably quite a lot of changing at Gateshead too but as it is a choice it isn't controversial).

greenline712 said:

About 15 years ago, I took a call from a BMW owner who couldn't use her car because the roads were too icy. I informed her about the bus times (every 30 minutes), which she said wasn't adequate for her needs. When I asked if she might be convinced to use the bus regularly if the frequency was greater, she said no way . . . she only wanted to use the bus when she couldn't drive her car. I see nothing in the ensuing 15 years to change that.

Click to expand...

She may not have changed her view and there are certainly still lots of people with that view but the younger generation are more pro-public transport and less pro-car so things are changing, slowly in the population and even slower with our politicians (as they listen more to the older voter than the younger ones) but there are starting to appear shards of light. The problem is whether the bus industry can adapt to the new expectations and react to the better chance of winning the younger people as long term passengers before the gaps in the network provision push them away to other modes where winning them back will be harder which may need medium term funding outside the big cities and long term commitment in the rural areas like much of Cambridgeshire to ensure there is still a network there when it is wanted.

Dwarfer1979 said:

There is an element that the British are different to other countries in there deep dislike of enforced changes (amongst other features that mean extrapolating solutions from what is done in other countries is risky), why is something that can be debated and is probably multi-faceted and deep seated.

Click to expand...

Only a few destinations are available from most bus stops, so this is basically an academic question. We either accept changes are required or we are doomed to very limited use of public transport.

Megafuss said:

In black and white terms that is right. But the travelling public are smart. They know changing from one bus to another is a backwards step, no matter how the waste and value for money is sold to them.

Click to expand...

This is something that @Dwarfer1979 has expanded on below.

johncrossley said:

I've never seen the concept of network design sold properly. They are never told that duplication means fewer services or lower frequency.

Click to expand...

It's not sold in other countries either. It's just mandated and that is it.

Dwarfer1979 said:

There is an element that the British are different to other countries in there deep dislike of enforced changes (amongst other features that mean extrapolating solutions from what is done in other countries is risky), why is something that can be debated and is probably multi-faceted and deep seated. British public transport users don't like changing, whether between modes or just between trips, if they feel it is something forced for the convenience of the provider rather than because it makes sense to them as the trip they are doing is not one they would expect to go through (guaranteed seamless changes, as you sometimes get on split registration long services, sit in the middle as they aren't necessarily popular as it is inconvenient to have to gather yourself to move between vehicles but if done well the general uncertainty of waiting and reboarding aren't there so it isn't as much an issue) or the change makes the trip faster (bus to rail over medium or long distance interurban for instance). The Tyne & Wear Metro most clearly highlight this idea of forced being unpopular vs choice being acceptable - when Tyne & Wear tried to force all buses, broadly speaking, to terminate at the first Metro station they reach and everyone to change to the Metro doing so at Gateshead within sight (due to the geography of the river between) of your destination in Newcastle (made worse due to the stations by this point being underground so you also have to negotiate lots of steps at both ends etc) was so unpopular that Low Fell Coaches were able to prove demand for a through service even before deregulation but go only a couple of stations out to somewhere like Heworth and you will see everyone happily do the change (there is probably quite a lot of changing at Gateshead too but as it is a choice it isn't controversial).

Click to expand...

This is part cultural and part practical. Perhaps on the continent, it has simply been done for so long that people accept it? However, do they like it?

As you say, the Gateshead/Heworth one is the most clear cut of examples. So the old way was a direct route from Newcastle to somewhere like Allerdene. You had the old direct route that would leave Worswick Street and take about 20 mins. Instead, you had transfare ticket (good) but then you had to get the Metro to Gateshead (2 mins from Monument), then 5 mins of faffing around going up escalators and to the stand, perhaps a five min wait for a bus, and then a 15 min journey. So you've made a 20 min journey into a two stage, 27 min journey? Irrespective of the wider "benefit", that's hardly a great sell to the individual.

However, it was always the case (and still is) that from other areas, such as at Heworth, that passengers are prepared to change when travelling from areas such as Washington and Boldon. Quite simply, it's this. People value their time. Changing is fine as long as the penalty (the b*ggeration factor) is outweighed by the benefit. I will add, in the Tyne and Wear instance, that there were few frequency enhancements so it wasn't as if resource was being redeployed; instead, it was a massive slimming down of the TWPTE and Northern fleets. It is an academic question... What works theoretically needs to be couched in real world experience? If an enforced change makes people's journeys 30% longer (in duration) for no appreciable benefit, then you are going to struggle to sell that.

Getting back to the Cambridgeshire question... Would it be better for the 9 to run from Littleport and Ely to Milton Road P&R where a 15 min service already exists? Instead of two buses running sporadically, you could have three running hourly. Would it appreciably increase patronage...? I'm dubious.

johncrossley said:

Only a few destinations are available from most bus stops, so this is basically an academic question. We either accept changes are required or we are doomed to very limited use of public transport.

Click to expand...

We, as in the general travelling public, have made it clear they don't accept it for major flows so we have to work with that fact. You can't force it, if they have a choice and don't like it they will talk with their feet and go by car.

The fact there will only ever be a few destinations from any specific bus stop is where the logical change comes in, people don't expect a bus from every bus stop to every point (so travelling across town or to a non-local town) but they do expect one to the city centre or major local town so the idea that keeps coming up for buses through the villages terminating on the edge of the town at an interchange node or Park & Ride site for passengers to transfer isn't seen as logical for the passenger but for the benefit of the operator and so is seen as 'unacceptable' and drives people away (though as with all such sweeping statements there are caveats with small settlements and if you are gaining a link you never had then the gain may be more widely acceptable but it will always be less attractive to existing car users than a direct bus).

Dwarfer1979 said:

We, as in the general travelling public, have made it clear they don't accept it for major flows so we have to work with that fact. You can't force it, if they have a choice and don't like it they will talk with their feet and go by car.

The fact there will only ever be a few destinations from any specific bus stop is where the logical change comes in, people don't expect a bus from every bus stop to every point (so travelling across town or to a non-local town) but they do expect one to the city centre or major local town so the idea that keeps coming up for buses through the villages terminating on the edge of the town at an interchange node or Park & Ride site for passengers to transfer isn't seen as logical for the passenger but for the benefit of the operator and so is seen as 'unacceptable' and drives people away (though as with all such sweeping statements there are caveats with small settlements and if you are gaining a link you never had then the gain may be more widely acceptable but it will always be less attractive to existing car users than a direct bus).

Click to expand...

One of the problems with such links is that the link to town works well, with an infrequent link to a frequent link.
But going in the other direction it's not always clear how much time you need to leave and people will either catch an earlier service from town with a longer than planned wait at the interchange or the service from town is delayed, leaving a very long connection time at a site with few facilities and nothing to do nearby.

If the local service has enough time to wait for a delayed incoming service would it have enough time to do the whole route?

Deerfold said:

One of the problems with such links is that the link to town works well, with an infrequent link to a frequent link.
But going in the other direction it's not always clear how much time you need to leave and people will either catch an earlier service from town with a longer than planned wait at the interchange or the service from town is delayed, leaving a very long connection time at a site with few facilities and nothing to do nearby.

If the local service has enough time to wait for a delayed incoming service would it have enough time to do the whole route?

Click to expand...

This is what West of England Combined Authority are doing with the restoration of some rural services, having withdrawn them all in favour of DRT.

It's perhaps better if its a park and ride site that has some form of amenities. So in WECA land, we have one route that provides a service from Midsomer Norton via some villages to the Odd Down P&R. I must have a look to see how many it carries on a morning? However, they have another (Chew Valley Cat 99) that is supposed to connect in the village of Pensford - it has a bus shelter and a pub in which to wait for the frequent 374/5/6/172 that I'm sure will be lovely for the 10 min wait.

I'll point out that some of the park and rides across the UK are pretty desolate e.g. Shrewsbury.

As ever, it has to be about pragmatism not dogmatism. Do it where it makes sense to the passenger.

Very much a local view, but in Cottenham, Cambridge, the 8a formerly run by Stephensons (March to Cottenham) will now be run by A2B to Milton Park & Ride. I assume this is intended to allow better connections into Cambridge rather than trying to meet up with Stagecoach 8.

Meanwhile the 110 (Impington to Ely) run by Mil-Ken Thursday and Saturday is also rumoured to need a new operator, is anyone aware of what will happen there?

tivoli said:

Meanwhile the 110 (Impington to Ely) run by Mil-Ken Thursday and Saturday is also rumoured to need a new operator, is anyone aware of what will happen there?

Click to expand...

Will be operated by A2B, looks to be Thursday and Saturday still. https://data.bus-data.dft.gov.uk/timetable/dataset/16866/detail/?line=110&service=PF2020005:110

TheGrandWazoo said:

Getting back to the Cambridgeshire question... Would it be better for the 9 to run from Littleport and Ely to Milton Road P&R where a 15 min service already exists? Instead of two buses running sporadically, you could have three running hourly. Would it appreciably increase patronage...? I'm dubious.

Click to expand...

Ignoring Littleport for the moment, I'd say the market for the 9 is, or ought to be, (a) people in Little Downham, Stretham, Landbeach, etc. who want to go to one or the other city centre, and (b) a city centre to city centre service.

The fact is neither Cambridge or Ely railway stations are particularly convenient or central for the majority of the people living in either city - so that's where I'd be focusing on picking up new customers. If there was a *regular and mostly reliable* (yes, admittedly very difficult given the state of the A10) bus service that stopped within 10 minutes walk of my house, and at the Cambridge end stopped on Milton Road near the Science Park, I'd seriously consider it as an alternative to the train for commuting.

As to your question, I don't think people want to be dumped at a P&R site and have to wait for a connection. In that case I'd stick with the train, however far from perfect that is.

MikeWM said:

Ignoring Littleport for the moment, I'd say the market for the 9 is, or ought to be, (a) people in Little Downham, Stretham, Landbeach, etc. who want to go to one or the other city centre, and (b) a city centre to city centre service.

The fact is neither Cambridge or Ely railway stations are particularly convenient or central for the majority of the people living in either city - so that's where I'd be focusing on picking up new customers. If there was a *regular and mostly reliable* (yes, admittedly very difficult given the state of the A10) bus service that stopped within 10 minutes walk of my house, and at the Cambridge end stopped on Milton Road near the Science Park, I'd seriously consider it as an alternative to the train for commuting.

As to your question, I don't think people want to be dumped at a P&R site and have to wait for a connection. In that case I'd stick with the train, however far from perfect that is.

Click to expand...

I don't think services which terminate at a Park and Ride will be successful. There is the impact of waiting for the service into the centre to consider but worse is the return journey when the customer has arrive at the park and ride in time for the onward connection on a very infrequent service.

If the service was regular and reliable, I think there would be a market for Littleport and parts of Ely to Cambridge as well the villages along the A10. All the new building at both places is as far away from the stations as it is possible to get. Pretty much unavoidable in Ely but seems to have been a conscious decision in Littleport. The service ought to be successful but the prolonged problems with Milton Road followed by the Stagecoach decision to hold on to the most profitable journeys pretty much killed the route.

On the more general topic of franchising, on the basis of last couple of months, letting the CAPCA team organise the services would be a disaster. The Tiger routes have no publicity, no timetables and no bus stops and the recent changes around Ely are worse with both 8A and 9A changing route or times with absolutely no information available for the customer even if you use the normal on line systems.

Teds said:

I don't think services which terminate at a Park and Ride will be successful. There is the impact of waiting for the service into the centre to consider but worse is the return journey when the customer has arrive at the park and ride in time for the onward connection on a very infrequent service.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. You're either nervous about making the connection, or you go early and then spend ages handing around a P&R site in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do. Plus the P&R buses in Cambridge still finish too early - admittedly not as early as the 9, which nowadays isn't even useful insurance for getting me home when the railway falls to pieces (as it has done twice in the last two months) as the last bus leaves Cambridge at 1730!

If the service was regular and reliable, I think there would be a market for Littleport and parts of Ely to Cambridge as well the villages along the A10. All the new building at both places is as far away from the stations as it is possible to get. Pretty much unavoidable in Ely but seems to have been a conscious decision in Littleport. The service ought to be successful but the prolonged problems with Milton Road followed by the Stagecoach decision to hold on to the most profitable journeys pretty much killed the route.

Click to expand...

There was a half-hourly service on the 9 for most of the day in 2009, and as you say there could/should be significantly *more* demand now than there was then, given all the new homes that have been constructed far away from the railway.

On the more general topic of franchising, on the basis of last couple of months, letting the CAPCA team organise the services would be a disaster. The Tiger routes have no publicity, no timetables and no bus stops and the recent changes around Ely are worse with both 8A and 9A changing route or times with absolutely no information available for the customer even if you use the normal on line systems.

Click to expand...

The 9A is a weird one - I want it to succeed as otherwise most of the outskirts of Ely are a bus-free zone, which isn't great for a population of 25000+ which is growing rapidly. But it just isn't very useful in its current incarnation - it starts late, finishes very early, and doesn't go anywhere near the railway station. It does serve the Princess of Wales, which is somewhat useful, and the Leisure Park, which *could* be useful if it ran later, but who is going there at 9am? (Employees, perhaps, but then the service finishes too early for them to use it to get home!)

And as you say, there is no information to be had about the service whatever. No timetables at the stops or even, in most cases, an indication of what services (or which company's services) use the stops. Nothing in the library, at least not last time I was in there.

MikeWM said:

If there was a *regular and mostly reliable* (yes, admittedly very difficult given the state of the A10) bus service that stopped within 10 minutes walk of my house, and at the Cambridge end stopped on Milton Road near the Science Park, I'd seriously consider it as an alternative to the train for commuting.

Click to expand...

I had a decade of commuting with a 10 minute walk to stops at either end. I tried it a few times, and it never appealed to me. There were no bus priority lanes, so it was slower than driving. The buses were crude, noisy and rattly, with poor reliability. Nowadays, it would be better with online tracking.

MikeWM said:

The 9A is a weird one - I want it to succeed as otherwise most of the outskirts of Ely are a bus-free zone, which isn't great for a population of 25000+ which is growing rapidly. But it just isn't very useful in its current incarnation - it starts late, finishes very early, and doesn't go anywhere near the railway station. It does serve the Princess of Wales, which is somewhat useful, and the Leisure Park, which *could* be useful if it ran later, but who is going there at 9am? (Employees, perhaps, but then the service finishes too early for them to use it to get home!)

Click to expand...

I have used it a bit recently. It runs every 30 minutes, but in practice you need to check the online tracking as the precise timekeeping was very poor. There weren't many people on it who weren't using a bus pass. The clockwise-only route is a bit odd, but I'd rather have that every 30 minutes than a two-way service every hour.

bspahh said:

I had a decade of commuting with a 10 minute walk to stops at either end. I tried it a few times, and it never appealed to me. There were no bus priority lanes, so it was slower than driving. The buses were crude, noisy and rattly, with poor reliability. Nowadays, it would be better with online tracking.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go. It would be a nice alternative to have to my current 25-minute walk to the railway station at one end and 15 minutes at the other, which in the morning is mostly in direct sunlight - particularly unappealing when there is a heatwave like now.

I have used it a bit recently. It runs every 30 minutes, but in practice you need to check the online tracking as the precise timekeeping was very poor. There weren't many people on it who weren't using a bus pass. The clockwise-only route is a bit odd, but I'd rather have that every 30 minutes than a two-way service every hour.

Click to expand...

That corresponds with the passengers I tend to see on it when it passes me (usually very few people, and they trend elderly). Given the demographics of the people likely to consider using this bus I do think having better (ie. some!) information at the stops would make sense. I see Stephenson's website has gone downhill since I last looked at it too - does it even have route maps anymore? I can't find any at a quick glance.

I think a circular makes sense, but to have any real utility (to me at least) it needs to get closer both to the railway station and to the supermarkets on Lisle Lane, and run into the early evening. I appreciate that would mean the whole service couldn't be run by one driver and/or one bus, as presumably it is now, so I don't expect much to change, but I'm concerned that the current setup seems almost designed to conclude 'look, a bus around Ely can't be justified' and we go back to having no buses around the edge of the city whatever, as was the case after the previous circular (the 15?) stopped some years back when Sainsburys (?) stopped funding it.