West of England Combined Authority Cuts

[LordCreed]

Couldn't see a thread for this, and as the cuts are multi-operator, figured a new thread would be best...

West of England Combined Authority have signed off the withdrawal of 36 routes because funding can't be agreed between councils. Appalling as these changes will leave vast areas without a service.

The article is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-64332425

Services to be withdrawn from April include:​

506 Bristol city centre to Southmead Hospital
179 Bath to Midsomer Norton
672 Bristol to Blagdon
185 Paulton to Trowbridge
636 Whitchurch to Keynsham
640 Bishop Sutton to Keynsham
668 Peasedown St John to Bristol city centre
683 Keynsham to Wells
757 Combe Hay to Midsomer Norton
172 Bath to Paulton
178 Midsomer Norton to Brislington Park and Ride
752 Hinton Blewett to Bath city centre
754 Hinton Blewett to Radstock
768 Bath bus station to Radstock and Midsomer Norton
52 Hengrove Park to Bristol city centre
516 Knowle to Hengrove Park
622 Chipping Sodbury to Cribbs Causeway
626 Wotton-under-Edge to Bristol city centre
511 Bedminster to Hengrove
512 Totterdown to Bristol city centre
513/514 Knowle to Brislington
17 Southmead Hospital to Kingswood
82 Radstock to Paulton
84/85 Yate to Wotton-under-Edge
623 Hollywood Lane to Cribbs Causeway
634 Tomarton to Kingswood
663 Somerdale to Chandag Road
664 Keynsham to Saltford
665 Somerdale to Longmeadow Road
684 Wick to Keynsham
22 Twerton to Bath Uni
202 Chipping Sodbury to Winterbourne
963 Patchway to Bradley Stoke and Winterbourne (This will run until the end of the school year)
948 Pucklechurch to Mangotsfield and Sir Bernard Lovell School (This will run until the end of the school year)
967 Westerleigh to Chipping Sodbury School and Brimsham Green School (This will run until the end of the school year)
680 North Yate to Chipping Sodbury and SGS College Filton (This will run until the end of the school year)

 

[Harold Hill]

AFAIK Route 17 Southmead Hospital to Kingswood is one of the few routes that go across town, seems most just drive up the the radial roads

 

[nesw]

Transpora’s 52 is also on the withdrawals list, that will be an interesting one.

 

[JamesGoldsmith]

Wow. Quite the list. Is the 17 fully supported or would this just affect supported journeys. I’d be surprised to see if it’s withdrawn - it certainly seems very popular at peak times. I use it daily but then again, I could easily use the 49 to cover most of my journey if the worst happens.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Believe the 17 is just the supported journeys on Eve/Sun

The biggest cuts are outside of Bristol and Bath. Essentially, the Chew Valley loses all it regular bus services. Norton Radstock loses all its regular bus services except the main Wells - Radstock - Bath corridor and, even then, will lose those on an evening. So basically, south of Bath and Bristol, the 172-4 and the 376 - that's it. Appalling.

 

[M803UYA]

Couldn't see a thread for this, and as the cuts are multi-operator, figured a new thread would be best...

West of England Combined Authority have signed off the withdrawal of 36 routes because funding can't be agreed between councils. Appalling as these changes will leave vast areas without a service.

The article is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-64332425

Andy @ Citistar covered this on Thursday on his facebook page. I've copied and pasted the post below!

This afternoon, WECA under the leadership of Dan Norris and the leaders of B&NES (Kevin Guy), South Glos (Toby Savage) and Bristol (Marvin Rees) have voted to pass a package of cuts to support for local bus services.
This package of services continuing includes most current funded bus services in the urban areas of Bath and Bristol, but barely anything outside of the two cities. Every supported bus service in Norton Radstock and the Chew Valley should be expected to be withdrawn at the end of March.
This affects the following services in B&NES:
82 (Libra) Paulton - Radstock Tyning
172 (First, evenings only) Bath - Norton Radstock
178 (Citistar/Abus) Paulton - Keynsham - Brislington
179 (CT) Midsomer Norton - Timsbury - Bath
185 (CT) Paulton - Radstock - Trowbridge
640 (CT) Bishop Sutton - Keynsham
668 (CT) Peasedown - Bristol
672 (Eurotaxis) Blagdon - Bristol
683 (CT) Keynsham - Blagdon - Wells
752 (B&NES) Chew Valley - Bath
754 (B&NES) Chew Valley - Clutton - Radstock
768 (CT) MSN - Timsbury - Priston - Bath
These services represent the only remaining bus services to: Bishop Sutton, Blagdon, Camerton, Chew Stoke, Chew Magna, Compton Dando, Compton Martin, Dundry, East Harptree, Englishcombe, Nailwell, Priddy, Priston, Publow, Tunley, Ubley, West Harptree, Woollard
These services also represent the vast majority of journeys to High Littleton, Timsbury, Farmborough, Marksbury and Burnett.
Dan Norris and Kevin Guy have APPROVED these withdrawals whilst RETAINING funding for bus services in Bath where no stop is more than 200 metres from another bus route. Norton Radstock and the Chew Valley are being completely abadoned by politicians of all colours. Not a single Bath city area service running via the city centre will be affected, or even reduced for efficiency.
The only proposed replacement for any of these services is some nonsense scheme of minibuses operated by a company who run those Ambulance liveried minibuses which take people to hospital appointments. WECA's staff seem to think they can magic up this new demand responsive system in two months and that it will cope with the demand of bus services which carry thousands of passenger journeys every day.
After introducing a fare capping system which makes it economically impossible for any company other than First Bus to provide bus services without financial support, Dan Norris now turns around and withdraws that financial support. This isn't forced cuts, it is wanton vandalism. With WECA's staff having told bus companies over the past two years that they had "no intention" of replacing bus services with demand responsive transport and that it was intended to "complement" the bus network, the opposite has been done at the first opportunity.
Bus service providers have been deliberately and repeatedly lied to by WECA's staff to force through their deluded vision of a single transport provider (First) and a demand responsive transport system which has never proven to be financially sustainable anywhere else in the UK. The new DRT system has two years to become financially viable before cash for that runs out too.
Dan Norris, Kevin Guy et al have deliberately put locally based, tax paying employers out of the bus market with these actions.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

There appear to be 14 DRT (demand responsive transport) zones for the WECA project. It looks like they are planning to use automated schedule building (ie instant acceptance when you use app or website). But I cannot see any information on whether it is one vehicle per zone, or more.

If it is automated scheduling with just one vehicle per zone, that is exactly what Lincolnshire (with long DRT experience) have decided is too inefficient to work. AIUI, Lincolnshire use human schedulers (who can nudge people into flexing their requirements enough to make less-inefficient journeys) for single-vehicle zones, and only use automated scheduling for two or more vehicles per zone.

The paper to the WECA was horribly lacking in balance - it read as if it had been written by the PR department of Via or Padarn. It laughably suggested that DRT could be suitable for getting people to work (only if your employer doesn't mind you missing several days a month when you don't hit lucky in the lottery for rides: it would take 99.993% availability to have you miss only one day a quarter. Yorbus in North Yorkshire manages about 80%). And for school journeys (some of which are a statutory duty, and all of which highly problematic if they aren't fulfilled), the paper suggests nothing stronger than saying that "DRT providers are being asked to prioritise school pupils in these areas."

As to the suggestion that Arup had suggested that rural DRT could work effectively as a feeder for longer-distance services, the WECA paper quoted an Arup report that in fact looked at 0600-2400 operation in a suburban area, feeding into buses running every 15 mins or better (so totally different from rural deployments) - and even then reckoned that taxis would often be a more cost-effective feeder.

I couldn't see any target numbers for the number of journeys delivered by the DRT project, nor for the expected subsidy per ride. That would seem to be pretty important to know. So would the meaning of "a 1-hour demand frequency" quoted in the paper.

In my view, WECA members have not been given appropriate information on which to base their decision.

Good luck to those affected by the loss of timetabled services. My advice would be to get in early and enjoy the taxi-for-the-price-of-a-bus that they may experience in the early days. Then get slick at booking at just the right moment, to maximise their chance of elbowing past other would-be users in the scramble for rides.

And start planning to walk, bike, or move to town, by March 2025 when the DRT funding runs out, and WECA find that what little subsidy they can afford won't buy many rides on DRT, and that the operators who used to run timetabled rural services don't have the capacity, or want to charge so much that the funds won't buy more than a figleaf of a service.

There clearly IS a problem with timetabled rural services, but the DRT model of instant-booking anywhere-to-anywhere DRT so effectively sold to authorities by Via and Padarn certainly is not the answer.

 

[820KDV]

And, I am advised by those affected, that where a cross-boundary service is jointly funded, they will be withdrawing that funding from April. But, they didn't have the decency to advise their neighbours. Only reading the report in detail and then asking the question directly revealed the bad news.

Maybe WECA need to be reminded that BSIP (bus service improvement plan) includes the word Improvement and EP includes the word Partnership.

 

[GusB]

A couple of points:

• We already have a thread discussing demand responsive transport (DRT), so let's not turn this thread into a duplicate discussion. I appreciate that there is some relevance to the discussion in this thread, but it's not the place to talk about the pros and cons of such schemes.
• Please ensure that you define the "jargon" in your posts. In this case, "WECA" is defined in the thread title, but anything else needs to be explained.

 

[CD]

Believe the 17 is just the supported journeys on Eve/Sun

The biggest cuts are outside of Bristol and Bath. Essentially, the Chew Valley loses all it regular bus services. Norton Radstock loses all its regular bus services except the main Wells - Radstock - Bath corridor and, even then, will lose those on an evening. So basically, south of Bath and Bristol, the 172-4 and the 376 - that's it. Appalling.

379?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

379?

I guess so but even that's essentially a Mon to Sat daytime duplication of the 376, and part of the 172-4 corridor, save the bit through Hallatrow and Paulton.

Nonetheless, this means there will be large tracts of the area with no conventional bus services. The entire Chew Valley will lose its bus services, and same with the area south of Keynsham (e.g. Marksbury, Timsbury, High Littleton). Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Paulton (pop 30k) having no evening bus service potentially. Meanwhile, Bath itself is not affected - it stinks.

 

[sk688]

Is the 172 going completely , or is it just supported journeys ?

 

[nw1]

I guess so but even that's essentially a Mon to Sat daytime duplication of the 376, and part of the 172-4 corridor, save the bit through Hallatrow and Paulton.

Nonetheless, this means there will be large tracts of the area with no conventional bus services. The entire Chew Valley will lose its bus services, and same with the area south of Keynsham (e.g. Marksbury, Timsbury, High Littleton). Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Paulton (pop 30k) having no evening bus service potentially. Meanwhile, Bath itself is not affected - it stinks.

I no longer live in this area but did live in Bath for some years.

Sounds bad. For one thing surely Midsomer Norton-Radstock is close enough to Bath to sustain an evening service? Wouldn't a lot of people from there go into Bath for a night out?

And nothing from this area to Bristol? In my day (mid 90s) there was the hourly 178 Bath-Radstock-Midsomer Norton-Bristol.

I also remember the 179 from that time, though it was a Badgerline service at that time and formed a circular service, out via the regular route, back via Timsbury and v.v. It was 177 clockwise, 179 anticlockwise (I think).

 

[Citistar]

Is the 172 going completely , or is it just supported journeys ?

Just the late evening supported journeys.

I believe that two BSIP funded services have also been awarded, one of which is the Emersons Green - Yate section of the current 47 (awarded as 525 to Stagecoach).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I no longer live in this area but did live in Bath for some years.

Sounds bad. For one thing surely Midsomer Norton-Radstock is close enough to Bath to sustain an evening service? Wouldn't a lot of people from there go into Bath for a night out?

And nothing from this area to Bristol? In my day (mid 90s) there was the hourly 178 Bath-Radstock-Midsomer Norton-Bristol.

I also remember the 179 from that time, though it was a Badgerline service at that time and formed a circular service, out via the regular route, back via Timsbury and v.v. It was 177 clockwise, 179 anticlockwise (I think).

The evening runs on a Friday/Saturday nights from Bath to Midsomer Norton are reasonably busy but quieter on other evenings.

As for Bristol to Radstock, for some bizarre reason, First elected to reintroduce a service that runs via Pensford, Clutton to White Cross (duplicating the 376) before it heads through Hallatrow and Paulton to then form part of the Midsomer Norton to Bath service pattern. The 178 was pulled by First before @Citistar gained a short term contract to run between Norton and Brislington P&R and then connecting with services to Bristol.

 

[Citistar]

I believe that First elected to reintroduce the 379 service because that route has always been the published strategy of the Combined Authority (and the West of England Partnership (WEP) prior to it's formation). Any maps or details of future service structure have always shown the Norton Radstock to Bristol corridor being via the A37 rather than Keynsham.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I believe that First elected to reintroduce the 379 service because that route has always been the published strategy of the Combined Authority (and the West of England Partnership (WEP) prior to it's formation). Any maps or details of future service structure have always shown the Norton Radstock to Bristol corridor being via the A37 rather than Keynsham.

Thanks for that explanation.

Seems perverse that they can introduce a service that duplicates an existing route (376) for the most part yet not have the money to support one (178) so that substantial villages like High Littleton or Timsbury lose virtually all their services.

 

[The exile]

. Meanwhile, Bath itself is not affected - it stinks.

I wonder how much more revenue could be brought in if the schedules were altered so that these “country routes” enhanced City services rather than duplicating them? Look at evening services up Wellsway - three separate routes leaving the centre of town within 5 minutes of each other, (19.10, for example) then nothing for ages - as opposed to providing a reasonably spaced interval service on the (nearly) shared section of route.

 

[Martin2013]

I do feel this whole thing has been approached badly with passengers not being properly consulted as has happened in other areas where large scale cuts have been implemented.

 

[Citistar]

I do feel this whole thing has been approached badly with passengers not being properly consulted as has happened in other areas where large scale cuts have been implemented.

This round of tendering was (despite being postponed from last year's fiasco that was due to start in September) horrendously rushed. The BSIP funded services looked like they had been put together by somebody with scarcely any comprehension of how bus services work and even less local knowledge.

Even if there had been consultation with the public on the changes, what would it have achieved? Every group of passengers and parish councillors is going to demand that their services are the ones which avoid the axe. Consultation in local government is something which rarely happens until a decision has been made. Take last Wednesday's meeting in Keynsham to rubberstamp the proposals - Dan Norris had already written in the Norton Radstock Journal what was going to get passed. Nothing that any of the contributors had to say at that meeting was ever going to have any influence over the decisions made.

Professional transport planners would be able to take a more pragmatic view of what is at risk and analyse how to mitigate the damage caused across the wider network and what represents good value for money serving the most passengers, rather than just say "let's award everything in Bath with no reductions". There has also been no effort whatsoever to come up with any efficiency savings on those services which are being awarded.

The whole mess demonstrates that political involvement is counterproductive and ought to be tuned down a level rather than up further.

 

[Busaholic]

DRT - Dire Retarded Transport or Deluded Rationing Triumphs ?

 

[father_jack]

Are Transpora lined up to run the DRT services for WECA or is someone talking a little bit too much ?

 

[DaveHarries]

672 (Eurotaxis) Blagdon - Bristol
683 (CT) Keynsham - Blagdon - Wells

This may not leave the Chew Valley with no services. Among the routes up for tendering were these three which were mentioned on the WECA site:

Service 517 Chew Magna - Wells (part replacement of Service 683; also possible part replacement for the 672? See also 526 & 527)
Service 518 Midsomer Norton - Radstock (possible replacement for the 82?)
Service 519 (Keynsham) (Chocolate Quarter - High St - Charlton Rd - Queens Road - High St - Wellsway - Minsmere Rd - High St - Chocolate Quarter) (replacement for 663 - 665?)
Service 520 (Southmead - Longwell Green) (replacement for the 17?)
Service 521 (Hengrove Park - Brislington) (replacing 516?)
Service 522 (Brislington P&R - Paulton - Odd Down P&R) (part replacement for Service 178?)
Service 523 (Brislington Circular) (replacing 511 & 513/514?)
Service 524 (Long Ashton P&R - Hengrove Park, via. South Bristol Link) (new one: hospital P&R service?)
Service 525 (Emersons Green - Yate) (replacement for Service 86 I think)
Service 526 (Chew Valley Link) ((possible part replacement for the 672? See also 517 & 527)
Service 527 (Chew Magna - Bristol, Anchor Road) (possible part replacement for the 672? See also 517 & 526)
List taken from: https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s6538/Bus Services Paper Final.pdf

I imagine that there might be a plan to make the 517, 526 & 527 link to provide transport to Bristol but who knows. It is bad luck on those affected by these rather savage cuts. I guess Stagecoach will retain the 10 & 11 in Bristol along with the 13

Dave

 

[Martin2013]

Even if there had been consultation with the public on the changes, what would it have achieved? Every group of passengers and parish councillors is going to demand that their services are the ones which avoid the axe. Consultation in local government is something which rarely happens until a decision has been made. Take last Wednesday's meeting in Keynsham to rubberstamp the proposals - Dan Norris had already written in the Norton Radstock Journal what was going to get passed. Nothing that any of the contributors had to say at that meeting was ever going to have any influence over the decisions made.

You make a good point. Rewind back to August and those consultation events run by Dan Norris and it felt as though a decision had already been made as to what was going to happen. A lot of emphasis was put on "how could demand responsive transport work"?

I do feel that there may be a case for demand responsive transport on some routes- eg maybe smaller villages where the size and demographics of the population may make a demand responsive service a better option than a conventional bus service. However, I don't feel its a suitable alternative in larger settlements.

This is my opinion but I do feel that there are some routes that are never going to be commercially viable and will probably always require subsidy to run. Obviously local authority funding has been significantly reduced for over a decade and this has lead to service reductions across the country. In terms of the Bristol (and South Gloucestershire) area its certainly felt like the routes that are considered commercially viable to First have survived but withdrawn by them when conditions in the market have changed and they've no longer been considered commercial, resulting in an inadequate replacement or the outright withdrawal of the affected route. I do personally feel that central government should provide sufficient funding to local authorities to enable them to run adequate bus services. I actually did make the suggestion to Dan Norris that he should be lobbying central government for more funding but I was told 'that would be an extra cost to the taxpayer'. My view is that the cost to the tax payer of paying for supported bus services might be less of a burden on them than the cost of paying for those who might find themselves needing extra health and social care due to not having an adequate bus to get them out and about.

My understanding is that at least one of the at risk routes, the 516 is only there because First made the decision to curtail the 92 route. Not sure if this was commercial or due to the issues they were having with driver shortages. Presumably First pulling the Y5 route has now necessitated the need for a funded service to replace it too. What I've not been able to establish is what exactly has been the reason for First cutting back on services in the last year or so? Has it been more to do with a reduction in passenger numbers following the pandemic or the driver shortages? Or both?

Some of the services that did end up getting withdrawn (eg the evening and Sunday journeys on the Y5) it did always feel as though usage of these journeys was never great and a drop in passenger numbers following Covid pushed them into the territory of no longer being commercially viable. At the same time it also felt as though some service reductions were made under the guise of being temporary changes due to the lockdown but subsequently became permanent.

 

[philg999]

The model used for bus services in the UK (excl London and soon a few other metro areas) is totally broken. Operators only themselves run profitable routes and councils pay for operators to run loss-making routes. Which means there is no risk to the commercial operators and no possible rebate to the taxpayer. The only sensible model that can sustain rural routes is one where an operator is forced to run loss making services in exchange for the permission to run profitable ones. I hope the government wakes up before it’s too late and mandates European style regional concessions across the country.

 

[Simon75]

The model used for bus services in the UK (excl London and soon a few other metro areas) is totally broken. Operators only themselves run profitable routes and councils pay for operators to run loss-making routes. Which means there is no risk to the commercial operators and no possible rebate to the taxpayer. The only sensible model that can sustain rural routes is one where an operator is forced to run loss making services in exchange for the permission to run profitable ones. I hope the government wakes up before it’s too late and mandates European style regional concessions across the country.

Also more money for concession passes too

 

[NorthernSpirit]

@Citistar

I don't suppose its possible to conunjer up a Chew Valley to Trowbridge service using bits of the 752, 754 and 185 six days a week could you? It'd give the Chew Valley some service to a County Town in a neighbouring county, just not one where Wrecked Every Choice Available has overall influence.

 

[RhysHand]

Transpora’s 52 is also on the withdrawals list, that will be an interesting one.

Why would that be any more interesting than others? Or is it because it’s transpora/me that you take the interest?

Are Transpora lined up to run the DRT services for WECA or is someone talking a little bit too much ?

We are operating the North Bristol DRT with WeDRT & EZec Medical.

 

[Citistar]

The model used for bus services in the UK (excl London and soon a few other metro areas) is totally broken. Operators only themselves run profitable routes and councils pay for operators to run loss-making routes. Which means there is no risk to the commercial operators and no possible rebate to the taxpayer. The only sensible model that can sustain rural routes is one where an operator is forced to run loss making services in exchange for the permission to run profitable ones. I hope the government wakes up before it’s too late and mandates European style regional concessions across the country.

I disagree with this. The existing model has been challenged by substantial increases in operating costs have been placed upon operators of all services by government legislation. At the same time, no government of any colour in the past 25 years has committed to a financial package which encourages any kind of stability within the industry. We keep getting bursts of cash over two or three years (at most) which are of no benefit once they expire. There is a solid argument in favour of operating a network which is driven by usage rather than "what we've always done".

@Citistar

I don't suppose its possible to conunjer up a Chew Valley to Trowbridge service using bits of the 752, 754 and 185 six days a week could you? It'd give the Chew Valley some service to a County Town in a neighbouring county, just not one where Wrecked Every Choice Available has overall influence.

Good acronym, i'd been using Worst of Everything Cobbled Altogether.

To be honest, there is a one vehicle package of services to be made in the Chew Valley which would address 90% of existing passenger requirements. It wouldn't need to be expensive to run if tendered correctly. If it could be dovetailed around a school service to Chew Valley School (or another local comp), it would be a good value day of work. Sadly, this approach doesn't fit the cookie-cutter model that the highly qualified graduates at WECA are using, so it cannot happen.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't suppose its possible to conunjer up a Chew Valley to Trowbridge service using bits of the 752, 754 and 185 six days a week could you? It'd give the Chew Valley some service to a County Town in a neighbouring county, just not one where Wrecked Every Choice Available has overall influence.

Why would anyone want to travel from the Chew Valley, or indeed the Somer Valley, to go to Trowbridge?

I disagree with this. The existing model has been challenged by substantial increases in operating costs have been placed upon operators of all services by government legislation. At the same time, no government of any colour in the past 25 years has committed to a financial package which encourages any kind of stability within the industry. We keep getting bursts of cash over two or three years (at most) which are of no benefit once they expire. There is a solid argument in favour of operating a network which is driven by usage rather than "what we've always done".

Totally agree.

The Labour government introduced ENCTS which was just about funded and the driver CPC. Successive governments then reduced down the amount of funding for ENCTS and tenders, reduced the fuel duty rebate by half and called it the Bus Service Operators Grant, and also introduced a slew of other legislation regarding emissions etc. In Bristol and Bath, operators must have emissions-compliant vehicles so a 2009 Solo must be retrofitted with the appropriate technology but a private car driver can literally drive a 1989 Ford Mondeo and NOT have any sanction because the authorities look at the emissions per vehicle and not per capita!

The Hunger Games approach to giving out meagre funds (and getting column inches) does nothing to encourage long term stability through funding.

To be honest, there is a one vehicle package of services to be made in the Chew Valley which would address 90% of existing passenger requirements. It wouldn't need to be expensive to run if tendered correctly. If it could be dovetailed around a school service to Chew Valley School (or another local comp), it would be a good value day of work. Sadly, this approach doesn't fit the cookie-cutter model that the highly qualified graduates at WECA are using, so it cannot happen.

One Solo running around the Chew Valley and then running into Hengrove Park (and built around Chew Stoke schools) would be sensible enough. It's how Wiltshire would do it.