Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > cam.transport > #41555
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | cam.transport |
| Subject | Re: Greater Cambridge Transport |
| Date | 2023-12-31 16:24 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ums4k3$1pfhk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <ummt1s$svun$1@dont-email.me> <hVh*sT-yz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <j6svoidb1nobfidss2n1ujj2utbgengvl7@4ax.com> <gVh*Eeazz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
On 30/12/2023 11:52, Theo wrote: > The County/CPCA could choose to support the P&R services, which is what they > did for the trial. But not sure it would be the best use of funds if nobody > used them. Maybe they should have another trial to see if anything has > changed? > > One awkwardness with the P&R setup is that there's the whole P&R branding > thing with dedicated buses owned by Stagecoach: if they contract Dave's > Coaches instead of Stagecoach to run the evening service they'll need a > second, different, fleet. And at present all the P&R revenue goes to > Stagecoach and 'Dave's' would take almost nothing in ticket sales (many > people would be returning on a ticket sold by Stagecoach earlier in the > day). > > CPCA are exploring legal powers for TfL-style bus franchising where all the > revenue goes to them, they set the timetable and subcontract out running the > buses, where it would then be possible to design a sensible timetable whose > primary goal is to get people from A to B, rather than make money for > Stagecoach. Glad they are aware of the problem. The whole thing about the charging zone (which they dropped) does show a slight disagreement with the mindset of these elected officials and they people they serve. They seem to be spending a lot of money trying to encourage people to use these buses, and discourage people from driving into the city. All they'd need would be one bus running a round robin around each of the P&R sites. It doesn't have to be frequent, just exist. Or maybe I'm wrong - if they did it in the past, and there was no interest, that shows there's no demand. Andy
Back to cam.transport | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Greater Cambridge Transport Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-29 16:44 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2023-12-30 10:13 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Ken <ken@birchanger.com> - 2023-12-30 10:31 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2023-12-30 11:52 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> - 2023-12-30 13:10 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Ken <ken@birchanger.com> - 2023-12-31 11:38 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-31 16:24 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2023-12-31 18:47 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2024-01-01 07:24 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2024-01-01 17:43 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Alan <eternal-september@ourmailbox.org.uk> - 2024-01-01 21:21 +0000
Re: Greater Cambridge Transport Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2024-01-02 08:12 +0000
csiph-web