Brighton and Hove Council move to scrap 12 bus routes despite opposition (From The Argus)

Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

agree, what a bloke

If those objecting to these cuts want to save the routes they need to come up with better arguments than the entirely predictable statements given here.

The Conservatives protesting against cuts? I thought they were all for them and certainly had never seen them as champions of the bus service.

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Your not allowed to comment on Traveller stories.
Excellent bloke, if he stood for election he would walk it....

Good news on the Bus cuts as well.

I cant believe the 27 service is being scrapped its the Park & Ride
service and well used

Note its only certain trips on the 27/26 etc. i thought the 52 was being cut short. And who wants to go to asda on a wet winter sunday evening when its shut?

It simple economics, if more of these pensioner/teenagers used the bus then it would be "profitable" and not need funding.

How can 100s use the 96 everyday as implied. 74 kids each way more like

SicklySeagull wrote:
I cant believe the 27 service is being scrapped its the Park & Ride
service and well used

Well used routes don't need subsidies
Bye Bye 27

I think this is an awful plan i now know why i did'nt vote for the green party what with the hike on parking costs and now this there soon won't be anything left of things that matter to young and elderly people in the city!!!

since all the old gits have got all the free bus passes its put so much pressure on its business. the old gits have made it so uncomfortable to get on a bus and bully and intimade u making u prefer to walk

I don't understand. The council are "investing" umpteen million in the i-pie in the sky scam, but are cutting services to save money. If The Argus was a real paper, with proper journalists, rather than Twitter watchers and PR "repeaters", they would be looking into this, and asking questions. Why is this scandalous waste of money being allowed? Who's benefitting from it? What's in it for the "West Pier Trust"?

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Agreed. Strange how the press always kick off when they have their freedom of speech curtained but when the public can't comment on traveller stories then censorship is fine. I'm sure the editor or Sarah Brooker won't have the guts to comment ( in fact they'll probably remove these posts ) but they have to accept it's a two way process. I'd suggest posting our comments about the traveller story on every Argus website story but they will probably close down comments in a sulky six year old way like they did about the Argus redundancy comments. A CHALLENGE to the Editor and Sarah - WHY CAN'T WE COMMENT ON TRAVELLER STORIES ?????

Fight Back wrote:

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Agreed. Strange how the press always kick off when they have their freedom of speech curtained but when the public can't comment on traveller stories then censorship is fine. I'm sure the editor or Sarah Brooker won't have the guts to comment ( in fact they'll probably remove these posts ) but they have to accept it's a two way process. I'd suggest posting our comments about the traveller story on every Argus website story but they will probably close down comments in a sulky six year old way like they did about the Argus redundancy comments. A CHALLENGE to the Editor and Sarah - WHY CAN'T WE COMMENT ON TRAVELLER STORIES ?????

There is another story tonight about the provision of an official site for travellers, and in the story it invites feedback from the public...but STILL we cannot make our own comments! Please Argus explain why our democratic right to free speech is not extended to stories you consider 'delicate' to our lovely council's ears?

I used to work for b&h and sometimes especially the 57 you could do a full trip and not collect a soul also the 28 was another route. But is there really any need for 14 and 12 as they are minutes apart I counted 5 going towards marina from Brighton and surly the 7s and 1s don't require such a frequent service the cities roads are becoming a disc race with the amount of vehicles on it I suppose that will be another excuse for roger to put the fares up wear and tear of the vehicles

ray ellerton wrote:

Fight Back wrote:

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Agreed. Strange how the press always kick off when they have their freedom of speech curtained but when the public can't comment on traveller stories then censorship is fine. I'm sure the editor or Sarah Brooker won't have the guts to comment ( in fact they'll probably remove these posts ) but they have to accept it's a two way process. I'd suggest posting our comments about the traveller story on every Argus website story but they will probably close down comments in a sulky six year old way like they did about the Argus redundancy comments. A CHALLENGE to the Editor and Sarah - WHY CAN'T WE COMMENT ON TRAVELLER STORIES ?????

There is another story tonight about the provision of an official site for travellers, and in the story it invites feedback from the public...but STILL we cannot make our own comments! Please Argus explain why our democratic right to free speech is not extended to stories you consider 'delicate' to our lovely council's ears?

Absolutely. If they want to curtain free speech then explain why rather than be the "overseer" and not explain themselves. Strangely every time I mention SOUTHAMPTON then Sarah comes on here to defend the paper.

Good riddens to these bus services! The old biddy's will have to make do with clogging up the buses Monday - Saturday. No more pointless journey's for them on a Sunday. The cost to the taxpayer for the millions of free passes must be huge! "prisoners in their own homes" - What did they do before free passes??

Well done greens!! Now there will be many more cars on the school run to blatch/hove park now you have scrapped the 96..oh but youve saved 230,000 so you can build another pointless cycle lane.Roll on when the greens are out....

ray ellerton wrote:

Fight Back wrote:

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Agreed. Strange how the press always kick off when they have their freedom of speech curtained but when the public can't comment on traveller stories then censorship is fine. I'm sure the editor or Sarah Brooker won't have the guts to comment ( in fact they'll probably remove these posts ) but they have to accept it's a two way process. I'd suggest posting our comments about the traveller story on every Argus website story but they will probably close down comments in a sulky six year old way like they did about the Argus redundancy comments. A CHALLENGE to the Editor and Sarah - WHY CAN'T WE COMMENT ON TRAVELLER STORIES ?????

There is another story tonight about the provision of an official site for travellers, and in the story it invites feedback from the public...but STILL we cannot make our own comments! Please Argus explain why our democratic right to free speech is not extended to stories you consider 'delicate' to our lovely council's ears?

Set up your own website - then you can comment as much as you like on whatever you like!

As this is the Argus's site, we have to play by their rules or not at all, however undemocratic you may think it is.

Thanks, Jason Kitekat for not caring about children and vulnerable people. Hope you are very proud of yourself.

NickBrt wrote:
Thanks, Jason Kitekat for not caring about children and vulnerable people. Hope you are very proud of yourself.

I think you should take a look at some of the cuts the current Tory Government are imposing on the vulnerable. Bus route cuts are the least of them but somehow the local Tories find the time to demonstrate against them - something I find laughable.

I'm against any cuts in public transport that people depend on or discourage the use of cars but I'm dead against the other far more substantial Tory cuts and austerity being piled upon us all.

Maybe if they hadn't agreed to lend £14m to the ludicrous i360 there would be enough money to keep these services going

It seems to me that the only thing the Greens actually promote are cycle lanes, demonstrations by loony groups, increased parking charges and travellers. All these things cost money to the residents of Brighton, for naff all benefits. When I was growing up, the word green was used to describe someone who was naive......... seems some things don't change.

Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Morpheus wrote:
If those objecting to these cuts want to save the routes they need to come up with better arguments than the entirely predictable statements given here.

Just because the statements are 'predictable' doesn't make them any less accurate. Perhaps you'd like to come up with a reason why a Green council are encouraging car use, especially those parents who will now add to the infamous Brighton school runs. (Other than of course the predicable - "it's to encourage walking" reason).

HJarrs wrote:
Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Well, The 96 runs once a day in each direction as it's a school run. I believe they were looking at the 74 which also runs once. That is a duplicate route with the 75, one goes through Coldean and the other is fast to Patcham High School from Coldean Lane. As far as a replacement for the 96 goes, maybe Roger will divert a 5 via Westdene, (a 5C perhaps?).

It is the only bus which goes through Tongdean Lane bridge, which usually results in a few interesting facial expressions from oncoming motorists who don't expect to see a double decker coming towards them on that particular road, nor do they expect it to fit through the bridge.

Hove Actually wrote:

still waiting wrote: Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

Your not allowed to comment on Traveller stories. Excellent bloke, if he stood for election he would walk it....

Agreed.

Possibly could set up a blog on this site that will allow such commentary?

Though I imagine it would be rejected by the Argus' "censors".

I know what we'll do...we'll get a load of Tory Cllrs to be photographed in front of Labour Party Banners

HJarrs is spot on - what do people expect when Council Tax is frozen? You can't have the same level of services for less money which is effectively what a freeze is.......all those who voted against the rise are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves now for being so short-sighted and trying to win the popular vote. Remember it was the Greens who wanted a slight increase and they said at the time that services would be cut if Council Tax wasn't increased! Wake up people you can't have it both ways - if you want services you have got to pay for them and if you don't want to pay then expect cuts, and blame the govt not the Greens.

well good aye so all the kids that go to blatch or hove park have to endure a tedious bus journey half7 in the morning from maybe patcham or westdene to get to school for 8.25 and then the same going home so extra 2hrs on there journey typical of this country dont spend money on the right stuff

Nikski, please read the Argus story earlier in the week in which the Greens stated that they had found £4 million surplus.
Therefore why the cuts? Why the need to ask for the increase in council tax and more importantly, if they are short of cash why are the council spending money on a new bus lane on the Lewes Road.
Perhaps it is because the bus company has bought a new depot in Crowhurst Road and the council knows this and is creating a corridor for the buses to get to the new depot.
Come on Argus, report this news.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Nikski, please read the Argus story earlier in the week in which the Greens stated that they had found £4 million surplus.
Therefore why the cuts? Why the need to ask for the increase in council tax and more importantly, if they are short of cash why are the council spending money on a new bus lane on the Lewes Road.
Perhaps it is because the bus company has bought a new depot in Crowhurst Road and the council knows this and is creating a corridor for the buses to get to the new depot.
Come on Argus, report this news.

The latest on the Lewes Road consultation: http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/9761088.4
_000_give_views_on_f
uture_of_busy_Bright
on_road/

The Crowhurst Road depot: http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/9739844.B
righton_and_Hove_Bus
_Company_to_create_h
undreds_of_jobs_in_n
ew_move/

Thanks for the quick response Sarah.
Perhaps there is a correlation between the location of a new bus depot in Hollingbury and the plan for a bus lane on the Lewes Road to reach it.
Why is this council proposing to spend money on a route which has a cycle lane, doesn't need a bus lane for a monopoly company.

caeos wrote:
Note its only certain trips on the 27/26 etc. i thought the 52 was being cut short. And who wants to go to asda on a wet winter sunday evening when its shut?

It simple economics, if more of these pensioner/teenagers used the bus then it would be "profitable" and not need funding.

How can 100s use the 96 everyday as implied. 74 kids each way more like

No the 52 is a very important route in woodingdean as you have workers using it to get to work, school children going to school, and a comunity using it fir their own reasons. I use the route and I know that if it was cancelled it would be unfair to everyone.

ghost bus driver wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Well, The 96 runs once a day in each direction as it's a school run. I believe they were looking at the 74 which also runs once. That is a duplicate route with the 75, one goes through Coldean and the other is fast to Patcham High School from Coldean Lane. As far as a replacement for the 96 goes, maybe Roger will divert a 5 via Westdene, (a 5C perhaps?).

It is the only bus which goes through Tongdean Lane bridge, which usually results in a few interesting facial expressions from oncoming motorists who don't expect to see a double decker coming towards them on that particular road, nor do they expect it to fit through the bridge.

I would just like to make clear that although the 74 may follow a duplicate route to the 75, both buses are always jammed pack with standing room only. And before people start commenting kids should go to their local school, Patcham is the catchment school for Coldean. The alternative is two buses with a very lengthy wait for the unreliable 24 service. If BHCC and Brighton Buses insist on cutting this service maybe they could consider insisting that the 5B makes a loop into Coldean, which would bring in a great deal of revenue as there is no other service linking Coldean with Patcham, and would be far more beneficial than a queue of 5B's waiting outside Asda which happens currently.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Nikski, please read the Argus story earlier in the week in which the Greens stated that they had found £4 million surplus.
Therefore why the cuts? Why the need to ask for the increase in council tax and more importantly, if they are short of cash why are the council spending money on a new bus lane on the Lewes Road.
Perhaps it is because the bus company has bought a new depot in Crowhurst Road and the council knows this and is creating a corridor for the buses to get to the new depot.
Come on Argus, report this news.

nope. wrong. capacity full. no conspiracy.

Explain more D5?

Kat2675 wrote:

ghost bus driver wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Well, The 96 runs once a day in each direction as it's a school run. I believe they were looking at the 74 which also runs once. That is a duplicate route with the 75, one goes through Coldean and the other is fast to Patcham High School from Coldean Lane. As far as a replacement for the 96 goes, maybe Roger will divert a 5 via Westdene, (a 5C perhaps?).

It is the only bus which goes through Tongdean Lane bridge, which usually results in a few interesting facial expressions from oncoming motorists who don't expect to see a double decker coming towards them on that particular road, nor do they expect it to fit through the bridge.

I would just like to make clear that although the 74 may follow a duplicate route to the 75, both buses are always jammed pack with standing room only. And before people start commenting kids should go to their local school, Patcham is the catchment school for Coldean. The alternative is two buses with a very lengthy wait for the unreliable 24 service. If BHCC and Brighton Buses insist on cutting this service maybe they could consider insisting that the 5B makes a loop into Coldean, which would bring in a great deal of revenue as there is no other service linking Coldean with Patcham, and would be far more beneficial than a queue of 5B's waiting outside Asda which happens currently.

I know, I have driven both.

Kat2675 wrote:

ghost bus driver wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Well, The 96 runs once a day in each direction as it's a school run. I believe they were looking at the 74 which also runs once. That is a duplicate route with the 75, one goes through Coldean and the other is fast to Patcham High School from Coldean Lane. As far as a replacement for the 96 goes, maybe Roger will divert a 5 via Westdene, (a 5C perhaps?).

It is the only bus which goes through Tongdean Lane bridge, which usually results in a few interesting facial expressions from oncoming motorists who don't expect to see a double decker coming towards them on that particular road, nor do they expect it to fit through the bridge.

I would just like to make clear that although the 74 may follow a duplicate route to the 75, both buses are always jammed pack with standing room only. And before people start commenting kids should go to their local school, Patcham is the catchment school for Coldean. The alternative is two buses with a very lengthy wait for the unreliable 24 service. If BHCC and Brighton Buses insist on cutting this service maybe they could consider insisting that the 5B makes a loop into Coldean, which would bring in a great deal of revenue as there is no other service linking Coldean with Patcham, and would be far more beneficial than a queue of 5B's waiting outside Asda which happens currently.

The 5B already does when it leaves the University, it goes round Coldean, then loops round to the regular 5B stop at Hollingbury. Half hourly at peak hours.

ghost bus driver wrote:

Kat2675 wrote:

ghost bus driver wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Labour and the Conservatives joined together to prevent a modest council tax rise and now have the cheek to complain about the cuts that their populist decision (supported by the Argus) has caused.

What is not made clear above is; are the services being totally cut, cut back in hours, or route curtailed at times nor is there mention of passenger numbers using the routes? Also, where is the comparison with proposed bus service slash and burn in East and West Sussex?

Well, The 96 runs once a day in each direction as it's a school run. I believe they were looking at the 74 which also runs once. That is a duplicate route with the 75, one goes through Coldean and the other is fast to Patcham High School from Coldean Lane. As far as a replacement for the 96 goes, maybe Roger will divert a 5 via Westdene, (a 5C perhaps?).

It is the only bus which goes through Tongdean Lane bridge, which usually results in a few interesting facial expressions from oncoming motorists who don't expect to see a double decker coming towards them on that particular road, nor do they expect it to fit through the bridge.

I would just like to make clear that although the 74 may follow a duplicate route to the 75, both buses are always jammed pack with standing room only. And before people start commenting kids should go to their local school, Patcham is the catchment school for Coldean. The alternative is two buses with a very lengthy wait for the unreliable 24 service. If BHCC and Brighton Buses insist on cutting this service maybe they could consider insisting that the 5B makes a loop into Coldean, which would bring in a great deal of revenue as there is no other service linking Coldean with Patcham, and would be far more beneficial than a queue of 5B's waiting outside Asda which happens currently.

The 5B already does when it leaves the University, it goes round Coldean, then loops round to the regular 5B stop at Hollingbury. Half hourly at peak hours.

The 5B only loops round Coldean five times a day, 8:57, 9:17, 4:48, 5:35 and 6:25. None of these times benefit the kids in any way as they have to be at school, in lesson, at 8:25 and finish at 2:50. It just makes practical and financial sense for the 5B service to be extended as people are always waiting at Asda, or in Coldean, for the elusive 24/26 to appear!

Perhaps the cuts in these services are part of the plan for the new bus depot on the Argus site in hollingbury and a wider re vamp of services across the city?
D5 have you any more info?
If buses are no longer at a depot in Hove can we assume they will terminate at hollingbury via the roads up through Preston Park and via Lewes Road and Coldean Lane to Hollingbury and therefore perhaps new services will be in place.
Or will we just have dozens of not in service buses trundling along lewes road and up coldean lane?

Iam a Brighton bus driver and know for a fact that services 74,75 and 96 are always busy with school children. How are these children going to get to school? Perhaps our 'green' politicians just assume that their parents will give them a lift. The real question is why Rodger French is allowed to charge the council so much money to run these services. Brighton and Hove bus company have been allowed to run a very profitable monopoly of buses in our town for years. They should be compelled to help these children to get to school, the go-ahead group who own the bus company can certainly afford it, just look at how well their shares perform.

Iam a Brighton bus driver and know for a fact that services 74,75 and 96 are always busy with school children. How are these children going to get to school? Perhaps our 'green' politicians just assume that their parents will give them a lift. The real question is why Rodger French is allowed to charge the council so much money to run these services. Brighton and Hove bus company have been allowed to run a very profitable monopoly of buses in our town for years. They should be compelled to help these children to get to school, the go-ahead group who own the bus company can certainly afford it, just look at how well their shares perform.

davetrident wrote:
Iam a Brighton bus driver and know for a fact that services 74,75 and 96 are always busy with school children. How are these children going to get to school? Perhaps our 'green' politicians just assume that their parents will give them a lift. The real question is why Rodger French is allowed to charge the council so much money to run these services. Brighton and Hove bus company have been allowed to run a very profitable monopoly of buses in our town for years. They should be compelled to help these children to get to school, the go-ahead group who own the bus company can certainly afford it, just look at how well their shares perform.

Because Roger French has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders, and not the people of the towns he holds to ransom. Maybe the Big Yellow Bus company can step in - they have lower operating costs and fit more in with the green agenda.

thewhitehawker says...
8:07pm Thu 14 Jun 12

since all the old gits have got all the free bus passes its put so much pressure on its business. the old gits have made it so uncomfortable to get on a bus and bully and intimade u making u prefer to walk”
The bus pass can't be used before 9:30 am so children are then in school and most working people have started work, maybe you don't fall into either category (although to judge by your poor grasp of English I would suggest you take a course in English) and anyway, walking is good exercise

still waiting wrote:
Nothing to do with buses, but I just wondered why no comment was permitted on the Dave Dawson story (previous to this one). After all, it's not sub judice is it? Censorship surely comes in many forms.

The traffic in Brighton is terrible - tailbacks and jams are becoming a 'feature' of the city and ruining our reputation. The councils drive to reduce key roads supporting day trippers to single lane traffic, in a swap for cycle lanes, only makes the situation more accute. Town planning has really gone out the window in Brighton. One of the answers is a reduction of bus services into the center. There are too many buses all using the western road route and many overlapping. These need to be reduced and buses re-routed to the seafront with western road pedestrianised. A tram running from palmeira to churchill sq and then down north st to the old steine would really improve the City.Manchester city centre has done something similar to great effect. But before we get anywhere near that vision I think everyone agrees there are too many buses and too many overlapping routes - just take a spot in churchill sq or north st for an hour. That's not to say the council should be stopping local school routes that bypass the centre. If they want to save money they should look to reduce their own administrative running costs by lowering their wages. That's what a private company would do - its common sense. If you pass on cuts to the end taxpayer its another reason to add to the growing list of reasons not to vote for the Greens next time round. And they were one of the only councils in England that had the nerve to try and increase council tax. Just shows how out of touch they are with the current economic environment and financial pain the average person is experiencing.

The traffic in Brighton is terrible - tailbacks and jams are becoming a 'feature' of the city and ruining our reputation. The councils drive to reduce key roads supporting day trippers to single lane traffic, in a swap for cycle lanes, only makes the situation more accute. Town planning has really gone out the window in Brighton. One of the answers is a reduction of bus services into the center. There are too many buses all using the western road route and many overlapping. These need to be reduced and buses re-routed to the seafront with western road pedestrianised. A tram running from palmeira to churchill sq and then down north st to the old steine would really improve the City.Manchester city centre has done something similar to great effect. But before we get anywhere near that vision I think everyone agrees there are too many buses and too many overlapping routes - just take a spot in churchill sq or north st for an hour. That's not to say the council should be stopping local school routes that bypass the centre. If they want to save money they should look to reduce their own administrative running costs by lowering their wages. That's what a private company would do - its common sense. If you pass on cuts to the end taxpayer its another reason to add to the growing list of reasons not to vote for the Greens next time round. And they were one of the only councils in England that had the nerve to try and increase council tax. Just shows how out of touch they are with the current economic environment and financial pain the average person is experiencing.

I never understand that when the routes are not busy why little round around buses are never used. I often see buses with one or two people on board, so why don't they do a survey to find out when these little run a rounds could be more useful. Common sense yeh.

i live on one of these bus routes they are scrapping and wrote to CCL Kitkat: here is his reply: This year the council’s bus contracts expire, these are for supporting routes that would otherwise by unprofitable. Under the laws brought in by the Thatcher government no bus company can legally run a service which is unprofitable. So unless the council pays for it, the service will not be there. The council does not control the routes, these are agreed by the government appointed Transport Commissioner, based in Eastbourne.

When bus operators returned their tender documents to the council, their costs were between 10 and 35% higher than previously just to operate the existing subsidised services. This was due to increased fuel costs and the Government reducing its direct support to bus companies by 20%, mainly through discounted fuel subsidy. In my view it is indefensible that the government protects airlines from paying any fuel duty whatsoever whilst increasing the duty bus firms have to pay at a time when hard-pressed residents depend on affordable buses.

The government is also directly cutting council funding every year from 2010 to at least 2015 if not beyond. As a result all parties voted for a budget which included reducing the bus subsidy budget by £100,000. This principal of reducing the bus subsidy was consulted on for almost three months as part of the budget-setting process from December 2011 to February 2012.

The proposals we are seeking to approve at Policy & Resources committee combine the lowest cost bus operator proposals with the bus services which have the lowest passenger usage and community impact. We recognise they will still impact people but we have little choice but to make these reductions. We already use all of the surplus from parking income to support concessionary bus passes and bus service subsidies.

All subsidised services were ranked according to their impact on schools, communities and employment along with their level of usage. This was the first time the services had been ranked in such a way to minimise the harm from budget cuts. . We also interviewed 552 users of subsidised services to help inform our decisions. Unfortunately due to the nature and timing of EU procurement processes we could not consult on individual routes. To meet the notice period required from the Transport Commissioner ahead of the new school year, we need to decide the issue this month. Because of this timing I have allowed petitions, public questions and deputations even if submitted after the deadline.

We did ask the current contractor for a six month delay in renewing the contracts to give us more time to review the options, particularly in relation to school transport. However they declined. Furthermore no other companies submitted bids for the school bus routes. We sadly cannot financially support bus contracts where the cost to run some services would have exceeded £1,000 per child per year under the new quotes received. Outside of this bus contract procurement decision we will review school transport and look at other, smaller scale, options.

It is worth noting that others councils are reducing, in financial terms, their bus subsidies by 7 to 10 times more than we are. Some areas are removing services for up to 47 schools in one go and others are almost completely removing subsidised routes altogether.

I’m very sorry that we have to do this reduction, it’s not my wish that services are reduced for the city. However we cannot completely overcome the rising fuel costs, reduced government subsidy and the council’s reduced funding. We have sought to reduce the harm, which is why less than 0.33% of passenger journeys will be affected by the changes, and the subsidized network accounts for less than 2% of the city’s total bus network. I am saddened that we need to do this, but this is an inevitable consequence of government policies, which are damaging public services and pitting communities against each other over declining resources.

What laws by Thatcher? And how much longer are the authorities going to blame all that they will not address on the woman ... she's been out of power for 22 years!

We all know there's only so much money in the kitty. It's not as if government can be expected to conjour up multi-millions at the drop of a hat for anything other than chucking at banks when 30-fold fractional lending isn't sufficient to pay bonuses for a job incompetantly done by idiots who have the legal right to produce money from thin air, and still can't keep their money-go-round gravy train on the tracks.

That said, I forsee the mother of all storms when, with a school bus service gone, the first child is seriously injured, or worse, in a road accident, or attacked walking home on a dark winter's evening. A that point, you can bet that a proper debate on provision of school transport will be held. It will be too late for one or more grieving families, but that's the way this country works across the board. Until then, inane political points scoring and pet bees in bonnets will form the nucleus of debate.

The Transport Act (1985) forbids commercial companies to subsidise loss making routes from the profitable ones. I'm pretty sure the same condition doesn't apply to subsidised services, some of which , with minor changes, could have the potential to actually make money which could then be redirected to unremunerative but essential services such as the 96 while some more sensible funding structure is found, with that route then not being cherry picked commercially for at least five years to give the necessary breathing space to find a long term solution.

The comments about trams I have sympathy with, though in practise, while a few busy corridors like those covered by some 'Metro' routes could work, it would still leave many destinations 'off the grid' where the cost of trams is simply totally uneconomic, and that's before you hit the minor snag of diversions due to roadworks.

Electric vehicles would be more desireable, the question is delivering the juice. A hybrid battery/trolleybus system would be the most cost effective, with wires (which aren't overly obtrusive in modern designs) for the principal arteries with the vehicle then switching to battery power for access to route terminals or diversions and for overtaking. With the high capital cost of such a scheme, this would only be economic if the power supply financing issues are properly addressed.

The callous comments about bus passes for those who've worked a lifetime for a pittance of a pension are the mindless yapping of vile narrow minded imbiciles without the wit to realise that they'll be old themselves some day, and that often, no ammount of good budgeting and responble planning for the future stops government actions over the years leaving people impoverished, and surviving on state aid, through no fault of their own. How long do these purblind fools think the big money men would allow the working population to reap the financial harvest if every pensioner dropped dead tomorrow? To them I say "Wake Up!"

mimseycal wrote:
What laws by Thatcher? And how much longer are the authorities going to blame all that they will not address on the woman ... she's been out of power for 22 years!

Thatcher de-regulated bus services in 1985. The laws regarding bus services have not been altered since then.

Every council since then has (rightly) pointed to this moment as the start of the issue - and the reason for successive councils' lack of control.

The hard truth is - and there is not getting away from this - this is her doing. Her not being in power since 1990 is irrelevant.

The council would love to run a profit-making bus services, but... they can't. They're not allowed to.

The thing is ... The council does not need to run the bus service. We have a perfectly adequate bus service provider. What we can expect is that certain routes are operated despite the fact that they are not all that profitable. Call it a loss-leader if you like and discount it against your taxable revenue.

mimseycal wrote:
The thing is ... The council does not need to run the bus service. We have a perfectly adequate bus service provider. What we can expect is that certain routes are operated despite the fact that they are not all that profitable. Call it a loss-leader if you like and discount it against your taxable revenue.

The precise reason local authorities do need to run certain services is that where there is an indentified social need for it, and no commercial interest in running it, provision can be made.

Loss-leading services are prohibited under the Transport Act 1985, as has been mentioned, the rationale for which was to prevent 'fly-by-night' pirate bus companies (with knackered, dangerous and dirty buses which come nowhere near acceptable standards) cherry picking from responsible operators. How effective these provisons have proved in practise is another matter!

What you suggest would be sensible, and could probably be made to work. (might work for dentistry too, come to that). As the law stands, it IS illegal nonetheless. If you wish to see that changed, good luck with trying to talk sense into our legislators!!

mimseycal wrote:
What laws by Thatcher? And how much longer are the authorities going to blame all that they will not address on the woman ... she's been out of power for 22 years!

The Transport Act 1985

http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/1985
/67

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps the cuts in these services are part of the plan for the new bus depot on the Argus site in hollingbury and a wider re vamp of services across the city?
D5 have you any more info?
If buses are no longer at a depot in Hove can we assume they will terminate at hollingbury via the roads up through Preston Park and via Lewes Road and Coldean Lane to Hollingbury and therefore perhaps new services will be in place.
Or will we just have dozens of not in service buses trundling along lewes road and up coldean lane?

your conspiracies must keep you awake at night maxwell. are you and ex employee by any chance?

all 3 current garages are full. obviously using the outstations is uneconomical -hollingbury will allow larger pits for bendy buses for instance. If you are in the industry you understand. if not it can seem like it's just bloated fat cats splurging money everywhere. It isnt. plus -imagine if the company was run by the council -council tax payers would pay millions for all the new buses and facilities.
Like i have said, if you are not in the industry it is easy to have a pop.

So it is the children and older people who are most affected by these routes being scrapped. Why should we who are not either be concerned?? because it might affect us at some point. The council subsidise these routes but how much does Roger French subsidise the council for the additional amount that we the council tax payers have to find to fund the bus lanes that have or are being propsed to make his bus company and his shareholders happy. I think that in actual fact Roger French should be paying the council for all the road improvements that are made to aid the bus routes. Which of course doesnt include the fact that every bus seems to terminate at churchill square rather than being of use and going across the city!!!!!!

Ridiculous. The company is a joke already due to the extortionate prices they charge, now they are scrapping the 27 which provides a well needed link for Dyke Road/Westdene/Withde
an residents...trying to save costs? How about you look at the no.7, there seems to be 5/6 an hour!

Scrapping the 27 ? ..... or cutting the 27s running after 6pm on Sundays in the winter.

kazza1964 wrote:
well good aye so all the kids that go to blatch or hove park have to endure a tedious bus journey half7 in the morning from maybe patcham or westdene to get to school for 8.25 and then the same going home so extra 2hrs on there journey typical of this country dont spend money on the right stuff

Tedious? What nonesense and the distance you mention could be walked in the time the bus takes.
It'd do them good and help keep buses, which means congestion, off the roads.

D5 wrote:
all 3 current garages are full. obviously using the outstations is uneconomical -hollingbury will allow larger pits for bendy buses for instance. If you are in the industry you understand. if not it can seem like it's just bloated fat cats splurging money everywhere. It isnt. plus -imagine if the company was run by the council -council tax payers would pay millions for all the new buses and facilities.
Like i have said, if you are not in the industry it is easy to have a pop.

I do work in the industry and the move to Hollingbury makes no sense to me. I agree a new bus garage is needed, but this doesn't mean it makes sense to close down Conway street. Having a garage in the centre of Hove is very useful in terms of crew changes, breakdowns and any number of problems. Prior to privatisation in 1985 there was a perfectly good garage on the Lewes road in Moulsecoombe. This was sold to make a profit for the shareholders, and now the same thing is going to happen to the Conway street garage. It's the same old story, short term profits come before providing a decent, sustainable bus service. I bet property developers are already rubbing their hands together, gleefully thinking about the profits they can make on overpriced flats for commuters. I would love to know how many 'backhanders' will be paid to smooth this deal through and I guarantee the bus service in Hove will not benefit.

Looking forward to all the buses doing 2 miles and hour up Coldean Lane and colliding with the Asda traffic.

The transport policy in this own is borderline lunacy; make it as difficult as possible for car users to access the city by introducing "traffic calming" - sorry cycle lanes everywhere to snarl the place up and hike the parking charges. Then cut the bus service and make the one that is there too expensive to use. What next, turn a major arterial like Lewes Road into a buss and cycle lane?........oh hang on......

the 96 wouldn't need to run if people in patcham sent their kids to their local school, instead of opting for blatch and hove park. again, why is there the need for the 74/75 to patcham, when there is a school nearer to moulescoomb. the councils school entrance policy is to blame for a lot of this in the first place. children should go to their local school, not be bussed all over the city. if you live in patcham, then you go to patcham high, westdene should be split between patcham, blatch and hove park, depending on which part you live in. the policy is and always has been flawed, and this is showing it up for what it is!

NickA18 wrote:
Ridiculous. The company is a joke already due to the extortionate prices they charge, now they are scrapping the 27 which provides a well needed link for Dyke Road/Westdene/Withde

an residents...trying to save costs? How about you look at the no.7, there seems to be 5/6 an hour!

there are many more 7's, because it is a more popular route. the 27, and many others, are under used, especially evenings and sundays. i would suggest it will not be withdrawn altogether, but maybe reduced to hourly. it currently runs every 15 mins during the day, to cater for P&R customers at the withdean stadium. i used to live in Glen Rise, and invariably the buses ran around only half full, because many have cars in the area. the residents pushed for ages to get it upped from every half hour, which the company did, and it is still underused!!

The sooner the greens are voted out of power the better

This is lunacy.

Scrapping the buses will put more cars on the road, meanwhile they keep money for their ridiculous one planet living fund.

There should be a sign as you enter any bus.

'Have you had the decency to wash/shower and clean your clothes - if not do not enter here'

Enforce that and you'd have an awful lot more pax on them.

I do believe Stagecoach have a policy similar to that. There is a sign up in their garage as to what to do if a somewhat....ripe.... passenger gets on.

caeos wrote:
Note its only certain trips on the 27/26 etc. i thought the 52 was being cut short. And who wants to go to asda on a wet winter sunday evening when its shut?

It simple economics, if more of these pensioner/teenagers used the bus then it would be "profitable" and not need funding.

How can 100s use the 96 everyday as implied. 74 kids each way more like

who wants to go to asda on a wet winter sunday evening when its shut?

Heh heh...nice quiet car park, lots of dark corners....

The children of Hollingbury have all been told they must attend Patcham or Falmer. The only way fron the top of Hollingbury to Patcham is on the 56 bus. So now we have the situation where we are being told to send our children to schools that are NOT local and that now there will not be a public bus service to take them there. Well done- Obviously the left hand has no idea at all what the rigt is doing! Do the education departments talk AT ALL to the transport companies?