Proposed East Birmingham and North Solihull Service Changes.

[monkeyjoe]

I know it's not mentioned in the consultation document, but someone in response to that post on my page has claimed that the 38 is being axed. I'm sure something was mentioned here previously regarding the future of the 38, but it may have possibly just been a rumour.

Anyway, I've asked the chap to contact the NX email address to pass on their comments, while there is an opportunity to do so. It wouldn't be the first time another service has been changed despite not being part of the consultation (when the 1 first got extended to Shirley)!

Just noticed the summer 38 timetable is going to be every 1 hr mob to Friday, almost seems pointless keeping it longer term maybe it is going ??

[sonic84]

Thinking about it I believe rerouting the 966 via the business park may be easier than the rerouting of the 900 and if timed with train arrivals would be onto a winner I believe

I agree that it makes more sense to divert the 966 to the business park. I think there would only be enough demand for the business park at peak times to make it worthwhile diverting the 900 that way, which could add a fair bit on time onto each journey, especially exiting the business park during the evening peak rush.

The 97 terminus is only a 5 minute walk away. I would suggest the 97A or 966 would be a better fit for serving the business park, and even then it would be at peak only.

[monkeyjoe]

Write to them and tell them they give an email address

[iansdavies]

i think the proposals are very good the 59 should be extended to chelmsley 56 introduced to cover the 59 in kingshurst the 72 should operate the existing 55a bus route leaving the 55 as a separate service splitting the 966 is a good idea to extending the 15 via the existing 966 route between erdington and chelmsley id leave the 97 as it is but introduce a 97b bluebell drive and 97c chelmsley road and a as airport and leave the nightbus operating 24 hours the 14 operate to pine square only

[GeminiFan1991]

What are loadings on the 49 like ?

I've seen it scarcely so I can't say anything insightful although from whatever I've seen it does tend to have light loadings

[Steve3229vp]

OK then here are MY proposals:

15A/15C withdrawn
NEW 43 City-Sutton via Nechells, Star City, Edrington, Perry Common and Boldmere
REVISED 55 Kingshurst-Fox and Goose (as 56 to Yorks Wood, then as 55A), main 55 route replaced by NEW 95. Traffic congestion and the 55 having to go around the Stechford Lane is the reason for this.
66 Kingstanding-Erdington only.
71 re-routed via Parkfield Estate.
72 Solihull-Chelmsley Wood only.
NEW 92 City-Chelmsley Wood via Bromford (replaces part of 72).
NEW 95 City-Chelmsley Wood, as route 94 to Coleshill Road, then Hodge Hill Road and then as 55.
900E to be extended to Resorts World as 900A, peak hours will serve B'ham Business Park as 900B
966 re-routed via Collector Road to Lanchester Way (Parkfield served by 71)

[Kevin]

Emailed my comments over to them yesterday. I had every intention of making coherent arguments against certain elements of the proposals but it ended up just a jumbled mess of bullet points.

The one thing I really don't understand is the logic that they can propose two completely contradicting things.
1) passengers around East Brum can change at Chelmsley Wood for the bus to the airport, despite previously having a direct service, and yet;
2) passengers from those 5 stops in Cranes Park could get a direct Platinum service into town, despite being so close to the 900 already, taking buses away from the 900 in the process.
It's just ludicrous to me.

And I do worry about how the 15/66 proposal pans out, because at the moment the 66 works (just about)

[Dutsey]

Here was my suggestions which I sent in:

Please review my comments on the above East Birmingham Services Consultation.

55 – I agree with making this a single route and to replace 55A I would prefer option C the 59 route as it gives a link between Chemsley Wood and the Swan Centre in Yardley. 

60 – I like the idea of the 960 to give the passengers of the 60 a quicker service between Cranes Park and the City.

97 – I do not understand the question around the removal of 97A as surely the bad traffic would cause delays with the 97 as well. My gripe on the 97 is you have the 97, 97A and the 97P. I think you should keep the 97A to the Airport and keep 97 going to Helmswood Drive. Instead of having the 14 going to Yorkminister Drive just have a 96 Bus route which goes the same way at the 97 and then goes to Yorkminister Drive. This way no extra buses would be required as they could be interworked.

I like the idea of more buses serving the Birmingham Business Park and feel that this would be a great benefit to the Park. I do think that whatever route is chosen between the 900 / 966 that journeys should be matched with the arrival trains at the International Station and make sure this is well advertised for the journeys to be successful but due to traffic my preference would be the 966.

[Stu]

2) passengers from those 5 stops in Cranes Park could get a direct Platinum service into town, despite being so close to the 900 already, taking buses away from the 900 in the process.

The proposal also includes increasing the frequency of the 900 to every 20 minutes (with short journeys to the airport every other 20mins), so no its not reducing the buses on the 900, but increasing the number of Platinum buses along that corridor.

Tony has already stated in another thread that there will be more Platinum buses along the Coventry Road corridor, regardless of whether the 960 gets the go-ahead or not.

[GeminiFan1991]

The proposal also includes increasing the frequency of the 900 to every 20 minutes (with short journeys to the airport every other 20mins), so no its not reducing the buses on the 900, but increasing the number of Platinum buses along that corridor.

Tony has already stated in another thread that there will be more Platinum buses along the Coventry Road corridor, regardless of whether the 960 gets the go-ahead or not.

That seems like the more sensible logic here, they're not exactly far away from a trip to either B'Ham, Airport or Coventry.

Does the plans mention what upgrade the 58/9 would get to compensate for the 60 assuming it goes ? My opinion is that it should stay as it helps alleviate loads 

[Stu]

That seems like the more sensible logic here, they're not exactly far away from a trip to either B'Ham, Airport or Coventry.

Does the plans mention what upgrade the 58/9 would get to compensate for the 60 assuming it goes ? My opinion is that it should stay as it helps alleviate loads

The proposal states that the 60 would be replaced by extra short journeys on the 58 or 59 to Swan Island only. I suggested to NX that instead of having these additional 58E/59E journeys, which could potentially confuse/upset those passengers that don't look at the destination displays, just run the 60 to Swan Island instead, alongside the Platinum 960 to Cranes Park.

[GeminiFan1991]

The proposal states that the 60 would be replaced by extra short journeys on the 58 or 59 to Swan Island only. I suggested to NX that instead of having these additional 58E/59E journeys, which could potentially confuse/upset those passengers that don't look at the destination displays, just run the 60 to Swan Island instead, alongside the Platinum 960 to Cranes Park.

Are the loadings on the 60 to Cranes Park really that high that its seemingly warranting a Platinum service ? BC stand to gain a load of buses from I can see if the 900 frequency increases, this 960 becomes reality and 58/9 frequency also increases.

[2206]

Are the loadings on the 60 to Cranes Park really that high that its seemingly warranting a Platinum service ? BC stand to gain a load of buses from I can see if the 900 frequency increases, this 960 becomes reality and 58/9 frequency also increases.

and if the 59 is extended to Chelmsley Wood.

[Tony]

The proposal states that the 60 would be replaced by extra short journeys on the 58 or 59 to Swan Island only. I suggested to NX that instead of having these additional 58E/59E journeys, which could potentially confuse/upset those passengers that don't look at the destination displays, just run the 60 to Swan Island instead, alongside the Platinum 960 to Cranes Park.

And confuse the even more passengers who currently catch the  60, get on and don't get home?

[Kevin]

The proposal also includes increasing the frequency of the 900 to every 20 minutes (with short journeys to the airport every other 20mins), so no its not reducing the buses on the 900, but increasing the number of Platinum buses along that corridor.

Technically wrong and right at the same time, didn't really see that bit mentioned but now I've read it properly it only says about airport shorts at peak times, for the most though it WILL be a reduction in frequency

Still, rest of the argument is valid, Cranes Park Passenham just change onto a more frequent express service