South Birmingham Consultation 2017

[PM]

I've had a quick skim through all of the proposals and it has the potential to be every bit as unpopular as the East Birmingham changes. I get the congestion and worsening journey times but the potential loss of direct services from Cofton Hackett / Turves Green, Gospel Lane and Warstock to the city centre seems bizarre.

And lo and behold, it looks like the 29 will be shortened back to Northfield. I predicted that a long time ago - surprised it's taken this long to be honest.

The likely withdrawal of the 27 seems to have no coherent or well thought out replacement. The 27 worked better when it went Kings Heath to West Heath and before the constant extensions which, not surprisingly, have made it more unreliable. This was a popular and well used route when I lived in Stirchley, not least with Dame Elizabeth Cadbury school kids and Cadbury workers. I hope the many connections it provides aren't lost.

Agreed on the 27, Kings Heath to West Heath seemed to work rather well, although saying that the current route has been in place since October 2009 review, when 19 route was created and awarded to Diamond, taking in the Pamela and South Rd portions of the route amongst others, 20 was also created to serve Swarthmore Rd but didn't last very long at all!

[Lukeee]

A taxi is cleaner and is way faster

A rolls Royce is Cleaner and way faster than a taxi, doesn't always make it a viable alternative however

[cardew]

Regardless of the contents of these changes, if it is just a survey on the NX website linked from twitter and facebook - giving, incidentally a one month consultation at a time when many passengers will be on holiday - then it does not seem sufficient to me. Despite what some who work in marketing may believe, not everybody lives their lives on social media.

I hope that these proposals are on all buses and shelters in a printed format - with an address/phone number for views in addition to the on-line survey.  I will look out for such information on shelters on my travels, if there is nothing, in my opinion NX cannot truly say that the public has been consulted

[Kevin]

Agreed that the proposals need to be widely circulated but I have to say kudos to the way the proposals have been laid out, it does give the potential to have a much more localised consultation than previous mass changes and hopefully leafletting around the affected areas or on buses along the affected routes takes place

I can see why certain changes have been proposed, giving everywhere a direct route into the city centre just isn't viable, and honestly to me the suggestions ain't all that terrible, just need some tweaking

- The Northfield to Frankley stretch of the 29/49 and the QE - Northfield stretch of the 48 could easily be one route on it's own. Then the 29 and 48 can be much more logical shorter routes, perhaps even with a much needed increase in frequency to the 48 with the 48A journeys also extended to the QE

- my issue with the proposed routing of a revised 45 is that it leaves the Wychall Lane area with no decent route to anywhere unless the 49 is increased in frequency, and cutting Cofton Hackett off from the Longbridge /Turves Green area seems strange, there should at least be some sort of provision for replacement there, perhaps getting iGo on board and sending the 145 back to Kings Norton. Beyond that the 45 route itself at a high higher frequency does to me seem a decent proposal

- curious what their proposal for the Bournville area is if they're planning on getting rid of the 27, that stretch from Kings Heath to Northfield has always been well patronised from my observations maybe just keep that section as the 27

- In the Stirchley area I would suggest taking the 76 off Warwards Lane and sending it up Umberslade Road giving a better connection to the Stirchley village area for the student population, and the 84 taking over the Raddlebarn Road Road and Warwards Lane section on it's way out towards Kings Norton

- really don't see the need to mess with the 18 and create an 18A when the general idea is to simplify routes

- while I do like the proposal to merge the 2 and 3, as with the Pershore Road it does leave a surprising section of Yardley Wood Road without a service anywhere. I particularly like the second option for the 3 where it runs to Slade Road then through Warstock to the Maypole but perhaps it should stick to a less winding route, leaving that to whatever replaces the 27 in that area

- I like the idea of shortening the 5 and leaving the 6 to pick up the city traffic. I think the 76 in this area should not be complicated by running through the Baldwin area, it's a fairly straight forward route and at the moment it does the job of working with the 6 from Solihull to Hall Green quite well. Having said that it could be altered to run as per the current 31 Solihull to Shirley

- Mixed thoughts about the Gospel Oak area. I wonder of it would make sense to keep the 31 to the city but have it completely avoid Acocks Green and run from Shaftmoor Lane straight onto Olton Boulevard and into Gospel Oak? The 1 still runs into the village and maybe a new local minibus sort of service like the current 96/99 can run instead taking on the job of connecting Acocks Green with Gospel Oak and Hall Green (including the Baldwin area) potentially even as a circular

[Liberator9]

Just had a look through the proposals and on the whole not too bad - as already mentioned the Bournville area and parts of the Yardley Wood area would need another operator (aka Diamond or Igo) to step in to provide a local link to Northfield and Kings Heath respectively.

76 being rerouted away from Robin Hood to Baldwin I don't see as an issue - gives the Baldwin a faster service to Solihull than the 5 and the 76 at times does get stuck in some heavy traffic in the Robin Hood Island vicinity at peak times - particularly Solihull bound. The 76 rerouting to serve Pineapple Road etc. is fine. However, if the 27 is withdrawn the frequency on the 76 needs to step up to every 15 minutes at least to cover the loss. The 84 extension to Northfield makes sense and again, increase the frequency, and could adequately replace the 27 round there.

Wouldn't surprise me either if the 5 switched to YW operation considering the reroute would pass right through the 6 driver changeover point and the 1 maybe being extended requiring additional resources. Scanias made redundant off the 27 could probably be put on the 84/76 and the 5 if it transferred over from AG?

[Kevin]

One interesting thing I've just noticed :
Are NX finally considering running a service just across the Worcestershire border to serve the rest of Rubery with the 49? The proposed map of the area seems to suggest so
Would be interesting because although the area itself is currently within the NWM supported area, nBus tickets aren't valid on the First 144 so regular bus users wouldn't have passes already and so might not even catch the 49 if it did go that far

[MasterPlan]

When is the South West consultation? As it seems like some of these proposed changes would effect some South West routes anyway...

[B.C Driver]

First thoughts...

Having just one route along the Pershore Rd is a recipe for disaster.

The Bristol Rd between the main shopping area and pubs in Selly Oak and City needs an extra route to serve it other than just the 63 alone. The stop at Stone Rd is very busy, it only has two routes serving it, one of those is a limited stop.
The X64 should revert back to using the Bristol Rd to between City and Selly Oak, or the 98 re-routed to something similar of the old 62. The re-numbering to 62 would also fit in with X61 / 62 / 63 making it simpler for passengers.
The old 61 / 62 /63 worked well for years. Simple routes giving passengers direct routes along the Bristol Rd into the City.

[MasterPlan]

The X64 should not be put back on the Bristol Road, in my opinion. I would bring the 62 back though. Why not have every other 63 become the 62 to Rednal / Cofton Hackett? Both running every 15 mins so it'd keep the same 7/8 mins frequency?

[Stuharris 6360]

Have looked through the consultation and as I dont really live in the affected areas, it's not really fair that I should comment.

The thing that does disturb me is that NE seem to want to start cutting out routes with narrow roads and taking out bus stops so that buses do not have to stop so often.

This to me would really inconvenience any elderly or disabled people who live on these routes. Yes stopping frequently does mean bus journies are slower, but surely that is the point of public transport.

[Stu]

Have looked through the consultation and as I dont really live in the affected areas, it's not really fair that I should comment.

The thing that does disturb me is that NE seem to want to start cutting out routes with narrow roads and taking out bus stops so that buses do not have to stop so often.

This to me would really inconvenience any elderly or disabled people who live on these routes. Yes stopping frequently does mean bus journies are slower, but surely that is the point of public transport.

There's simply too many cars nowadays! Years ago, there were roads that buses could happily pass down with no problem, but now you have more households with more than one car, and these same streets buses are struggling to get through now due to the increase in the number of parked cars, leading to increased journey times.

I agree that the needs and considerations of elderly and disabled passengers need to be taken into account, but if clogged roads are causing bus reliability issues, then some unpopular decisions are going to have to be made.

Don't forget, a lot of side streets were planned and built back in the days when hardly anyone owned a car; the road infrastructure just simply can't cope with the volume of cars now.

[Mike K]

There's simply too many cars nowadays! Years ago, there were roads that buses could happily pass down with no problem, but now you have more households with more than one car, and these same streets buses are struggling to get through now due to the increase in the number of parked cars, leading to increased journey times.

I agree that the needs and considerations of elderly and disabled passengers need to be taken into account, but if clogged roads are causing bus reliability issues, then some unpopular decisions are going to have to be made.

Don't forget, a lot of side streets were planned and built back in the days when hardly anyone owned a car; the road infrastructure just simply can't cope with the volume of cars now.

Agree that the number of cars and questionable parking are undoubtedly becoming more of an issue - but if you look at a West Midlands bus route map from the 1980s, far fewer minor roads were served by buses than is the case now. Maybe the answer is to revert more to that model and keep more buses onto busier wider roads. I don't however think the answer is to leave so many outer suburbs without a direct bus into the city. Take the 47, for example. I'd be interested to know how that route is so problematic between Kings Norton and Turves Green - withdrawing it would be absurd in my opinion.

[Stu]

Agree that the number of cars and questionable parking are undoubtedly becoming more of an issue - but if you look at a West Midlands bus route map from the 1980s, far fewer minor roads were served by buses than is the case now. Maybe the answer is to revert more to that model and keep more buses onto busier wider roads. I don't however think the answer is to leave so many outer suburbs without a direct bus into the city. Take the 47, for example. I'd be interested to know how that route is so problematic between Kings Norton and Turves Green - withdrawing it would be absurd in my opinion.

As I see it, and I can see what is being hinted at with these consultations, is that because there are so many routes that go from 'outlying' areas of Birmingham to the city centre, with the increased congestion in and around the city centre, the routes have become unreliable for those using those services just in the 'outlying' areas.

If the infrastructure was there in place, it should be theoretically better for passengers in the suburbs to have more 'local' bus routes that would operate more reliably, and then connect to more frequent services operating along key trunk roads. It would mean that passengers who travel to and from the city would have to change buses to complete their journey admittedly, but as in your example, 'local' buses between Kings Norton and Turves Green would run on time more often, as they wouldn't be getting stuck in congestion closer to the city centre.

I'm not familiar with much of the area covered in this consultation, apart from the Stratford Road part; I can see the advantage of curtailing the 31 and making it a 'local' service between Acocks Green and Shirley/Solihull only, with passengers wanting to continue on to the city centre changing onto more frequent 6 or 37 services. Those people who only travel between Gospel Oak and Solihull/Shirley must get annoyed when their buses are delayed due to congestion caused elsewhere along the route.

As I replied earlier, some tough decisions are going to have to be made, and some passengers are going to have to change their travelling habits, but if in the long term it makes bus travel more reliable it can only be a good thing. We can't always get a direct bus service to where we want to go unfortunately.

[:D]

Combining the 2 and 3 needs to be done carefully as what they're suggesting leaves a huge section with no bus service.

The situation with congestion really needs to be resolved, simplifying bus routes is only a temporary remedy. 

[Stuharris 6360]

As I see it, and I can see what is being hinted at with these consultations, is that because there are so many routes that go from 'outlying' areas of Birmingham to the city centre, with the increased congestion in and around the city centre, the routes have become unreliable for those using those services just in the 'outlying' areas.

If the infrastructure was there in place, it should be theoretically better for passengers in the suburbs to have more 'local' bus routes that would operate more reliably, and then connect to more frequent services operating along key trunk roads. It would mean that passengers who travel to and from the city would have to change buses to complete their journey admittedly, but as in your example, 'local' buses between Kings Norton and Turves Green would run on time more often, as they wouldn't be getting stuck in congestion closer to the city centre.

I'm not familiar with much of the area covered in this consultation, apart from the Stratford Road part; I can see the advantage of curtailing the 31 and making it a 'local' service between Acocks Green and Shirley/Solihull only, with passengers wanting to continue on to the city centre changing onto more frequent 6 or 37 services. Those people who only travel between Gospel Oak and Solihull/Shirley must get annoyed when their buses are delayed due to congestion caused elsewhere along the route.

As I replied earlier, some tough decisions are going to have to be made, and some passengers are going to have to change their travelling habits, but if in the long term it makes bus travel more reliable it can only be a good thing. We can't always get a direct bus service to where we want to go unfortunately.

I agree in principal with what you are saying @Stu , however if you are going to start to cut bus routes in half and make it so more people need to change bus to achieve there journey, surely it would be more sensible to do what London have done and make a ticket valid for an hour so people who will need to change bus will not be penalised. I know people will say that you could buy a Daysaver or Nbus day ticket, however what about for example an oap who still works and travels into town before 09:30.