Bus Service meeting report
Posted by Brandon Lewis, MP for Great Yarmouth, at 14:20, Mon 1 November 2010:
I met last week with Alan Pilbeam, Managing Director of First Eastern Buses, to air the concerns of Great Yarmouth residents and the bus service they receive in the area as well as to discuss how the company operates on a wider basis across Norfolk and the Eastern Counties. It was useful to learn more about the way the buses operate on a day-to-day basis. Compared with other Eastern region towns Great Yarmouth has a very high reliability rating; with a service running 99% of the time and a punctuality rate of between 80-85%.
When you look at the number of services which are run you begin to realise the logistics behind operating it. For people who rely on the bus service for commuting to work or going to medical appointments the prospect of a late bus is terrible – the team at First Eastern Buses do a good job at keeping the service as regular as possible, especially during peak times, and work hard all year round to provide transport across the region.
However, it was important for me to have the chance to speak to the company directly about the concerns being raised by residents. I was also able to discuss the ongoing needs of those with visual impairments and a desire to improve the quality of ‘rolling stock’. These are issues First Eastern are fully aware of and I look forward to continuing to work with them in ensuring we get continued improvements in the future.
I will also be keeping the pressure on them to ensure we have a good service in Great Yarmouth and do all I can to argue for better quality buses as well.
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by alan loake, 14:52, Mon 1 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
please get bus services to run to asdas tescos and other industrial estates ie coopers halfords and drive in mcdonalds where theres other shops to shop in if you aint got a car i find it hard to get my shopping done its just common sense and im sure the digfferent buses going to different areas could very easily add these venues on their route
Posted by Steve Taylor, 15:17, Mon 1 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Now that you have personally visited B&Q, painted the Vauxhall rail station and now gotten the busses to run on time. What is your opinion of the defamatory comments in the press from your elected fraternity attacking those that put them there?
Posted by John L Cooper, 16:11, Mon 1 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I was hoping that I/we could have responded to last weeks article in the Gt. Yarmouth Mercury with an article of our own, saying how upsetting it is, being publicly called “disgusting and poisonous” by Councillor Plant. But it’s not to be, so we use the letter column. I have lodged a complaint with the Standards Committee.
Mr Plant says in his article that we are “ill-informed”. Well if Mr Plant and the rest of the councillors both NCC and GYBC not forgetting the GYPA, came clean with the facts and not skirting around the truth then we would be aware of the facts.
But let me state for the umpteenth time, We are very much for the outer harbour and I have been since Mr Boon first started the ball rolling in 1986 when I was looking after the welfare of seafaring folks.
It is the inability of councillors and non-elected officers to tell us why they made such a mess over something the County has been waiting for, so long.
All Mr Plant and Mr Stone’s blustering in the article is still covering the truth of the mess councillor’s made of the Outer Harbour deal. They say it is difficult to refute the allegations because of commercial sensitivity. The questions we ask are nothing to do with commercial sensitivity.
They are to do with the wasting of ratepayers money and placing £ millions onto the backs of ratepayers.
· Spending £1.5 million on plans for the outer Harbour, only not to use them.
· Taking on the expense of Haven Bridge £300,000.00 per year for eternity
· Taking on the expense of West Bank £1 million now £millions for eternity
· Giving away the Freehold of Gorleston Pier a conservation area
· Allowing one Private Ltd Company (Eastport) to benefit in entirety at the cost of already established local business and infrastructure.
All the councillors in NCC and GYBC know about these five points, but if they answered these queries they know that they will be opening their selves to even more damming questions, one being as they were elected to serve the community, why did they carry out all the deals behind closed doors, then hide behind commercial sensitivity? In doing so they gave themselves the right to agree to all IPH’s demands believing they would not have to answer to the electorate.
Now “Grant Yarmouth” is, through Mr Plant trying for some of the £60 million grant money for port improvement. Well IPH had £18 million they tell us they spent a further £80 million, (Where) now the council is trying to get them more money. When we the long suffering Ratepayers have not received anything yet from the £98 million so why are the council trying to give them more? Or will they get it then use it on the Golden Mile and not the port, as is their habit of wasting grant money in places where it was not intended
Posted by Brandon Lewis, 09:18, Tue 2 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Alan, I will continue to push hard for more services of all types and thank you for taking the time to comment.
Steve and John: I am impressed at how you have managed to link the Outer Harbour in some way or another to every post I have made here. John, you write to me on a regular basis with the same points about the Harbour. I am not going to comment on the comment sin the paper, putting aside the fact that we have a free press and freedom of speech that allows us all to air our views the councillors are individuals who can respond to your complaints themselves so I will leave you to liaise directly with them as I am not a councillor.
I cannot see what exactly it is you are looking to have happen. As I said when we last met. I understand that you have frustrations at the deal that was struck 5/6 years ago but we have the Harbour, no one is about to dismantle it and Eastport is a private company so not part of the public sector. Most people would think that for around £18 million of public money a project that has a value of close to £100 million by now is a good rate of return. If you have issues with the current management of the Outer Harbour then that is a matter to take up with them. If you have issues with the Council or the deal they made then that is an issue to take up with them. I believe that you did refer it to the Ombudsman who found no case to answer so I really cannot see where I can be of any help or where there is any issue to look at.
I share the frustration of many that the economy is not as strong as it was 5/6 years ago and as such Eastport are no doubt having the change their business model to make the Harbour a financial success but that is affecting business of all types across the UK. I am happy to continue correspondence on this issue with you and Dennis and any others that I receive and if any new information comes to light I am happy to help or advise as appropriate.
The columns here are aimed at specific issues so for future reference I will only respond to comments that are relevant to any given post; otherwise this will become a single issue process which is unfair on any other readers. I will also, to be fair, endeavour to post something on the Harbour as well from time to time, when something seems relevant in that regard.
Posted by Steve Taylor, 10:15, Wed 3 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Brandon - The linking of all issues to make a sacred point, is one used widely by politicians and those in the public gaze, therefore not unfamilar to you.
To be sure a well framed answer to the specific details/figures put by those with an inkling of expertise, rather than continuous futurist visions based upon nothing other than their feelings or opinions, might go someway to take the heat out the OH & Eastport debate.
Someone like yourself who is aware of the importance of public image, will also be able to see that a company/project, that if it kept its most basic promises (Gorleston car park/observation platforms) and kept the public onside would not then be in this PR mess, compounded by the officials making deflamatory comments to then heap insult on injury.
I can read none of the people actually stand against the vision and the will for this project to ultimately suceed. However, in public office the level of accountability is higher, and that is what is currently missing.
Where do you stand on the question of a public enquiry on this?
Posted by John L Cooper, 06:47, Thu 4 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Brandon Why do you fail to see what we want? Answers to the below questions THAT is what we want
During these past two months I have written to all our Norfolk MPs. And contrary to the replies that I get from you, the questions that I ask are about a problem that affects all Norfolk Ratepayers! Not just the Borough of Great Yarmouth reigned over by Brandon Lewis MP.
I would and people in and around our County as well, would like to know,
Why did we pay International Port Holdings £1.5 million which NCC and GYBC spent on plans, models and surveys which were not used, forcing NCC and GYBC to pay IPH this money to make up the full £18 million that IPH wanted? IPH then used their own plans. Why did NCC and GYBC allow this to happen? Why was it necessary for Norfolk Ratepayers to take over the expense of Haven Bridge £300,000.00 per annum and £100,000,000 plus for a rebuild? NCC and GYBC made the decision that the vast expense of the upkeep of Gorleston West Bank should be taken on by GYBC which comes out of Norfolk Rates? Why was it necessary for Gorleston South Pier, a historic site in a conservation area property of Norfolk Ratepayers given freehold to IPH
These Questions affect all Norfolk Ratepayers NOT just Great Yarmouth. This is why I expect Norfolk MPs to take note, investigate and make known to Ratepayers the true reasons why these four points were allow to happen.
Please Do Not Keep Passing The Buck
John L Cooper
Posted by Brandon Lewis, 09:02, Thu 4 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
As the issue, as I understand it, has already been to various forms of scrutiny and the Ombudsman I cannot see what the benefit is or the cost of a public enquiry nor what people would be seeking to achieve as an outcome. In the meetings I have had with 2 regular writers on this issue that has always been the problem, what exactly are you looking to achieve as an outcome.
Posted by Brandon Lewis, 06:31, Fri 5 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Putting aside the lack of relevance to bus services on this, as I have mentioned before these are questions for the councils whom were party to the agreement. I know you are in communication with them and I believe generally these are all issues that were part of getting a deal that made it possible to deliver the new harbour but that is for them to answer.
Posted by John L Cooper, 06:57, Fri 5 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Brandon This what we want to know and people in and around our County as well, would like to know,
· Why did we pay International Port Holdings £1.5 million which NCC and GYBC spent on plans, models and surveys which were not used, forcing NCC and GYBC to pay IPH this money to make up the full £18 million that IPH wanted? IPH then used their own plans. Why did NCC and GYBC allow this to happen? · Why was it necessary for Norfolk Ratepayers to take over the expense of Haven Bridge £300,000.00 per annum and £100,000,000 plus for a rebuild? · NCC and GYBC made the decision that the vast expense of the upkeep of Gorleston West Bank should be taken on by GYBC which comes out of Norfolk Rates? · Why was it necessary for Gorleston South Pier, a historic site in a conservation area property of Norfolk Ratepayers given freehold to IPH
Posted by Brandon Lewis, 11:44, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I am pushing for some further answers for you from the County and Borough Councils, whose remit this falls under. Will contact you direct when we have the information.