Today's TravelWatch SouthWest meeting in Taunton was excellent - the guest speakers from First Great Western and Network Rail gave up-to-the-minute, open and honest accounts of how their respective organizations are dealing with the current infrastructure problems.
Indeed a useful meeting. Here is, extended, a comment I made to the moderator team.
There's always a difficult balance between supporting the powers that be and the service providers in their endeavours for passengers, and opposing (or at least questioning) some of their activities and proposals which may not be in the interest of passengers.
I personally started off / attended my first meetings in the public transport arena with some strong questioning, looking to understand / get answers to questions which I felt might not have been properly, fully, openly explored and looking at conclusions that had been reached that appeared to be contrary to the interests of the travelling / wannabe travelling public. Over the years, I have come to understand that although there are unpallettable answers at times, most of the answers are for a reason, and if I can understand the reason I have a better chance of asking further questions and making suggestions that will strengthen the case for a better answer. I have also learned that there are a very great number of experts and enthusiastic advocates of improving public transport, often in surprising official / operational / governmental / commercial management positions who really believe in doing all they can to grow the business / use in a sensible way with controlled risk, and who are often constrained / thwarted / working around loads of other interests, systems and laws, precedents or precedents not to be set.
So today, whilst I still find myself asking difficult questions at times, I'm in a very much more community / supportive role. To some extent "poacher turned gamekeeper". But it's important to realise that it's in the interests of both the poacher and the gamekeeper to have a strong stock of game available.
Some of the "politicing" at TravelWatch SouthWest concerns me. "Renationalise the railways" sits at a point in the political spectrum where - for those who advocate it strongly - may detract from the immediate co-operation that would otherwise be offered / enjoyed by those who are very much part of the current system, to the detriment of shorter term gains. Yet at the same time, our friends in the transport business (whether company or public sector based) do still need to be questioned. I sense
TWSW» moving more political and campaigning yesterday, but perhaps that's because I've moved much more main stream, feeling that for the most part we can all work together to make things happen in our common interest, and the interest of the community around us. Being "travel", that community extends far beyond MBY (My Back Yard) and to the town, the region, and the country.
I am going to document some issues raised yesterday that are a concern and campaigning / better informing may be needed.
a) I don't know the Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton route, but I did note with concern that some senior figures are evaluating it as an extra way to Plymouth based on the time taken by the few through trains that ran in the final, rundown days of the line, with lots of stops and start, rather than the time taken on it when it was a mainline, or the time that would be taken on it were it a new mainline with modern trains
b) National Express Coaches presented their company and plans (and very positive they were too). They talk of key routes, major flows, great vehicles and good frequencies. What they didn't talk about was that "branch" network to Ilfracome, Westward Ho!, Frome, and other towns and villages served once a day. It took an audience member to ask about pricing that seems to exclude the branch network from the better deals, and talking to the speaker afterwards I do question whether a Beeching style cut of these branches isn't impossible.
c) Recent rises in fares on buses - 33% (3 to 4 pounds in one case), and 42% (7 to 10 pounds for a lesser product) in another, and withdrawal of multi journey tickets forcing paying customers to pay more are a concern; huge increases make it very difficult to persuade people to make more use of the bus, even though 'sustainable' and 'CO2 footprint' is what we're about these days. The explanation, perhaps, is in the concessionary fares system through which most (?) passengers on may buses don't pay as they travel - they're paid for by their local council at a percentage of the fare that the few (?) 'normal' passengers pay.
d) There are concerns at the Wiltshire and Swindon to Bath and North East Somerset border in terms of future planning. It's good to have the
LEPs» and other somewhat wider metro areas taking a view on transport as it helps to reduce the number of artificial interfaces, but there are still boundaries and as the various transport responsible bodies cover a wider area, they need to remember not only long distance travel beyond (which they seem good at), but also over-border shorter distance traffic. BaNES plans to provide jobs for many residents in West Wiltshire, but I remain unconvinced that the daily travel and transport issues across the boundary and part of any greater hub. It was noticeable that the biggest flow on the TransWilts service yesterday afternoon was Trowbridge (
passengers changing from Bristol / Bath) to Melksham
There is also very much the need for the community to be kept informed to make inputs where appropriate. There's something of a mystery at present around "First Somerset" becoming "Buses of Somerset". Stated as being to differentiate local companies, but it's interesting to note that that Buses of Somerset website has zero reference to First - or any other owning company. And the style does look much closer to another bus company - go ahead and take a look at the site. Now - I'm not saying that legally there's any requirement to declare who owns a bus company, but am I alone in wondering is it's a bit disrespectful to customers not to say who you really are when providing a service?
Then there's the interesting issue as to what's good for one group may not be good for another. To start a new service where there's a real need, or to use stock to provide extra capacity on existing services. To run trains between "L" and "P" stopping only at "E" along the way, and scheduling them at 3 hours, or to run much more frequent services from "L" to "P" stopping at "R", "W", "T", "E", "N" and "T" along the way, in 3 hours 20 minutes. Whether it's good to electrify though places like "B" and "P" to "W" giving them a frequent stopper service, or to continue to serve them will occasional high speed trains with less stops into London.
Correction made ... I understand that a significant local flow is developing along the Trowbridge / Melksham / Chippenham corridor, with many people finding the service fast, reliable, comfortable, well priced, and running for more days of the week than alternative public transport. So I have crossed out my assertion that the block of people getting on at Trowbridge and off at Melksham were simply changing trains at Trowbridge. With that change, my comment about the SWLEP report should be substantially more positive on this aspect. On virtually all other matters, I wholeheartedly comment the report.
