Trapping people in their villages

[whole diary]

[grahame]

If poor people, old people, and people with epilepsy, poor vision or heart problems were only allowed out of their village once a week in a foreign country, we would be rightly indignant. But this is exactly what is happening to thousands of people in England because of cuts to public transport funding.

Yesterday's Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/bus-service-cuts-impose-virtual-curfew-on-many-people-in-rural-areas

Discuss 

[eightf48544]

Apart from London the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) probably has the worst Public Transport System in Europe.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Playing devil's advocate: if so many residents are being 'trapped in their village', why have so many village shops, post offices and pubs had to close down?

[grahame]

Playing devil's advocate: if so many residents are being 'trapped in their village', why have so many village shops, post offices and pubs had to close down?

It has been asked of stakeholders at a county level here whether there's a reduced need to travel if fast broadband is available. Online ordering and deliveries by carrier replacing journeys into the nearest town removed, thus reducing the need for loss making buses and allowing subsidy cuts while lessening hardships they cause.

[TaplowGreen]

Apart from London the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) probably has the worst Public Transport System in Europe.

- as well as being amongst the most expensive!

[Umberleigh]

It's a very emotive subject, but it would be good to see some stats ie how many people were using services now axed? Should the taxpayer have to fund the lifestyles of people who live in rural areas without transport of their own?

There are after many places where you can live on the edge of a town with a good bus route and yet also be within walking distance of open countryside eg where I currently reside on the outskirts of Truro.

I have over the years lived in a number of both North and South Devon villages - with bus services ranging from the non-existent to relatively frequent - and people overwhelmingly owned cars regardless,  even if they were just old bangers. Hence, as the poster above points out, local services struggle.

[grahame]

It's a very emotive subject, but it would be good to see some stats ie how many people were using services now axed? Should the taxpayer have to fund the lifestyles of people who live in rural areas without transport of their own?

There are after many places where you can live on the edge of a town with a good bus route and yet also be within walking distance of open countryside eg where I currently reside on the outskirts of Truro.

I have over the years lived in a number of both North and South Devon villages - with bus services ranging from the non-existent to relatively frequent - and people overwhelmingly owned cars regardless,  even if they were just old bangers. Hence, as the poster above points out, local services struggle.

I'm delighted - I think - that we've got a lot more figures on this available now than we used to have.  And how long have you got for a very detailed technical answer?

At on extreme, two of our local service runs axed the other week carried on one passenger each - and those passengers said to me "pity, but I can understand it" ... what really miffed them was not being told and just finding the bus had gone.  At the other extreme, a minibus that run that carried 10 people plus every day was axed  ... with the curiosity that the first service got press support from the local councillor, and he stood up and agreed with the latter cut in a pubic meeting against users and supporters.  It's a funny system - even funnier than trains.

I can't agree that "everyone in the countryside has a car".  I've met the chap who was given a lift to his nearest public transport stop and was waiting there for 4 hours; no car, no prospect of a car because no driving license due to an illness.  Bred and born in the country, not his choice.  For sure, the majority have cars and that leaves the buses quiet - the solutions to switch from buses to fewer buses to taxis ... or to make the buses work for those people with cars - by being known about, connecting with each other, reliable, affordable.

Even looking at road costs ... there's that fascinating question of why people living on roads with houses every 400 yards should have 400 yards of road provided by the state, when people living on roads with houses every 20 yards only get 20 yards of road provided.

There are ways of making things rather better ... and of course the beauty of having a huge mess at the moment is that changes can so practically be for the better - the "most improved" prize is an easy one to win if you've a mess to improve on in the first place.

[TaplowGreen]

..............are there many pubic meetings in Melksham? 

[grahame]

..............are there many pubic meetings in Melksham? 

There are some - the population keeps going up and there are places like http://www.angels-club.co.uk . Clearly, I was talking about a public meeting in the context.

[Trowres]

It has been asked of stakeholders at a county level here whether there's a reduced need to travel if fast broadband is available.

I don't suppose you've head that one in connection with any road dualling proposals?

[broadgage]

In remote areas not well served by buses, or where existing services are under threat, I feel that more could be done to make bus services viable.
Perhaps have the bus company deliver mail, parcels and light freight such as small deliveries to local shops.
Or in small villages, have the bus driver read utility meters. The reading of large numbers of meters would cause undue delay, but to read say one meter a week should be reasonable and the utility company should be willing to pay for this service in remote areas.

The other approach would be to increase the population of many small villages a bit by building more housing. Few people would support large scale redevelopment, but most villages would NOT be spoiled by the building of say 5 new family homes. That's another 20 or more potential passengers for the bus service, and more trade for the village shop, public house, and post office.
Such additional housing should in my view be of a similar style and price to existing homes in the same village, so as not to unduly alter the character of the village.

[grahame]

In remote areas not well served by buses, or where existing services are under threat, I feel that more could be done to make bus services viable.
Perhaps have the bus company deliver mail, parcels and light freight such as small deliveries to local shops.
Or in small villages, have the bus driver read utility meters. The reading of large numbers of meters would cause undue delay, but to read say one meter a week should be reasonable and the utility company should be willing to pay for this service in remote areas.

Reminds me of the "post bus" ... but yes.
http://www.royalmail.com/personal/uk-delivery/postbus

This whole "dual use" thing is quite important.  In line with using a bus from "C" to "T" to run from the Railway Station via the town centre to serve local traffic on the way out of "C", traffic from "C" to "M" - a town along the way, local traffic within "M", traffic from "M" to "T" and finally pick up local traffic in "T" before terminating via the town centre at the railway station there.

The other approach would be to increase the population of many small villages a bit by building more housing. Few people would support large scale redevelopment, but most villages would NOT be spoiled by the building of say 5 new family homes. That's another 20 or more potential passengers for the bus service, and more trade for the village shop, public house, and post office.

Yes, there is a lot to be said for growing housing groups to be more economically viable.  I can find you a town around here that takes that approach and one that feels its gone too far.  And one (currently small) one that enquired about getting a station and decided against taking the "lets build enough houses to make it possible" approach when they learned that number.

Such additional housing should in my view be of a similar style and price to existing homes in the same village, so as not to unduly alter the character of the village.

Others may suggest "affordable housing" to provide starter homes / places for the rural poor - where there are some very real issues.  That would also give you a metric of residents who would be less car dependent.

Of course, one elephant in the room is the high volume of private cars with empty seats making journeys between almost every habitation group ... and the statistical true-ism that if every car stopped and gave a lift to everyone who didn't have a car if they wanted a lift, there would be no need at all for buses in most places.

[Rhydgaled]

Playing devil's advocate: if so many residents are being 'trapped in their village', why have so many village shops, post offices and pubs had to close down?

At a guess the answer to that one is that not many residents are actually being 'trapped in their village', because most of said residents (unfortunately) have a car. In other words:

the majority have cars and that leaves the buses quiet

.

the solutions to switch from buses to fewer buses to taxis ... or to make the buses work for those people with cars - by being known about, connecting with each other, reliable, affordable.

I'd go for "make the buses work for those people with cars". It's win-win: less traffic on the roads, less greenhouse gas emmissions and possibly even less subsidy required (one hopes that at least, no permenant increases in subsidy would be required). The ^10,000,000 question is what will get people out of their cars and onto buses? Everything you said (advertising, connections, reliabilty and affordabily) is important, but even if you addressed all of those would it work? Personally, I think you'd also need to drive up the quality (frequency, comfort, journey time etc.) of bus services considerably in many areas, but I could be wrong.

In remote areas not well served by buses, or where existing services are under threat, I feel that more could be done to make bus services viable.
[snip]
The other approach would be to increase the population of many small villages a bit by building more housing. Few people would support large scale redevelopment, but most villages would NOT be spoiled by the building of say 5 new family homes. That's another 20 or more potential passengers for the bus service, and more trade for the village shop, public house, and post office.

That might not be a bad idea. It would almost certainly be more sensible than building new 'eco homes' in villages/hamlets that are currently without any bus services at all

Such additional housing should in my view be of a similar style and price to existing homes in the same village, so as not to unduly alter the character of the village.

Others may suggest "affordable housing" to provide starter homes / places for the rural poor - where there are some very real issues.  That would also give you a metric of residents who would be less car dependent.

Does reducing the cost of homes influence the character of the village, and if so how? My gut feeling is that there shouldn't be a problem provided the new builds are of an appropriate style and carefully designed (unlike the new Fishguard & Goodwick station, which has none of the character of the original), but again I could be wrong.

Also, the mention of 'starter homes' brings to mind another group of people who may be reliant on public transport: under 17s. Ok, so young people will often be given lifts by their parents, but that is not always possible/practical. It was, after all, a pair of school pupils who launched the petition which eventually resulted in the effective re-opening of the Fishguard railway to local passengers. If young people get a good experience of bus services in their area, are they less likely to become car dependent in future (ok, so apparently Sam from the Fishguard petition now drives, but claimed he would still use the trains (buses weren't mentioned))?

[grahame]

The ^10,000,000 question is what will get people out of their cars and onto buses? Everything you said (advertising, connections, reliabilty and affordabily) is important, but even if you addressed all of those would it work? Personally, I think you'd also need to drive up the quality (frequency, comfort, journey time etc.) of bus services considerably in many areas, but I could be wrong.

Frequency and length of service day are, I believe, key.  A service from the station that finishes at 17:30 isn't much good to commuters arriving there from their work town at 17:44.   And a service that leaves people sitting around for hours on end for a short journey hasn't tipped over the balance from "used for a specific purpose" to "general use".

You have tradeoffs with journey times.   Cut 5 minutes and:
- the journey is less comfortable / more bouncy
- there is a reduction in reliability of timings
- you leave out some of the less direct route sections that where there to bring more passengers

To some extent, there's  journey time v frequency tradeoff.     An hourly bus taking 55 minutes gives an average journey time end to end of 85 minutes if you run "turn up and go".  If the bus takes 65 minutes but that justifies a half-hourly service, turn up and go reduces to 80 minutes.  Alas, people feel slowed down and in my example you have introduced a problem in how you make it efficiently clock-faced.

Also, the mention of 'starter homes' brings to mind another group of people who may be reliant on public transport: under 17s. Ok, so young people will often be given lifts by their parents, but that is not always possible/practical.

Young people are indeed a prime public transport user group / potential group, and can pull / campaign strongly and be heard.  But so few have the confidence and commitment to get effectively involved within available openings for them.

It's difficult for people without rail / bus / local government experience to get involve in a way that they're listened to - that includes all young people, and also that majority of the rest of us who haven't done any form of meaningfully associated work; there's an assumption that we've got tunnel vision on one particular hair brained idea, and that even if the idea turns out to be good, we'll not have the background / sticking power to see it through.  An especial problem for young people, who's travel issue that generates their initial concerns and action faces competition from boy/girl interest, and from going off to college, and such competition is expected by the system and discounts their inputs.

[Rhydgaled]

Frequency and length of service day are, I believe, key.  A service from the station that finishes at 17:30 isn't much good to commuters arriving there from their work town at 17:44.

Very true, which is why I added the caveat 'possibly' to my 'even less subsidy required' comment; it may well be necessary to run late evening / early morning services which require subsidy.

You have tradeoffs with journey times.   Cut 5 minutes and:
- the journey is less comfortable / more bouncy
- there is a reduction in reliability of timings
- you leave out some of the less direct route sections that where there to bring more passengers

The first two would certainly run counter to the objective of attracting more passengers, so I certainly don't want to see unrealistic / hard to maintain schedules. The third is what I was getting at in my previous post (and I've started at least one topic on the subject elsewhere on this forum); going via C to get from A to B seems likely to result in loss of through traffic between A and B. To me, road bypasses are, to use an expression, the 'work of the devil' because they create a suituation where the bus operator / council has to make the choice whether to travel via the intermediate town or not, losing either through traffic or traffic to/from the intermediate town.