Sian Phipps
Enterprise and Business Committee
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
email: Sian.Phipps@wales.gov.uk
Response by 2nd November 2012
At the Conference on Integrated Transport today(20/09/12) in Cardiff Bay speaking to the representatives at the Assembly stand it was suggested I forward the response on integrated transport that I had recently sent to the Public Transport Users Committee. From Section 3 onwards the responses are based on the questions suggested by the PTUC
Extract from Guidelines for views in Integrated Transport:-
For the purpose of this study integrated transport is taken to mean consideration of the relationship of different parts of a whole journey experience particularly but not exclusively when such parts are undertaken by different modes of public transport.
1. Purpose of Having Integrated Transport
1.1. It is important to know what is the purpose or reason for wanting integrated transport in the first place. For example :-
1.1.1. Is it to maximise profits for the organisation running a transport operation?
1.1.2. Is it to maximise income / minimise the call on the Public Purse / Treasury?
1.1.3. Is it to maximise the modal shift away from using private cars?
1.1.4. Is it to benefit the wider economy or other social or environmental benefits?
1.1.5. Is it for other reasons?
1.1.6. If it is a combination then which takes precedence?
1.2. Only by having a clear view and understanding of the above issues will the reason(s) / answer(s) define what can and should be done.
1.3. It is also necessary to define the scope when considering finance. Is it looking purely at the costs / income of the transport operation itself i.e.as would be the case in item 1.1.1 above or the bigger financial picture as in item 1.1.4 above?
1.4. The same criteria have to be applied to any call on the treasury funds. Item 1.1.2 above as the “wider” economic benefits can often out way the “narrower” costs / income of the specific transport intervention as far as overall funds to the Treasury are concerned.
1.5. For example taking one hundred people out of “Gas Guzzling” cars and putting them on a single train or bus the Treasury looses the revenue from the car fuel duty, whereas if you took a hundred people off public transport so they have to use their cars instead there is a financial benefit to the treasury in the fuel revenue taken.
1.6. Looking at it in this “narrow” financial picture the last thing you want is for public transport to be effectively integrated as more people would use it and the treasury would lose more revenue from private car fuel.
1.7. Similarly if you shut all commuting railways into London and Cardiff the Treasury would benefit significantly from the addition car fuel revenue it would receive if you only consider the immediate or narrow perspective of the transport operation on its own and not the effect on the wider economy. It is very important to be clear which issues are to be addressed, and if more than one which takes priority.
1.8. In fact the Serpell review and report showed how you could fully privatise the railway so that it operated without any government intervention or constraints and be fully financially self supporting without the need to call on any investment or funding from the treasury.
1.9. Only a month or so ago at the Transport Select Committee Sir Roy McNulty was asked by Steve Baker the conservative MP for Wycombe and campaigner against the building of the High Speed Rail Line 2 if during his review “Has anybody ever suggested that we actually privatise the railways?”
1.10. Sir Roy uncharacteristically limited his response to “Some people have suggested that, yes.” and left it for Steve to come back which probably diplomatically he decided not to pursue.
1.11. A fully privatised and non government supported railway as shown by the Treasury Serpell Report would leave the whole of Wales with just two stations Cardiff and Newport, and every other station throughout the whole of Wales would be closed.
1.12. Politically I do not think Steve wanted to be seen to be the person actually promoting this neo-liberal approach of a fully privatised railway because of the political and wider economic backlash that would follow. However it clearly remains on the agenda as an option for consideration and debate.
1.13. Following the Eddington Study and the Stern Review there was the NATA (New Approach to Appraisal) Refresh Seminar on Wider Economic Benefits in Transport Appraisal at the DfT London in February 2008.
1.14. Only three of us in the group of about sixty were arguing that the loss of fuel revenue should either not be included in calculating the Value for Money / Cost Benefit Analysis of a transport intervention that would result in modal shift from cars to public transport.
1.15. Alternatively we suggested the “Wooden Dollars” for reduction in carbon emissions in the financial calculations should be substantially increased to significantly offset the negative costs to the Treasury of the loss of fuel revenue in determining Value for Money for the country.
1.16. We failed to convince the economists from the Treasury and only subsequently via John Rogers the Chair of Railfuture Cymru to Ieuan Wyn Jones the Transport Minister was the Welsh Government persuaded to modify its WELTag (Welsh Transport Analysis Guidelines) to avoid the negative financial impact of people giving up using cars in favour of public transport.
1.17. Eighteen months later Philip Hammond the Transport Secretary and the DfT followed the lead from Wales and modified its own WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidelines to remove what he called the ridiculous arrangement where financially making the modal shift from cars was financially penalised in the appraisal process on what represented Value for money and the benefit to the country.
1.18. This demonstrates why there is the need for clarity of the financial scope and the outcomes that are wanted from Transport Integration.
1.19. Bizarrely in an over simplified form in the UK the existing Rail Franchise and associated interventions have been considered using the wider Economic, Social and Environmental considerations at the time the franchise was let.
1.20. For the duration of the Franchise decisions on changes are based on the narrow commercial considerations of the singular business ignoring the wider economic benefits and impacts.
1.21. Government can intervene to introduce a change but as highlighted in the McNulty report this very rarely happens because it is operating in a private business environment. Any change is a non competitive variation and if followed through it is inevitably at a premium cost. As McNulty identified in most cases the wider economic benefit changes are not being made because of concerns over the high cost of mid franchise variations.
1.22. This is relevant in one of the examples given of why transport integration that was lost when a Train Operating Company made a change to suit its own internal operation has not been subsequently reinstated even though the Welsh Government could do so.
1.23. This is because of the high cost of a mid franchise variation if the government tried to insist on reverting to the original timetable connections and service integration as these were not specified in the original invitation to tender and contract and could legitimately be claimed as a variation that had not been priced for.
1.24. This also highlights the fundamental difference between controlling and promoting integration as compared with the existing arrangement for Rail Franchises of simply managing compliance against the original Franchise specification and having to pay premium prices for variations if you want to introduce any changes or improvements.
2. Responses to specific questions
NOTE. The following views are based on options 1.1.3 and 1.14 above, in other words maximising modal shift away from car travel and also considering the “Wider” economic and social aspects as compared with just the “Narrow” costs of the specific operation only.
3. What do you consider to be the essential features of an effective integrated transport system?
3.1. An effective integrated transport system is based on providing the full end to end journey and not simply concentrating on specific elements – Bus, train etc.
3.2. It is based on making the use of the car for the whole or a major part of the journey to become an option rather than a necessity.
3.3. An Integrated Transport system would need to have:
3.3.1. A wide range of destinations
3.3.2. A regular high frequency of services
3.3.3. Early start and late finish
3.3.4. An acceptable cost
3.3.5. Simple payment / ticketing arrangements
3.3.6. Good and clear information
3.3.7. Easy, comfortable and weatherproof transfer between modes
3.3.8. Perceived acceptable journey and waiting times
3.4. An effective integrated transport system is normally epitomised by
3.4.1. The public transport service parts are co-ordinated and controlled
3.4.2. Cross subsidisation rather than competition
3.4.3. Emphasis on passenger rather than vehicular mileage maximisation
3.4.4. Land usage and development planning based around transport access
3.4.5. Highway design and prioritization based around public transport and walking / cycling
3.4.6. Travel Plans and arrangements with businesses, educational establishments etc.
3.4.7. Provision of facilities for passengers.
3.5. Range of destinations: - An obvious comment but if the destination is not within say ½km walking distance the alternative of using the car becomes far more attractive.
3.6. This can become more significant with tourist destinations. If for example a car is hired at the tourist base in order to access a specific attraction then it will probably be used in preference to public transport for the remaining time of the visitor’s stay.
3.7. Tourist attractions or leisure facilities that are not accessible by public transport are major impediments to modal shift.
3.8. Two ways of providing alternative means in addition to walking of reaching destinations especially in urban areas are the use of instant bike and local car hire.
3.9. OYBike Bike Hire - The OYBike system or similar is ideal for this because once registered as a user no pre booking is required and the bikes can be “hired” 24 hours a day 7 days a week from any one of the docking stations, usually Rail and Bus stations, University campus sites, Leisure sites etc. Equally the bike can be returned to any of the docking sites around a town or city.
3.10. Daimler's Car2Go scheme - The “motorised” version of the bike scheme above where you can hire a car and pay per minute is the Daimler's Car2Go scheme due to be implemented in the UK for the first time in Birmingham this autumn. More than 70,000 people are already using the service in Continental Europe, USA and Canada.
3.11. The cars, a fleet of up to 250 two-seater smart fortwo "Car2Go edition" vehicles, are specially developed for car sharing and can be rented spontaneously inside an operating area of around 30 square miles which covers the city centre and several densely populated suburbs.
3.12. Customers have complete freedom with regard to when they start their journey and how long they keep the vehicles without a mandatory return location. Unlike traditional car sharing programs or car rental companies, the Car2Go vehicles will not be parked at fixed stations but can be located at any legal public parking space. Car2Go is paying a monthly fee to the city which covers on-street parking and selected off-street spots operated by the city.
3.13. Experience in other cities has shown that Car2Go is complementing the already existing means of transportation in a city. It gives Birmingham a further option for city-dwellers, making the overall system of public transport, biking and the car clubs even more attractive.
3.14. The Birmingham project uses petrol engine vehicles but from last year in San Diego and Amsterdam Car2Go have provided all electric versions with a range of 84 miles and the cities have provided electric docking points at parking places for recharging. This avoids the air pollution problems of the petrol or diesel engine and the limited range of small all electric cars is not a problem for the urban areas.
3.15. Frequency of service – to be able to replicate and compete with “go anytime” advantage of the private car the frequency of service, particularly for the shorter distance journeys, has to be frequent. In Urban and suburban areas this means at least every fifteen minutes and ideally less than ten minutes.
3.16. In addition to the flexibility of a high frequency service it also avoids the need for ”timetable planning” and also reduces the effects of minor perturbations or late running / reliability making the option more attractive. The ability to “Walk up and go” is a major watershed in choosing public transport over the use of the car.
3.17. In outer or more rural areas where demand precludes ten or fifteen minute interval services the public transport needs to be arranged on the “Pulse Timetable” approach as used in Switzerland in the canton of Zurich.
3.18. Introduced in 1982 hourly services were introduced on the main routes and bus feeder services at the same frequency and scheduled so that services from different areas / directions converged on the interchange point at the same time.
3.19. The decline in bus patronage reversed and in five years had grown to a level that resulted in the service frequency increasing to half hourly, further driving up patronage and modal shift.
3.20. Early Start and Late Finish – Again an obvious requirement. With typically in the UK deregulated “Commercial” bus services finishing at around 18:30 most people wishing to either go out or return home after 19:00 are being effectively encouraged to use private cars.
3.21. Again using Switzerland as an example of what can be provided is Schaffhausen. The standard pattern is a 10-minute frequency from around 5:30 am to 8:00 pm on weekdays and Saturdays, as well as on Sunday afternoons; a 20-minute service is provided at other times. Buses finish around 12:30 am, but a limited `night network' operates on Fridays and Saturdays, with services every 30 minutes until 2:00 am.
3.22. An Acceptable Cost – This is harder to define in absolute terms as it is based heavily on perception
3.23. For example in London with higher house prices, higher remuneration for similar jobs, higher prices for food and other services, higher Car Parking charges and with congestion charges; the rail fares while considered high are not totally unacceptable
3.24. Examples are Kings Langley into Euston, Welwyn into Kings Cross, Greenhithe into Charing Cross, Shoreham into Victoria, Shenfield into Liverpool Street etc. are all about the same mileage as Bridgend into Cardiff. All these London fares have about the same rate per mile but are double or more than double the Welsh fares. Application of similar level of fares in Wales would be unacceptable and would result in a significant shift into using private cars instead of integrated public transport.
3.25. The same jobs in the financial sector in Bristol as those in Cardiff pay up to a third more. Unless the remuneration rates are increased in Cardiff, which would make it a less commercially viable as a City, then it is an important consideration that the transport costs for passengers into Cardiff remain lower in comparison to the commuting costs into Bristol. This is again the concept of considering the “wider” rather than the “narrow” view of the costs of the services on their own.
3.26. I would suggest that in order to promote the use of integrated transport the initial focus should be on reducing multiple car ownership per household. Until a situation like London, Zurich, Toronto etc. can be achieved where the level of public transport has resulted in households completely giving up car ownership and simply hiring on the few occasions when needed; there is the problem of fixed and avoidable costs of motoring.
3.27. Having purchased a car the acceptable cost of public transport is mentally compared with the avoidable costs of motoring (fuel etc.) and not the full or “true” cost. Once the level of public integrated transport reaches the level that the second or third car is no longer considered a necessity the cost of these additional vehicles is more likely to be viewed on both its fixed (Purchase cost, Insurance, Tax, Maintenance, MOT etc) as well as its avoidable (fuel) costs. Another reason why public transport costs in London are perceived as more acceptable than they would be in areas of multiple car ownership.
3.28. Payment / Ticketing Arrangements – A key feature of a successful integrated transport system is a single ticket arrangement for the whole journey irrespective of the number of transfers both within and between modes
3.29. These are normally on a zonal basis and valid irrespective of mode used.
3.30. Smart cards such as the London “Oyster” while a useful introduction and available for use on both train and bus are only a part answer, as a second charge is made when transferring between modes.
3.31. Several countries provide discount tickets to University students as it is known that at this age long term habits of using public transport are easily formed.
3.32. Vancouver provides term length tickets as part of the standard student fee. This not only instils a lifelong habit of using public transport but also eliminates fare evasion that otherwise tends to be rife in this age group.
3.33. Arrangements with businesses enabling companies to purchase discount travel tickets / cards for their employees to get to work helps to maintain the habit of using public transport when people migrate from education into the workplace.
3.34. Clear information – One of the biggest constraints against people transferring for the first time to public transport is the lack of clear information resulting in an initial lack of confidence in attempting to use public transport.
3.35. This is not just timetable information but fares, validity, and the general arrangements, constraints and limitations.
3.36. For example some places require the purchase of a ticket before boarding or you can be liable to a fine while on others you have to buy after you have boarded. Some places you have to use Ticket machines of which some take money others credit cards and others both. Some buses require exact fare. In some places tickets purchased before boarding may have to be “validated” by readers on board though I am not aware of any of these in Wales. All this information needs to be readily available in advance, including for those without internet access.
3.37. Information on fares, times, connection locations and where to board the services should be clearly displayed. A shop is unlikely to maximise sales if it does not display the prices though to do the same for transport (buses) will probably require primary legislation changes to allow the information to be widely displayed in advance.
3.38. Real time digital displays on when the next train, tram or bus is due are useful additions. These are often provided in places where there is a high frequency of Bus services with a service interval of less than ten minutes.
3.39. Arguably the provision of this information should be prioritised in descending order from those stops with the longest interval to those with the shortest rather than the present practice that appears to be the other way round.
3.40. Where to board a service is another basic information requirement that is often overlooked.
3.41. Transfer between modes – It is essential this is made as easy and hassle free as possible with the transfer distance as short as possible and preferably fully weather protected.
3.42. The interchange between main line and underground and underground to underground in London with the possible exception of Fenchurch Street to Tower Hill epitomises weather protected transfer along dedicated passage ways.
3.43. The Toronto Transit Commission provides another example of best practice. Transfers between buses and trains are free because the fare system is fully multi-modal, and passengers proceed directly between buses and trains without the inconvenience and delay of ticket checking.
3.44. In Toronto the buses and even trams enter the railway stations on dedicated specially designed roadways so that they are actually inside the railway station ticket barriers. The whole design is based around integration.
3.45. Perth is similar with coordination between buses and trains with integrated fares and timetables, and the buses delivering to the station entrance. Although Perth's buses are operated by private sub-contractors the bus deregulation has been reversed and the operators are selected through London-style competitive tendering, they appear to passengers to be just as much a part of the TransPerth system as the trains, which the public transport agency runs itself
3.46. Journey and waiting times – In general terms the waiting time between connections between separate parts of an integrated journey should not exceed ten minutes.
3.47. Journey times are like acceptable costs and are subject to personal perception. For example the journey by rail from Chepstow to Cardiff takes under forty minutes. The same journey by bus would take an hour and a half with the need for a change at Newport.
3.48. Using the special City Day Plus and using only Newport City Buses despite the journey time being more than double that of rail, the cost is reduced to a third, and therefore for those with sufficient time the journey taking twice as long and involving a change can be the preferred option.
3.49. The Automobile Association calculates the journey time by car to be a about equal to the rail journey time. However unlike the train or bus the departure by car can be instant compared with up to two hour wait for a train if one is just missed. This makes the use of the car attractive despite its true cost*1 being several times that of public transport.
3.50. An important aspect of Public Transport to make it attractive is therefore the need for it to be “turn up and go” and should ideally be fifteen minutes or less.
3.51. *1 [Using The Automobile Association “Motoring Costs 2012” and taking a middle of the range value car with a middle range annual mileage the actual cost of driving from Chepstow to Cardiff and back Including all Standing charges (Cost of Capital, Depreciation, Breakdown cover, Insurance, Road Tax etc.) and the Running Costs (Petrol, Tyres, Service labour costs, Replacement parts, Parking and Tolls etc) the AA’s calculates the true total cost of making this journey to be about three times that of the rail fare and ten times that of travelling by the Newport City buses using its City Day Plus ticket.]
3.52. Co-ordination and control – “Advocates of market-based public transport are usually the strongest critics of transfer-based systems, because an integrated network requires a single agency to plan it. With different organizations running different modes, integration is virtually impossible” – Paul Mees – Transport for Suburbia –ISBN 078-1-84407-740-3
3.53. While not precluding the use of private operators chosen by competitive tender, they need to be under the control of a public agency which determines timetables, routes, fares and would be responsible for the overseeing of the collection and distribution of revenue.
3.54. The controlling agency needs to have sufficient in-house competency to undertake the above functions and needs to be a “well informed buyer” with professionals of equal or better knowledge than those it contracts any work or functions out to.
3.55. Successful controlling agencies have staff development programmes / continuous professional development to maintain a sharp up to date expertise that is continually evolving and adapting to the changing environment.
3.56. Another key aspect is that the agency takes the risk. In other words if the economy or other factors change resulting in a fall in patronage and revenue the primary risk has to be shouldered by the agency as the primary decision maker.
3.57. Cross subsidization rather than competition – As a town grows the key transport routes are those into the centre like the spokes of a bicycle wheel.
3.58. As the town expands moving out from the centre the distance between the “spokes” reaches the point where the distance to the transport on the spokes exceeds ½ km and goes beyond the distance people are prepared to walk to join the public transport.
3.59. Shops, Leisure, recreational, employment and educational facilities develop in these suburbs. New Hospitals and Industrial parks tend to be located at the outer edges of towns / cities.
3.60. At this point the most effective transport system to offer an alternative to the car is to provide radial services that connect and feed into and out of the transport along the spokes.
3.61. Without this radial system those living in the outer suburbs have to travel into the centre just to come back out again along another spoke with both a time and financial penalty for the extra distance travelled; further making the option of using the car more tempting.
3.62. To provide and maintain a frequency of service on the less well patronised radial links to match and integrate with the central spokes these services need to be cross subsidized from the higher patronage spokes.
3.63. This was how towns like Newcastle and Leicester operated until Bus Deregulation.
3.64. Leicester had both an inner and an outer circle bus service with for example visitors to the hospital situated on the “circle” using the combined “radial” and “spoke” services.
3.65. After deregulation the private operators withdrew from the less profitable parts of the radial routes and transferred their vehicles and operation onto the more profitable spokes in competition with, instead of feeding into and adding to, the existing services.
3.66. In all cases this “competition” compared with “cross subsidisation” has lead to an overall reduction in the total use of public transport and increase in car usage and congestion in the centre region.
3.67. Passenger vs. Vehicular mileage maximisation – For integrated transport the connecting services need to be timetabled to maximise connections.
3.68. This inevitably means that at some locations such as the end of a route the service needs to wait before starting the return journey so that it will arrive at the “interconnecting” points at the correct time to provide connections. This will maximise passenger usage.
3.69. Most existing services are operated to maximise the number of services it can achieve in a “shift”. This maximises the mileage covered on this one route but once integration is introduced the number of trips and mileage may be lower but the overall patronage in total over the whole system is greater.
3.70. Land usage and development planning based around transport access – The design of developments can have a significant influence on the usage of public integrated transport or conversely the almost total reliance on the use of the car.
3.71. The subject is covered in “Travel By Design – The Influence of Urban Form on Travel” by Marlon G. Boarnet and Randal Crane – Oxford University Press – ISBN 0-19-512395-6
3.72.
While
the example shown from the book refers to an example that is some
two decades old showing preferred and non preferred development it
remains relevant if you wish to consider minimising car usage.
3.73. As a basic, housing development should be designed to provide access to public transport with a walking distance maximum of ½km.
3.74. In many cases this could have been achieved if provision for through footpaths had been included in each development. This is essential so when a further development ultimately is made it can connect into the passive provision made in the previous development.
3.75. Any “Out of Town” retail development requires a “Walk up and Go” public transport as part of the development plans and consideration needs to be given to the businesses being contracted to partially or wholly fund the revenue cost subsidy (if it is required) to maintain the transport service levels that bring the customers to their premises.
3.76. Comparing two councils in South East Wales relocating their offices. One up the Cardiff valleys deliberately located in a town. The arguments were that the town is served by both rail and bus and this helps to sustain and support the public transport as well as encouraging council staff to use public transport rather than private cars to get to work. At lunch time and after work the staff go into the town helping the regeneration of the town itself. The downside was the difficulty in finding appropriate accommodation in the Town and the higher costs involved.
3.77. The other council relocated to a new build site next to a Motorway junction. There is no public transport to get to the Council office and if staff want to leave the site at lunch time they have to drive to the nearest town. There is a town five miles away served by both rail and bus and in need of regeneration but this was not chosen presumably because a new build site outside the town was easy and quick and is less expensive compared with locating inside a town.
3.78. The design of railway stations should be based on the ability of buses and trams to enter on specifically designed routes inside the ticket barriers so that it enables free interchange between modes.
3.79. Highway design and prioritization – The provision of bus / tram priority lanes should be included in urban road designs.
3.80. This improves Bus /Tram journey times in relation to car journey times making the public transport option comparatively more attractive.
3.81. At the cross roads where “Spoke” and “Radial” services meet the ideal arrangement is the five road roundabout. The fifth exit feeds a single Interchange bus stop in the corner between two of the adjacent roads. All buses from all directions negotiate the roundabout to make use of this one single Interchange stop.
3.82. Existing arrangements tend to have bus stops set back from the interchange to give priority to easing the flow of cars at the Junction.
3.83. Transferring between the east / west bus services to the north / south or vice versa requires a walk to the junction, one or two delays awaiting pedestrian crossings and then the further walk to the departing Bus Stop. An arrangement designed to put people off using public transport where it requires an interchange.
3.84. The Roundabout design allows one larger and better equipped shelter compared with the four shelters needed in the standard cross roads design.
3.85. With a nominal fifteen minute service in each direction on each route the one Interchange stop has a service using it every three to four minutes.
3.86. This level of usage will encourage small retail outlets and other facilities such as public conveniences and the provision of CCTV security, all further making the interchange attractive and easy.
3.87. Travel Plans and arrangements with businesses, educational establishments etc. – The Payment / Ticketing section above details options for educational establishments to encourage the use of public transport.
3.88. Facilities for passengers. – Information for passengers are dealt with under the ‘Clear Information’ section above
3.89. A fundamental requirement to encourage use of an integrated public transport system is the provision of weather proof waiting shelters.
3.90. At present I am led to believe around a quarter of all bus stops in Monmouthshire have shelters and that this is probably higher than most council areas, the target should be to provide weather protection at every stop where passengers might have to wait for services that are more than a few minutes apart.
3.91. It needs to be remembered that to tempt people away from using their cars into using integrated public transport standing and waiting exposed to the elements is a relic of the past equivalent to the early days of cars that were open and not enclosed.
3.92. Unfortunately the trend in recent years where waiting shelters are provided is to provide designs that may look pretty to a passing motorist but appear to have lost the basic purpose or function.
3.93. The shelter needs to provide protection from sun, wind, rain, snow, ice and spray from passing vehicles.
3.94. A glass or plastic roof provides little protection from the sun on hot summer days and in many designs becomes dirty and looks unattractive. Transparent or translucent roofs should be avoided.
3.95. The roof needs to be joined to the walls without a gap. The shelter at Caldicot railway station had a roof extending below the top of the walls but a foot or so outside them. It allowed snow to blow up into, and completely cover the inside of the shelter under windy snowy conditions.
3.96. The walls need to extend down to the ground to prevent wind, rain and snow blowing in. When the shelters on the platforms at Severn Tunnel Junction were replaced the passengers specifically requested this. The previous shelter at Caldicot station that replaced the original breeze block design had a twelve to eighteen inch gap at the bottom. In winter the icy winds blowing across the Gwent levels would “scythe your ankles”; and snow and ice would cover the floor of the shelter.
3.97. There needs to be four walls so no matter which direction the wind and rain is driving in from it is always possible to find a place within the shelter that you are protected from the elements.
3.98. Where space precludes the ideal four wall designs above the blank wall should be positioned on the road side so waiting passengers are protected from splashes and the spray from lorries and other passing road vehicles.
3.99. At interchanges, public conveniences and ideally small retail outlets / vending machines or similar provision should be provided.
3.100. Facilities such as information and emergency direct phone lines should be provided wherever possible.
4. Do you see that integrated transport works well or badly in your experience and/or in your area? Please give as many examples as you wish to illustrate the points you wish to make.
4.1. In scoring the effectiveness of integrated transport in my area I would score less than 3 out of 100. This is because where integration actually occurs it is more by accident or chance rather than by design and as such the connections are liable to be lost when any alteration to one of the components is made as the implications of the change as far as integrated transport is concerned is either not considered or is viewed as very low in priority, The systems in the U.K. for public transport are designed in a way that prevents rather than promotes integration.
5. Specific Integrated Transport Problems
5.1. Confusion over validity of return tickets – Bus and Rail into Newport.
5.1.1. For example travelling between Rogiet and Newport and back by bus the walk on Stagecoach ticket issued on the service 14 bus is valid on the service 14 in the return direction operated by First Somerset. It is also valid on the service 74 between the same stops irrespective of which operator provides the service.
5.1.2. However buying the ticket on a bus an hour later the First Somerset service 14 while valid on the return service 14 irrespective of whether it is operated by First or Stagecoach it is not valid between the same stops on the return Stagecoach service 74 but it is valid on the service 74 operated by Newport City.
5.1.3. Travelling by rail from Rogiet (Severn Tunnel Junction) to Newport the walk on return ticket is valid on the Arriva Trains Wales, First Great Western and Arriva Cross Country irrespective of which company’s train the ticket was purchased on or which company’s train you return on.
5.1.4. This is fine for regular uses who know the system but is confusing and the embarrassment of being unexpectedly told a ticket is not valid while in a queue boarding the service results in an often permanent aversion for further use of public transport.
5.1.5. It is worth considering how you are supposed to find out about this information if you have not travelled between these locations before as the information is not displayed at any bus stop or in the Travel Guides.
5.2. Provision of a Bus Shelter Chepstow Road Caldicot
5.2.1. Listening at a recent council meeting a regular bus user had requested that a shelter be provided at the bus stop on Chepstow Road Caldicot.
5.2.2. This was vigorously opposed by the house (and car) owner of the property that has the bus stop outside his front garden. He had successfully petitioned his neighbours on either side to support his objections.
5.2.3. The grounds for the objections were that a bus shelter would encourage undesirable people to loiter outside his property and that anyone who wanted to a catch the bus could either wear heavy weatherproof clothing or walk to either of the bus stops before and after this stop that both had shelters and were only half a mile apart.
5.2.4. The council upheld the objections of the residents over the residents that use the bus.
5.2.5. While the raised curb and SAFLE BWS markings remain on the road and it still operates as a Bus Stop even the Bus Stop post has now been removed.
5.2.6. One could cynically say to avoid a resident having to look out of their front room and see a green post with a white enamelled sign on it!
5.2.7. This demonstrates both the public (not in my back yard) and the council’s views on the importance and priority to be given to non car transport use.
5.3. Clear Information and Validity of Return Tickets – Cardiff to St Fagans
5.3.1. Last week of June travelled to Cardiff by rail and walked to Castle Street as this was shown on the leaflet as the nearest bus stop for the service 5 to St Fagans heritage centre.
5.3.2. With a series of bus stops we looked for service 5 on the enamelled Bus Stop signs that show which buses use each particular stop. While a raft of numbers are shown none of the plates carried the service 5 number so it was not possible to identify which of the many stops we should wait at.
5.3.3. Crossed over and asked at the City Sightseeing Bus Stop but they could not help.
5.3.4. Walked on to National Museum of Wales Cathays Park as this was shown as the starting point for the service and just managed to catch the bus from there.
5.3.5. On return had boarded the service 5 bus at St Fagans centre. A foreign tourist family approached the bus and asked the driver if he was going to Cardiff Bus Station as they wanted to get to the Railway Station.
5.3.6. The driver simply replied the bus did not go to the Bus Station but to the National Museum (Cathays).
5.3.7. The family were getting back off the bus when I said we were going to the Railway Station and the stop near the Castle was only about eight minutes walk to the station.
5.3.8. The family got back on board and the father presented his ticket to the driver.
5.3.9. The driver responded that his ticket was from another company and was not valid on this bus.
5.3.10. The family got back off again to wait for the next service by the other operator.
5.4. Clear information – Chepstow Bus Station Timetable information for return journey planning
5.4.1. An example from Chepstow Bus station a few years ago. A group of Japanese tourists were considering going into Newport but while there were bus timetables for getting there the lack of return timetables meant they did not want to go and risk being stranded.
5.4.2. In the UK you learn that you can normally cross the road to the Bus Stop on the other side to view the return timetable. However this was not available at the Bus Station and is not available where “easy to read” versions that simply show onward departures and not the times from where the bus has come from.
5.4.3. The Bus station does not display the train times from the local station that allows an even later return than the buses.
5.4.4. Similarly the Railway station does not display a full timetable of buses from the town
5.5. Clear information – Chepstow Bus Station – Timetable information
5.5.1. Again from Chepstow Bus Station a couple of years ago a tourist who had examined the timetable and had found the service only operated on school days and wanted to know if that day was a UK School day or School holiday. Simple things but not looked at through the eyes of a new, inexperienced or foreign user.
5.6. Clear information – Basic travel information and Where to board – Newport Bus Station
5.6.1. My wife went into the Tourist Information Office in Chepstow on Friday 19th May 2012 and asked for a Monmouthshire Bus Timetable. They only had the 2011 version saying they were still awaiting delivery of the 2012 version.
5.6.2. Based on this information, she planned to visit Raglan on Tuesday 22nd May
5.6.3. Caught the 09:22 Stagecoach service 74 from St Mary’s Portskewett.
5.6.4. This double deck bus failed completely on the Chepstow Road at Maindee on the way into Newport.
5.6.5. Everyone transferred onto the following bus, a Newport City local service. The driver ushered everyone on as quickly as possible as the two buses on this narrow stretch of road were causing quite a traffic hold up.
5.6.6. The main Information Notice Board at Newport Bus Station did not mention Raglan but showed Monmouth the end destination of the service 60 which from the information in the previous year’s Monmouthshire County Council Timetable was the only service for Raglan.
5.6.7. The Notice Board indicated that the service 60 for Monmouth departed from Bay 9.
5.6.8. The timetable on Bay 9 showed two services one of which was the service 60 but it only displayed the Sunday service so it was not possible to verify the times compared with the Monmouthshire County Council 2011 Timetable.
5.6.9. Noted a Town & Country Bus parked opposite that started up just after eleven so watched this as the service was due to depart at five minutes past.
5.6.10. Noted this bus pulled into a Bay a few further down the bus station.
5.6.11. The Town and Country Bus displayed no destination but had a cardboard Notice showing that it was service 69
5.6.12. Went across and asked the driver if this was the service for Raglan which he confirmed. (It was the service 60 despite showing service 69) if I had not recognised the bus company from noting one going to Monmouth a few weeks before we would have missed the service as it went from a different Bay to the one the notice board directed us to, it had no destination information and had the wrong service number displayed.
5.6.13. Noted that despite the information Board stating that the service 60 departs from Bay 9 that this other Bay had a service 60 weekday timetable despite not being shown as the Bay for this service on the main Information Notice Board
5.6.14. Only found out a day or two later that there was in fact an earlier service X25 that went to Raglan that we could have caught. It was not on the Monmouthshire County Council timetable as this is only issued annually and came out before the service started.
5.6.15. It does not appear on the main destination board at Newport Bus station so we remained totally unaware that such a service exists.
5.6.16. It has now been withdrawn after eighteen months or so of operation owing to lack of patronage. One cannot help but speculate the lack of clear information may have been a factor.
5.7. Clear information – Where to board – Cardiff Central Railway Station
5.7.1. Transfer from the buses or off any of the many lines feeding into Cardiff and stand on Platform 2 any day of the week at Cardiff Central station and observe the Bristol direction Portsmouth or Taunton First Great Western services.
5.7.2. The regular passengers who know stand at the east end of the long platform.
5.7.3. After the previous train departs the indicator changes to “Arrived”, this can be ten minutes before the scheduled departure.
5.7.4. At the far west end of the platform a train can be seen.
5.7.5. Passengers who are not regular travellers become concerned and can often be seen walking the hundred yards or so down the platform to the waiting train just to find out they cannot board as it is being serviced.
5.7.6. When this work has been completed often only a minute or two before the departure time the train starts up and runs to the east end of the platform for boarding.
5.7.7. The unfortunate new passengers can be seen hurrying back up the platform and scrambling on through the rear door.
5.8. Clear information – Where to board - Severn Tunnel Junction Railway Station
5.8.1. With the Newport resignalling a new platform 4 was reintroduced at Severn Tunnel Junction station.
5.8.2. Prior to this all Cardiff direction services Arriva Trains Wales, Arriva Cross Country, and First Great Western departed from Platform 1
5.8.3. The Cardiff direction and more frequent First Great Western trains now depart from platform 3
5.8.4. There is one overall destination board a quarter of the way through the long station car park. Its position means that most people except for regular users are totally unaware of its existence.
5.8.5. While each platform has a next train information screen it remains a common occurrence for passengers to shout across to others waiting on Platform 1 that if they want the Cardiff train they are waiting on the wrong platform.
5.8.6. Passengers, other than regulars, transferring between the Bristol and Gloucester lines can be seen wandering back and forward across the footbridge trying to read the individual platform screens in order to identify which platform they need to go to in order to catch their onward connection.
5.9. Clear information – Council Travel Information and integrating Rail & Bus Guides.
5.9.1. A few years ago the Monmouthshire County Council Travel Guide included both bus and rail information within the County.
5.9.2. Three or so years ago Monmouthshire County Council decided to remove all the rail information as the council said it was” too difficult”.
5.9.3. If you wanted the full details of the rail services at for example Abergavenny in Monmouthshire you could find it in the English Herefordshire County Council travel guide as Abergavenny is on the Hereford line. This English Council guide also included the full rail services to London and to West Wales.
5.9.4. In Chepstow the Local Buses were painted to advertise that they linked to Rail and the C5 service called regularly through the day at “Tesco for Railway Station” two minutes walk from the station.
5.9.5. Unfortunately this “Clockface” service called at 25 minutes past the hour so if you used it to integrate with the rail services you would arrive at the Railway station just to see the “Clockface” 27 minutes past the hour rail service leaving. Obviously anyone alighting from the train had equally missed the bus by a few minutes.
5.9.6. Initially the Council rejected making any changes to the timings as it would mean altering the other town services C1 – C4 as the buses were intermixed with those.
5.9.7. After three to four years campaigning and invoking elected councillors the majority of the services were adjusted by five minutes allowing connection into the trains.
5.9.8. Also last year for the first time the Monmouthshire County Council C5 timetable had a simple addition showing the departure time and basic direction of the trains the bus connected into.
5.9.9. This year’s version of the Monmouthshire County Council Bus Guide has dropped the integrated train information for two reasons.
5.9.10. Firstly the say that the previous year’s version never showed all the trains because the Buses only connected into less than a quarter of the trains servicing the station.
5.9.11. Secondly the Council supported Bus Service has been taken up by a Commercial Operator, though it is unclear if this will continue. Because it is a Commercial Operator and not a Council contracted service the Council’s reason is that a “Private operator could change the times at only a few weeks’ notice and we do not want to provide wrong information in our guide”. An odd statement considering the same annual guide includes many other commercial bus services
5.9.12. Unintentionally this has highlighted the most significant barrier to cross mode public transport integration and that is that unlike most other countries the U.K. has not rescinded the Deregulation of Bus Services.
5.10. Bus Deregulation
5.10.1. Bus deregulation has resulted in the loss of integration. Instead of supporting the services that they used to feed into; the private operator tends to work in competition.
5.10.2. The last thing a Private Operator wants is for their passengers to easily transfer into say train or tram for the onward journey to their destination so they deliberately do not connect. That way there is more chance of passengers staying on the longer bus journey to the town centre and improving profit.
5.10.3. Even the DfT has acknowledged the effect of deregulation, in their report “Green Light for Light Rail” September 2011 looking at the use of Trams and light rail it states:
5.10.4. “The statistics show that the Tyne and Wear Metro system saw a decline in patronage from 1985 onwards in contrast to growth elsewhere. This was mainly due to the deregulation of bus services in 1986 which meant that bus operators were no longer obliged to provide feeder services and could start competing with the Metro.”
5.10.5. This is the only Tram metro system to have seen a decline in patronage; as it was designed before Bus deregulation and the overall system was based on the principle that local bus services were deliberately designed to feed the Metro.
5.10.6. Following deregulation several of the “Radial” bus services were withdrawn and the buses used by the private operator to run in competition into the centre of Newcastle as this was initially more profitable.
5.10.7. In total the number of people using public transport declined due to lack of access to services and loss of integration but considered in isolation the use of the buses in competition into the city centre maximised profits for the particular operator.
5.10.8. Some extracts from the book “Transport for Suburbia” by Paul Mees the senior lecturer in Transport from Melbourne.
5.10.9. “Congestion has spread to suburban areas, as it did in American cities. The final blow came in 1989, when the New Zealand government adopted the bus deregulation policy implemented in Britain (see Chapter 5). Just as in the UK, patronage dropped sharply, and Auckland's trip making rate finally fell below that of Los Angeles”.
5.10.10. “The European Commission's 1995 green paper proposed extending the market to urban public transport. It shied away from full deregulation, because even by that stage it was widely accepted that this policy had failed in Britain”
5.10.11. “Nevertheless, the market model seemed very attractive to policy makers in colder climes, and so bus services were deregulated in both Britain and New Zealand. However, even the Thatcher government baulked at applying the market to London: the British capital was spared, initially temporarily, but eventually permanently.
5.10.12. London was required to competitively tender its bus services, but under the control of a public agency which determined timetables, routes and fares.
5.10.13. Without intending to, the British government set up an experiment to compare market-based public transport with the planned variety, and the excellent data published by the UK Department for Transport enables the results to be assessed. Table 5.1 compares trends in London and the six 'metropolitan counties' that cover urban regions like Greater Manchester and Greater Birmingham.
5.10.14. The near-consensus, which includes pro-market observers like the European Commission and Wendell Cox, has been that the London model dramatically outperformed deregulation”
5.10.15. The book goes on to provide and analyse the statistical evidence and concludes with a scathing view of Britain
5.10.16. “British bus deregulation has not produced free-enterprise public transport at all; nor has it produced innovative services that respond to contemporary needs. Instead, it has produced a new version of the 1970s 'British disease' that Thatcherism was supposed to have cured: a mendicant, declining industry that relies increasingly on carrying 'captive' passengers at concession rates or even for free, and charging the government at full-fare rates”
5.10.17. “Similarly disastrous results in New Zealand prompted the repeal of deregulation, which was replaced by the 'London model' from 1 January 2009.
5.10.18. Even the leader of New Zealand's ultra-dry ACT party supported the change, pointing out that following deregulation 'Auckland moved from being the second-highest user of bus transport in the Australia and New Zealand region to the second-lowest on a population—patronage ratio.
5.10.19. Britain is now the only part of the developed world where the policy persists”
5.10.20. “Every independent inquiry into urban bus deregulation in Britain has concluded that it has been a failure — from the Royal Commission………... to the 2006 Eddington Transport Study. But Whitehall remains unmoved, and the policy remains in force………..
5.10.21. “In 2006, the UK Department for Transport released a report with the equally impressive title Putting Passengers First.
5.10.22. The report was said to be the result of a `long hard look' at problems with buses, which confirmed the contrast between success in London and failure elsewhere. 'We need to learn the lessons of the London experience', the authors piously intoned, then proceeded to ignore them.
5.10.23. The capital's success was attributed to the congestion charge, despite London having outperformed the deregulated systems for 16 years before charging came in.”
5.10.24. As an outsider looking into Britain and comparing with the rest of the world I think Paul has identified and successfully demonstrated and argued the key change that is needed to improve transport integration.
5.11. Bus Deregulation and example of loss of potential integration - Severn Tunnel Junction Railway Station Rogiet.
5.11.1. An analysis of commercial bus operation as compared with those financially supported by local councils reveals a common trend for the commercial operators to avoid going down and back “dead end” roads. The commercial operators prefer a straight road or at least a diversion through a village for example that is parallel to the “by-pass” straight road.
5.11.2. The outcome of this operational policy of private operators is that where railway stations, as they often are, are located down a “Dead end” or country lane Station Road, these stations are not served by commercial bus operation.
5.11.3. Taking Severn Tunnel Junction railway station in Rogiet as an example there are in total 80 trains calling every weekday.
5.11.4. 55 commercial bus services a day operate through Rogiet along the main B4245 road but none of these will go down “Station Road” and serve the station, requiring a ten to fifteen minute walk from the main road for anyone wishing to interchange between the two modes.
5.11.5. In addition there are 9 Council supported buses a day that go down into the village and serve the railway station.
5.11.6. Unfortunately only five of these nine are timetabled to connect with a train (i.e. bus departs within ten minutes of one of the 80 train arrivals or delivers within ten minutes of one of the 80 train departures a day)
5.11.7. (The low level of connectivity of the council supported bus service is a direct result of the bus service operating on a “mileage maximisation” basis.)
5.11.8. In theory therefore, though in practical terms not all would work, there is the potential for 64 connections into rail services from buses and 64 connections from rail onwards by bus based on the existing number of bus services. In other words 128 connections a day compared with the insignificant number today.
5.11.9. The official National Rail Enquiries section on Station facilities, in the list against Bus Services states “No” which with only a total of five bus services a day connecting with the potential 160 (80 joining +80 arriving) rail services a day presents a more realistic picture than saying bus services are available to and from the station.
5.12. Loss of connections and Integration – Local rail feeder stopping services becoming pseudo inter urban / city services.
5.12.1. Unlike Switzerland local stopping and feeder services that operate over the same routes as inter-Urban/ City services have in the U.K. tended to become additional pseudo inter urban services between the cities on the route.
5.12.2. Cardiff towards Bristol there are two services every hour the “Inter Urban” Cardiff to Portsmouth and the local “stopping” service that extends on from Bristol serving the local stops down to Taunton.
5.12.3. Towards Gloucester there is the hourly Inter Urban Cardiff to Nottingham service and the local all stations Cardiff to Gloucester which for operational reasons has been extended to make a Maesteg to Cheltenham service.
5.12.4. On both these routes the stopping service instead of arriving at the interchange station a few minutes before the fast Inter Urban allowing a quick onward connection; on both routes the stopping service has been timed to leave exactly half an hour opposite the faster service.
5.12.5. This results in the lack of integration from the local service and stations into the longer distance services.
5.12.6. It also results in calls for the passengers wanting to travel between the two cities for the “slower” service to be speeded up and intermediate stops to be taken out.
5.12.7. In Switzerland that has maximized integration and use of public transport the complete opposite philosophy has been applied to the timetabling of feeder services. I give below a further extract from Paul Mees “Transport for Suburbia” ISBN 978-1-84407-740-3
5.12.8. An illustration of the system in operation can be had by travelling to Hinwil, a town of around 5000 residents in the Zurich Oberland, the mountainous region in the far east of the canton.
5.12.9. S-Bahn line 14 leaves Hinwil station at 8 and 38 minutes past the hour, from 5:38 am to 11:38 pm every day of the year; longer trains run at busy times.
5.12.10. Five minutes down the line, each train arrives at the regional junction of Wetzikon, which has two 'island' platforms.
5.12.11. A minute later, the S5 express service from Rapperswil pulls in on the opposite side of the platform. After passengers are exchanged, the express departs for Zurich, followed by the stopping-all-stations S14.
5.12.12. A minute later, a third service departs: the S3, which uses the platform vacated by the express but follows a different route to Zurich, via the sub-regional centre of Pfaffikon.
5.12.13. On the opposite island platform, the same procedure occurs in reverse, allowing transfers in all directions.
5.12.14. In the station forecourt, half a dozen bus routes perform a similar manoeuvre.
5.12.15. Some of these service the town of Wetzikon, while others fan out across the countryside to neighbouring rail corridors.
5.12.16. Connections are possible between all three train lines and all six bus routes, in all directions.
5.12.17. Once the last bus has left, Wetzikon station is quiet until the cycle begins again.
5.12.18. Until 2006, this meant a gap of half an hour, but in that year a second express service was added, doubling train frequencies to 15 minutes; three of the bus routes serving more urban areas were upgraded to match the increased frequency of the trains.”
5.12.19. It is worth comparing Hinwil, the town of around 5000 residents in the Zurich Oberland with an equivalent in Wales.
5.12.20. Magor has a population of 6 to 8,000 and sits on the line between Severn Tunnel Junction and Newport / Cardiff. The station closed under the Beeching cuts has never been reopened.
5.12.21. Wetzikon is five minutes down the line from Hinwil; Newport is five to six minutes down the line from Magor.
5.12.22. Whereas Wetzikon has half a dozen bus routes serving the town and fanning out across the countryside, Newport Railway Station has virtually no buses anywhere near it and those that are do not feed the outlying areas.
5.12.23. If it was in Switzerland the station at Magor would have reopened and like Hinwil the residents would be benefiting from a similar half hour rail service integrating with the faster services at the interchange stations.
5.12.24. Regional Railways had plans to reopen the Ebbw Vale Line into Newport in time for the 1992 Ebbw Vale Flower festival. As part of the proposals there was to be an additional half hourly shuttle service between Chepstow and Newport connecting into this train for onward journey to and from Cardiff.
5.12.25. This was based on reopening both Magor and Portskewett stations which could be accommodated within the connecting times instead of the train just waiting time. (See section on passenger vs. mileage maximization). In the event there was insufficient financial support from the County Council and Ebbw Vale had to wait a decade and a half for its service.
5.12.26. Had the proposal managed to raise the necessary capital support at the time we would be celebrating the 20th anniversary of the reopening of Magor station this year with a fully integrated regular service.
5.13. Lack of integration between Bus and Rail services and rebuilding the station at Newport with the loss of connections.
5.13.1. Expanding on the Newport situation in the example above there is only one bus an hour that goes between the Railway and Bus Stations in the city of Newport. This is the hourly service 73 from Caerwent.
5.13.2. Perversely in the return direction the service 73 does not go anywhere near the Railway station.
5.13.3. If you use Traveline Cymru to find services and search for services between the Bus and Railway stations you will find there are none.
5.13.4. I used to catch the service X14 from Portskewett to Newport Bus station arriving at 13:30 and occasionally the later one arriving at 14:30
5.13.5. I would walk to the railway station from the bus station and catch the 13:39 (or 14:39) service to London Paddington.
5.13.6. The walk between the bus and railway station to the departure platform used to take me six to seven minutes.
5.13.7. With the £24m rebuilding of Newport railway station included the moving of the entrance to the far end of Queensway away from the shopping streets and bus station, the walk to the platform now takes nine to ten minutes.
5.13.8. On the two occasions I have tried it I have seen the London train in the platform but it has left before I have got through the ticket barriers and I had not even reached the footbridge to cross to the departure platform.
5.13.9. Locating the entrance furthest away from the Bus Station has personally resulted in the loss of these connections.
5.14. Bus Timetable change and subsequent loss of connection – Portskewett to London
5.14.1. A journey I used to make sometimes twice in a week was to London for evening meetings
5.14.2. I would leave my house at 14:00 and walk to St Marys Bus Stop to catch the 14:05 service 62 to Severn Tunnel Junction station
5.14.3. At the station the bus arrived at 14:22 giving a quick three minute connection into the Cardiff to Taunton train service.
5.14.4. I would change at Filton Abbey Wood where there was a six minute connection into the short journey up to Bristol Parkway.
5.14.5. At Bristol Parkway there is nine minute connection into the London train.
5.14.6. At Paddington I would walk down to the Bakerloo line and catch a train to Baker Street.
5.14.7. At Baker Street I would change and connect into the Jubilee line eastbound service.
5.14.8. I would arrive at Westminster and as I was leaving the Underground station or shortly after you could hear Big Ben striking five o’clock
5.14.9. From my front door to Westminster in exactly three hours. I have used this in several presentations of how multi modal integration can work. I included it in the presentation to the Secretary of State for Railways at our meting regarding the loss of connections onto the Chepstow line as a result of the First Great Western franchise.
5.14.10. In the years I have used this local service 62 it had never been more than a minute late as it starts only about a mile away
5.14.11. The County Council as part of the financial cut backs were forced into rearranging their Council supported Bus services.
5.14.12. The Bus still leaves about the same time but goes via a different route up to Caerwent and back and does not get to the railway station until almost twenty minutes after the train has gone.
5.14.13. I have tried catching the “Commercial” service 14 that leaves about ten minutes earlier, but this requires the walk from Rogiet Pool down to Severn Tunnel Junction station that I can do in eight to ten minutes.
5.14.14. In theory it should be possible to catch the train as there is twelve minutes between the bus arriving and the train departing.
5.14.15. In practice at this time of day this bus can be five to ten minutes late presumably owing to the traffic congestion at Cribbs Causeway and negotiating the M5 and M4 north of Bristol.
5.14.16. I have missed the train on a couple of occasions because of the unreliable time keeping of the bus. There is no point in going through to Newport as the busses now just miss the departing London trains owing to the extended walk from the Bus Station to the entrance of the rebuilt Railway Station.
5.14.17. Using an earlier bus adds three quarters of an hour to the three hour journey with more than a half hour wait on the platform.
5.14.18. Reluctantly I have reverted to using my car for the four mile link to the station bringing the overall journey time back to less than three hours, though it only saves about five minutes over the previous walking and bus option to get to the station.
5.15. The Dis – Integration of Buses at Newport and Cardiff Cities and the reduction in weather protection when transferring to onward services.
5.15.1. There are in fact other busses that pass the front of Newport Railway Station but they now operate from the streets around Market Square and no longer start or finish in the Bus Station.
5.15.2. The Bays they used to use stand empty and abandoned in the Bus Station.
5.15.3. Another example of what appears a deliberately planned disintegration of both bus to bus and bus to rail services.
5.15.4. It is the reason why anyone unaware of the local arrangement and using the logical attempt to find information by looking at Bus services from the City’s Bus station on Traveline Cymru will fail to find them. You need to enter Market Square instead of Bus Station but how is anyone expected to know this?
5.15.5. While the Market Square bus Stops are only a few minutes walk from the Bus Station it also means if connecting from an inwards bus service you can no longer transfer under the cover of the Bus Station awnings you have to take a longer journey through the streets exposed to the elements.
5.15.6. The £24m rebuilding of Newport railway station has also reduced the cover from the wind and rain when interchanging between rail services.
5.15.7. Under the old layout passengers arriving on Platform 1 from say the Abergavenny line and wanting the London or Bristol services could walk under the cover of the station awnings to the lifts or stairs of the covered footbridge.
5.15.8. Today you see passengers running the gauntlet in the pouring rain along the length of the platform that has no awning in order to get to the new footbridge at the far west end.
5.15.9. From personal observations the largest number of transfers and those with the most luggage are between the Hereford / Abergavenny line and London services.
5.15.10. If the Swiss approach was applied based on maximum integration rather than operational convenience the Abergavenny and London line services would use the island platform providing the shortest most convenient transfer and all under the protection from the weather.
5.15.11. Cardiff City has seen a move to distance Bus services from the Railway Station rather than having them starting from the City Bus Station ideally positioned just in front of the City’s main Railway Station.
5.15.12. The process has been an evolving one with busses using St Mary’s Street and migrating to Westgate and Greyfriars Roads.
5.15.13. Clear information is even more vital at times of change. Some time ago I came out of Cardiff Central station and looked at the information board to find the bay for the bus I wanted to catch.
5.15.14. When I got there I found a notice to say the service now leaves from St Mary’s Street. I asked where in St Mary’s Street the bus went from but the drivers, the only people I could ask, did not know and could only advise I look at the numbers on the Bus Stops.
5.15.15. At least I knew where St Mary’s Street was but there was no map to help a Tourist or anyone new to the City who did not know the names of the streets.
5.15.16. At the corner of Wood Street I could see three or four Bus stops to the right and it looked about seven or eight to the left. I made the wrong choice and turned right and went down to the end of the street before having to retrace my steps. In fact the stop I wanted was last but one almost at the top of the road.
5.16. Loss of connections and Integration – Greater Western Franchise - Severn Tunnel Junction
5.16.1. At Severn Tunnel Junction there are two Bristol line services operating half an hour apart, the Portsmouth and Taunton services.
5.16.2. The regular pattern timetable means that trains coming off the Chepstow / Gloucester line connect at the junction into the Portsmouth service and in the other direction it is also the Portsmouth service that provides the connection into the Chepstow direction trains.
5.16.3. Under the 2006 Greater Western Franchise as part of the cuts in railway services all the Portsmouth line trains were to no longer call at the Junction. The trains still ran they just passed through the station without stopping.
5.16.4. This severed all connections and integration on and off the Chepstow line to Bristol and the east.
5.16.5. Continuing on from Chepstow through Severn Tunnel Junction into Newport to change trains also fails as the Bristol service leaves just as the Chepstow line train arrives and the same thing happens in the other direction. So in addition to the extra twenty miles into Newport and back out again there is an extra half an waiting time added to the journey towards Bristol, more than doubling the overall journey time from Chepstow or Caldicot to Bristol.
5.16.6. In the opposite direction the two hour gap between some of the Chepstow line services has meant that the under three quarters of an hour journey can now take over two hours.
5.16.7. Following direct negotiation with the train operating company by the local passenger user group (Severn Tunnel Action Group – STAG) a total of nineteen more “Portsmouth” line services now again call at the Junction providing connections on and off the Chepstow line during the morning and evening.
5.16.8. This has allowed commuters to once again use public transport to get to and from work in the Greater Bristol area from south east Monmouthshire.
5.16.9. However during the off peak day time there remains no connecting service.
5.16.10. If you walk into Chepstow station at 10 o’clock in the morning to go to London it now takes as long as for someone who walks into Carmarthen at 10 o’clock and slightly longer than for someone walking into Bodmin Road station in Cornwall to get to London.
5.16.11. The only way to make a slightly quicker journey from Chepstow is to pay the extra and add the 74 miles by going all the way up to Cheltenham and then coming back down the other side of the river Severn to Bristol Parkway to join the London train there.
5.16.12. The problem is that the DfT and the individual train operators consider each franchise in isolation and do not take into consideration the effect of connections and integration.
5.16.13. Despite five years of campaigning with a reasonable level of success, the stopping of the Portsmouth trains has not been taken up by the Council or the Transport Consortium and does not appear in the SEWTA Regional Transport Plan.
5.16.14. This is despite the fact that the improvements and connections made have been achieved at no cost to the tax payer and because of the specific operating conditions the reinstatement of the stop on the journey to Bristol can be made without any time penalty.
5.16.15. If you examine the passenger timetables the departure from Newport and the arrival at Bristol remain on the same “Clockface” timings irrespective of whether there is the additional stop at Severn Tunnel Junction.
5.16.16. That both the Council and SEWTA ignore rather than pursue this available option of providing connectivity between the two lines raises issues as to their priority regarding connections and integrated transport.
5.17. Loss of connections and Integration – The Railway Franchise process
5.17.1. The railway franchise mandates the connections that the Train Operator is required to make and this is detailed in the “Passenger Service Requirements” part of the contract.
5.17.2. However the extent of these required connections tends to be minimal and beyond this there is just a general requirement.
5.17.3. Typical extract from the Arriva Trains Wales franchise requirements “The Franchise Operator shall use reasonable endeavours to provide connections within15 minutes between the fast services from London to Cardiff Central and services from Cardiff Central to Treherbert after 18.30 and until the late service to Treherbert.”
5.17.4. General requirement from the Arriva Trains Wales franchise “ .....users of the Passenger Services are provided with reasonable Connections to and from the other Train Operators’ railway passenger services which serve the same stations as the Passenger Services. Such obligation on the Franchise Operator shall be in addition to any express obligations regarding Connections in the Passenger Service Requirement...... “.
5.17.5. Requiring as long as fifteen minutes and then only after half past six in the evening and even this is not mandated but just using “reasonable endeavours” whatever this means indicates the weakness of the requirement in the franchise.
5.17.6. Compare the above with the one minute every half an hour from 05:30 to 23:30 absolute requirement that a Swiss version of Magor into Newport would specify and the comparison becomes obvious. None of the existing services from Newport warrant a mention in the Franchise as far as connections are concerned.
5.17.7. It is hardly surprising that integration has only occurred where the Operator considers there is an immediate financial advantage and it will happily break existing connections where it sees an operational or financial advantage in so doing.
5.17.8. The existing First Great Western franchise into Wales has a stronger general commitment to integration.
5.17.9. Extracts from the existing First Great Western franchise :-
5.17.10. “The Franchisee shall work to promote transport integration through measures including: (a) the display, advertising and promotion of integrated tickets and integrated services; (b) establishing Area Integration Partnerships with local authorities and transport operators to develop integrated schemes, information and marketing
5.17.11. The Franchisee shall maintain the appointment of a dedicated Transport Integration Manager in order to further, across the whole franchise, the promotion of transport integration described in paragraph 15.1 and liaise with Local Authorities and other Stakeholders
5.17.12. The Franchisee will actively engage with non-FirstGroup local bus operators to maintain and enhance the awareness of other existing and future bus and other integrated transport links from Stations
5.17.13. The Franchisee shall invest in improving connections including the following: exploring opportunities to extend Park & Ride services to Stations...............”
5.17.14. The DfT was challenged as to who holds responsibility for coordinating the different Train Operating Companies over the loss of connections and integration following the Chepstow line problems dealt with above.
5.17.15. While initially stepping back from this the Office of Rail Regulation clarified that it is ultimately the DfT / government. The Secretary of State while not prepared to reverse the apparent mistake in the specification that caused the loss of connections used the Integration Manager clause in the Franchise to enable us to get direct access to the Train Operating Company.
5.17.16. It was through this that the nineteen services have been won back providing the morning and evening connections at Severn Tunnel Junction.
5.17.17. As far as the provision of Park & Ride we approached the company for support for the proposals at Severn Tunnel Junction as 75% of all passengers use the First Great Western services from the station.
5.17.18. They fell back on the interpretation that the requirement in the Franchise only applies to stations they manage, and while only 12% of passengers travel on Arriva Trains Wales trains as they manage the station it is for them to invest in improvements to integration such as Park & Ride.
5.17.19. Unfortunately there is not a similar clause in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise other than a specific financial figure across the whole of the franchise area and fifteen year franchise term to improve car parks, but nothing to develop Park & Ride facilities.
5.17.20. (Giving Arriva Trains Wales their due between them and Network Rail the car park has been tarmaced and lined improving the number of cars that it can hold. The demand still vastly outstrips the places available and the full Park & Ride car park is desperately needed.)
5.17.21. There is potential of the loss of even more connections and integration based on the requirements in the replacement First Great Western franchise.
5.17.22. While there are some connections called for in various parts of England there is not a single connection proposed for anywhere in Wales in the invitation to tender for the new franchise.
5.17.23. The general requirements have been substantially watered down as well and in the section on connections and integration the whole of the general requirement is only:-
5.17.24. “Bidders should indicate their plans for wider transport integration and their approach to engaging with local authorities and other stakeholders to improve the journey opportunities and experience for passengers”
5.17.25. Of course should the bidder propose items such as those in the existing franchise they would probably get written into the final contract, but it is not generally in their financial interest to do so and it will be surprising if they offer to do so.
5.17.26. So over the next fifteen years of the new franchise we are likely to see a further reduction in the already relatively poor connections and integration as it is clearly not a high priority item as far as the DfT is concerned.
5.18. Loss of connections and Integration – Arriva Trains Wales timetable change – Chepstow line and Gloucester
5.18.1. Under the franchise requirements Arriva Trains Wales are only contracted to operate the service over the Chepstow line as far as Gloucester.
5.18.2. The layover time at Gloucester awaiting the return path was long enough for Arriva Trains Wales to extend the service to Cheltenham.
5.18.3. This has provided the most significant positive improvement in connectivity and integration to the services in this area as all but one of the Cross Country West of England to the North services do not call at Gloucester but all call at Cheltenham.
5.18.4. Why this obvious omission was overlooked and not included in the original franchise specification is not known.
5.18.5. In doing this it is entirely in Arriva Trains Wales’s gift to withdraw this extension at any time for any reason as there is no contractual obligation to go to Cheltenham. The DfT did not want to retrospectively write it into the franchise presumably because of the concerns of a mid franchise variation costing them too much money.
5.18.6. From May of this year Arriva Trains Wales have withdrawn this extension on one train to Cheltenham in order to make use of a quick turnaround at Gloucester and send the train to Fishguard to make use of the rolling stock in west Wales.
5.18.7. During the day this is the most lightly used service on the line and from on train surveys typically only loaded with about a dozen passengers after leaving Gloucester for Cheltenham.
5.18.8. From the last survey undertaken before the service was withdrawn all except two of the passengers alighting at Cheltenham did not leave the station but remained on the platform for the onward connection eight minutes later into the Cross Country service to the north.
5.18.9. The majority of these passengers had joined at Gloucester rather than from the smaller stations down the line.
5.18.10. While not large numbers it demonstrates how integration and connections can and are being lost if not specified as a contractual requirement.
5.19. Loss of connections and Integration – Arriva Trains Wales timetable change - Severn Tunnel Junction
5.19.1. Following the initial successes in negotiating with First Great Western to have several of the Portsmouth line services to again call at Severn Tunnel Junction we received a specific request from Transition Chepstow.
5.19.2. The last bus back from Bristol to Chepstow leaves at 18:40. The request was to see if we could negotiate for the rail service an hour later from Bristol to call at Severn Tunnel Junction to provide the connection to Chepstow. This was to allow Chepstow workers in Bristol to work later or socialise and still be able to use public transport.
5.19.3. Following a further successful negotiation First Great Western agreed to stop their 20:04 service off Bristol Temple Meads at Severn Tunnel Junction from May 2009 to specifically allow a connection into the Arriva Trains Wales 20:15 Cardiff to Cheltenham service and provide the service to Chepstow.
5.19.4. Despite no hint in the consultation on the December 2009 Timetable; Arriva Trains Wales withdrew their 20:15 service from December 2009 and its associated return working.
5.19.5. Arriva Trains Wales argued that their sister company Arriva Cross Country with its existing 19:50 Cardiff to Birmingham service stopping at all stations provided an alternative service along the line.
5.19.6. Unfortunately this service leaves Severn Tunnel Junction just minutes before the arrival of the incoming service from Bristol so the integration and connection from Bristol to Chepstow only operated for six months and the situation remains the same today. The five / six people who had regularly started to use this new service are again without any public transport that connects to get back from Bristol in the early evening.
5.19.7. In withdrawing the outward service Arriva Trains Wales had no train to operate its return working the 21:45 from Cheltenham. To avoid breaching their franchise agreement they agreed with Arriva Cross Country that it would add stops into it’s through 21:11 departure service from Cheltenham.
5.19.8. This earlier Arriva Cross Country service breaks the thirteen minute connection off the 19:48 from London and adds an hour and a half wait at Gloucester for the next Arriva Trains Wales service down the line.
5.19.9. Protestations including challenging the contractual legality of what had been done were made to the two Arriva companies, the Welsh Government and the DfT in London as the Welsh Government has devolved responsibility for managing the Arriva Trains Wales franchise and the Arriva Cross Country franchise is managed by the DfT in London.
5.19.10. After six months of discussion between the Welsh Government and the DfT in London the governments finally decided that the company was not, in the letter of the law, actually in breach of its franchise commitments and as such there was nothing either government could do about it to make the companies reintroduce the connecting service.
5.19.11. This highlights the fundamental problem that while the governments might “manage” the rail service contracts against their contractual obligations, they do not have any “control” over them.
5.19.12. To make any changes they would have to, as McNulty identified in his report, pay a premium price for a variation because a midterm change does not have the financial “tensions” of competition.
5.19.13. As a result it is not possible to contain a reasonable cost for any changes the government might wish to make that it had not predicted before the start of the fifteen year franchise.
5.19.14. McNulty identified changes and evolution of the services was not happening for fear of excessive costs and where they had been made a high price had had to be paid.
5.19.15. As identified in previous sections for public transport integration to work it requires a controlling authority that can determine and lay down the routes, times and fares.
5.19.16. This cannot effectively be achieved with a deregulated bus system nor with the present rail franchise arrangements where the decisions within what are becoming even looser franchise requirements are with the private operators who have no interest, benefit or incentive to make changes that benefits parts of the system from which they get no financial reward.
6. Conclusions
6.1. This brings us back to the start, what is the purpose of having integration and in what context, the narrow financial considerations of the transport undertaking and / or the wider social, environmental and economic considerations?
6.2. The firsthand accounts give a snapshot of the reality of transport in this part of Wales, but addressing these as particular items is tinkering at the edge of transport integration. It would be like applying plasters to the visible sores, but these are just symptoms of the underlying system and arrangements problems that drive and create them and for significant improvements it would be necessary to tackle these underlying “management structure” issues.
6.3. I have deliberately picked out and included some issues involving the elected representatives and their civil servants. Local council and bus shelters, city councils and separating bus and trains, Transport Consortia ignoring no cost rail to rail integration, Welsh Government unwilling or unable to reverse the loss of integration from the Train Operator they manage, the Department for Transport reducing integration requirements in future rail franchises and central Government unwilling to reverse Bus Deregulation.
6.4. Hopefully this will generate debate and thought about what we want from transport in Wales and what part improved integration can play.
6.5. While I do not now expect to see a railway station in the village I live in in my life time, will the residents of Magor end up with a service like Hinwil or would they only get that if they moved from Wales to a Country like Switzerland where integrated public transport is an accepted way of life in preference to almost universal private car usage that is the norm over here?
Philip Inskip