Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

[trebor79]

I agree, compulsory face masks will be the way forward for some time. Discouraging use altogether defeats the purpose of mass transit and getting people out of their cars, although I think some measures to prevent overcrowding would be beneficial. These could include asking employers to stagger work shifts like the government is suggesting, banning standing on board and more staff on platforms to enforce 2 metre distancing and ensure that passengers do not board a train with no available seats.

But even that's not workable. What if my Peterborough to Ely is full and standing (as it often is)? So I kick my heels at Peterborough for another hour and the next one will be just the same. Eventually I miss the last connection from Ely to home. Then what?
Surely we have to be treated as adults? If I don't want to take the risk then I won't get one. Similarly, if I feel the train is getting too crowded I can get off.
Personal responsibility needs to be utilised, not a nanny state trying and failing to legislate for every possible situation.

 

[hassaanhc]

Originally meant to post this in the Exit Strategy thread, but that got closed, and turns out this post fits better here anyway!

I don’t think that’s true at all. Where I am there’s only about twenty percent of the usual traffic on the roads (we live next to a main road), the city centre is almost empty, the lanes are far far quiter than normal and there’s still virtually no-one on public transport.
Maybe it’s different where you are but it’s clearly not the same everywhere.

Also true in my area of London, but it doesn't meet the usual agenda, so gets ignored. Yes its not the curfew level quiet that it was at the beginning, but things are still way down compared to usual traffic levels.

Driving to/from Hounslow town centre yesterday, a small road closure at Lampton Corner that would usually have caused traffic instead had no effect at all. In nearby Southall, a 4-way temporary traffic light by the station would usually have caused huge traffic queues everywhere and decimated the bus services, but I cleared it on the first attempt. I even checked Google Maps for my usual 10 mile commute home from work (which goes through Hanger Lane roundabout), and that was showing 24 minutes, the lowest possible! On a usual Saturday at 1715, you'd be lucky to do it in 35 minutes.

In Hounslow town centre itself, it was significantly empty compared to a usual Saturday afternoon. Greggs (at least one of the two branches), McDonald's, Costa, various clothes stores etc all closed. Treaty Centre had just Poundland and Wilko open out of over 20 shops, and outside the shopping centre only similar shops, plus Superdrug, Holland & Barrett etc were open. Even Wilko itself had no queues, which is difficult at any time of day!

 

[AM9]

In which case it seems likely we’d better all get ready for a possible second wave, or just keep fingers crossed that a vaccine happens sooner rather than later...

In my experience the shielded people I know (and this is only my experience, yours may differ) are generally taking this very seriously.

Apart from one colleague whose wife keeps dragging him round supermarkets and it seems to be the lesser of two evils to keep the peace, others aren’t venturing out at all. My neighbour I spoke to across the garden fence earlier - he’s early 50s and shielding, working from home in the process, and has only been out once in the last 6 weeks. Judging by how most of the cars in my road have barely moved in that time, some not at all, that seems to be fairly typical here.

You seem to be confusing those classified as needing 'shielding' and those who are 'vulnerable'. Genuine shielding requirements do need to be kept to as they are for people who have very limited immunity and/or a vriety of specific chronic conditions that would make an infection very serious. Vulnerable people are generally those who have a lower immunity, and an age threshold of 70 has been suggested. What is being questioned is whether those over 70 should be further quarantined or prevented from travelling on public transport. At 70, many people are more fit than they would have been at 60, partially because they have been living a more healthgy life in the early years of retirement. I can't see an argument that those in that group who don't have a car available to them should not use public transport.
I suspect that some suggesting such a restriction are closet Baby Boomer haters.

 

[Belperpete]

He said he plans on WFH more often. I changed from July 2019 to WFH 50%. I can say categorically that it has improved my mental health.

I also changed to working from home approx 50% of the time in my last few years of work. I would NOT have wanted to be WFH 100% of the time. Far too isolated, and out-of-the-loop. "Oh, didn't you know that?" seemed to be quite a common phrase. Think about what it is like when you have been on holiday or off sick for a fortnight or more, and how much time it takes you to catch up with all that has happened in your absence.

Unfortunately, shortly before I retired, our IT department decided that a lot of the tools that we were using to WFH weren't secure enough, and tightened things up considerably, which made WFH much more difficult. I had been using CITRIX on my own home PC through my home network, but they decided this wasn't secure enough, and disabled remote access to all but company-owned PCs with all user settings locked, and access via a mobile dongle. I suspect that during the lockdown many companies will have rushed through WFH arrangements, that may not be acceptable in the long-term.

 

[MDB1images]

TOCs will no doubt look at seating arrangements to see how/if social distancing can be achieved and have had a fair nudge on what Government plans are going to look like for the next phase in this pandemic.

I'd expect we'll hear more later this week.

 

[cmovcc]

You don't think that having no human contact, never having a face to face conversation, rarely going outdoors and spending day after day just staring at a computer screen might eventually have an effect on your mental health and quality of life?

I'll very happily trade this for the privilege of having to pay £7000/year and waste 2 hours every day sitting on a train (even if I have to go in once every few weeks)

and I suspect most commuters from the country into London think the same way

bye bye TOC business models...

 

[yorksrob]

The bloke from the RMT on Radio 4's "Today Programme" appeared to be using the argument that having people travel between London and Manchester (his example) would help to spread the virus around the country. He didn't really address the issue that this would have no effect anyway if people were allowed to drive those distances.

 

[HH]

I also changed to working from home approx 50% of the time in my last few years of work. I would NOT have wanted to be WFH 100% of the time. Far too isolated, and out-of-the-loop. "Oh, didn't you know that?" seemed to be quite a common phrase. Think about what it is like when you have been on holiday or off sick for a fortnight or more, and how much time it takes you to catch up with all that has happened in your absence.

Unfortunately, shortly before I retired, our IT department decided that a lot of the tools that we were using to WFH weren't secure enough, and tightened things up considerably, which made WFH much more difficult. I had been using CITRIX on my own home PC through my home network, but they decided this wasn't secure enough, and disabled remote access to all but company-owned PCs with all user settings locked, and access via a mobile dongle. I suspect that during the lockdown many companies will have rushed through WFH arrangements, that may not be acceptable in the long-term.

100% WFH certainly won't work well if you're the only person WFH. But current WFH, with everyone pretty much involved, works OK, technical hitches notwithstanding. However, exactly how things work will depend on the organisation and job. I certainly wouldn't see 100% WFH working for us long term, but I feel pretty confident that the amount of WFH will increase considerably. I'm sure that there will be other firms though, where they will want to go back to how it was before. Based on surveys carried out, I know that WFH is the most sought after perk that firms can offer, which is why I expect many more firms to be like mine than the alternative.

 

[HH]

In my experience the shielded people I know (and this is only my experience, yours may differ) are generally taking this very seriously.

Over 70s with no underlying health conditions aren't shielded. Indeed a medical expert on BBC News yesterday said that fit people in their 70s with no underlying health conditions would fare better than some who were chronologically younger, but had a more "lived in" body (his phrase).

 

[nedchester]

The bloke from the RMT on Radio 4's "Today Programme" appeared to be using the argument that having people travel between London and Manchester (his example) would help to spread the virus around the country. He didn't really address the issue that this would have no effect anyway if people were allowed to drive those distances.

The RMT putting together a coherent argument, don’t be silly........

 

[Bletchleyite]

The unions must not be allowed to drive the national agenda on this, and should be careful because a Tory Government would love the opportunity, with public support, to do some union-crushing, e.g. banning strikes...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, shortly before I retired, our IT department decided that a lot of the tools that we were using to WFH weren't secure enough, and tightened things up considerably, which made WFH much more difficult. I had been using CITRIX on my own home PC through my home network, but they decided this wasn't secure enough, and disabled remote access to all but company-owned PCs with all user settings locked, and access via a mobile dongle. I suspect that during the lockdown many companies will have rushed through WFH arrangements, that may not be acceptable in the long-term.

Thus negating the whole purpose of Citrix in that context!

Your IT department is wrong. I think this is yet another firm where the IT department has become a self-fulfilling thing, and not something that exists purely to support the business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

bye bye TOC business models...

...in favour of a better one?

Providing for peaky commuter flows is expensive. You buy lots of fancy EMUs and DMUs and use them for one return journey a day. Go look at Camden Bank at lunchtime.

If the train length and frequency required all day was the same, it would be much, much cheaper to operate - and remember that season ticket holders usually pay, per journey, somewhere around the level of the cheapest off-peak return ticket per day, sometimes even less.

 

[westv]

...in favour of a better one?

Providing for peaky commuter flows is expensive. You buy lots of fancy EMUs and DMUs and use them for one return journey a day. Go look at Camden Bank at lunchtime.

If the train length and frequency required all day was the same, it would be much, much cheaper to operate - and remember that season ticket holders usually pay, per journey, somewhere around the level of the cheapest off-peak return ticket per day, sometimes even less.

I know it's probably unanswerable but how many passengers are needed for a train to run at a profit?

 

[trebor79]

The unions must not be allowed to drive the national agenda on this, and should be careful because a Tory Government would love the opportunity, with public support, to do some union-crushing, e.g. banning strikes...

Absolutely. The RMT banging on about increased services putting their members at risk is a nonsense. The maximum number of passengers I have seen on a train is 4 (yes 4, a carriage each to themselves). Increasing service provision would presumably reduce that even further, and therefore result in *less* risk to staff. I know passenger figures will increase as things open up again, but the point remains that more services = less passenger density = less risk of infection.

I'm still very puzzled as to what meaningful use can be made of public transport in a "socially distanced" world. I have a very nasty feeling that we will see a decimation of rail services, Dr Beeching eat your heart out style.

 

[chris11256]

Absolutely. The RMT banging on about increased services putting their members at risk is a nonsense. The maximum number of passengers I have seen on a train is 4 (yes 4, a carriage each to themselves). Increasing service provision would presumably reduce that even further, and therefore result in *less* risk to staff. I know passenger figures will increase as things open up again, but the point remains that more services = less passenger density = less risk of infection.

I'm still very puzzled as to what meaningful use can be made of public transport in a "socially distanced" world. I have a very nasty feeling that we will see a decimation of rail services, Dr Beeching eat your heart out style.

Exactly, I'm sure the Government either has or will realise that social distancing doesn't work on public transport. Even if you put queues in place and several restrict numbers of people allowed onto trains, it defeats the point in catching the train in the first place as you'll then likely be watching for ages to actually get on the train. I think that if we're not careful we're going to have a long term slump in rail travel with people reverting to the safety & virus free bubbles of their own cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm still very puzzled as to what meaningful use can be made of public transport in a "socially distanced" world. I have a very nasty feeling that we will see a decimation of rail services, Dr Beeching eat your heart out style.

This is working on the assumption of no vaccine ever, I guess? If we end up in that long-term situation lots of things will need a major rethink. But arguably your average branch line 153 with one man, dog and bicycle is probably lowest risk.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Running fewer trains not only means busier trains, but it also means more crowding on platforms and concourses.

 

[bramling]

You seem to be confusing those classified as needing 'shielding' and those who are 'vulnerable'. Genuine shielding requirements do need to be kept to as they are for people who have very limited immunity and/or a vriety of specific chronic conditions that would make an infection very serious. Vulnerable people are generally those who have a lower immunity, and an age threshold of 70 has been suggested. What is being questioned is whether those over 70 should be further quarantined or prevented from travelling on public transport. At 70, many people are more fit than they would have been at 60, partially because they have been living a more healthgy life in the early years of retirement. I can't see an argument that those in that group who don't have a car available to them should not use public transport.
I suspect that some suggesting such a restriction are closet Baby Boomer haters.

A fair point, you’re right I was generally taking the line that the over-70s would be tied down in the same way that those shielding are, which of course isn’t quite the case. Indeed all of those shielding that I was referring to are well below 70.

I tend to agree that it’s unfair to keep over-70s off public transport, and I’m certainly in full agreement that we really need to keep this away from an old-v-young situation, an agenda which some people certainly seem to be gently pursuing.

That said, how many over-70s would *want* to risk trying their luck with a train, especially once ridership picks up? Trains are fine at the moment where they’re fairly empty, however last week when I was untypically travelling in on a slightly busier one I could sense the trepidation. One cough would certainly travel comparatively far, and this is before we contemplate some of the disgusting habits of some typical train users (fortunately these people are largely absent at present!). Being younger and with no known issues it’s a risk I’d be comfortable to take with an element of distancing in force, but in all honesty I wouldn’t want my elderly relatives on a train at the moment.

 

[Huntergreed]

I can sadly see public transport still being reserved for “essential work travel only” for the foreseeable, potentially until a vaccine arrives. As the number of workers will increase when more businesses are allowed to open, I don’t see anyone else being allowed to travel or this would make distancing impossible, and whilst masks may work, they’re not perfect and still don’t prevent spread via say touching a surface.

It would be ideal if the distancing guideline was reduced to 1m that would essentially double capacity, but even then it’s whether the government would be willing to take that risk, and given the fact that the man in charge of it was almost killed by the virus, I think their absolute top priority will always be to prevent the spread above all else.

 

[bramling]

Indeed. Running fewer trains not only means busier trains, but it also means more crowding on platforms and concourses.

No one is seriously advocating the idea of fewer trains. The problem is how we can max out capacity (both in terms of train lengths and services) with a proportion of essential staff unavailable going forward.

As regards comments elsewhere about unions, London‘s Underground timetable debacle could have been avoided had the unions been listened to. Contrary to what some here think, good union reps do exist and they can be a golden asset when you want to get something done. In the case of LU, trying to push in something which was quite simply unworkable in practice has resulted in a lesser service for the last month, and quite needlessly tested industrial relations to boiling point in a few locations.

The politicians haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory over this - ISTR a particularly ill-informed comment from Matt Hancock intimating that he “knows of no reason why rail companies can’t run a full service”. That really was breathtakingly daft.

 

[trebor79]

This is working on the assumption of no vaccine ever, I guess? If we end up in that long-term situation lots of things will need a major rethink. But arguably your average branch line 153 with one man, dog and bicycle is probably lowest risk.

Yes, if the world is to be socially distanced for ever (or at least until society realises that it's no way to live, even if it does reduce your risk of catching one particular disease), what's the point of having mass transit systems?
I personally have low expectations for a vaccine. Nobody has even developed a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. Why people think one is going to be available in a few months bemuses me.
End games are either some permanent version of what we are presently doing, or a return to normal, albeit with vastly increased home working.
In either case people are going to be told not to or reluctant to use trains. I fear a vast increase in road traffic and road building.

 

[trebor79]

It would be ideal if the distancing guideline was reduced to 1m that would essentially double capacity, but even then it’s whether the government would be willing to take that risk, and given the fact that the man in charge of it was almost killed by the virus, I think their absolute top priority will always be to prevent the spread above all else.

No, there has to be a balance. And there are other ways of preventing spread that aren't so intrusive on our lives and economy. Contact tracing and testing a la South Korea is the only sensible way forward in my view. Perhaps with enforced quarantine for potentially infected people.

I'd far rather be allowed to go about my daily life with the risk of the odd enforced quarantine whilst sample results come in than this weird world we inhabit at present.

 

[A Challenge]

If the evidence for face masks/coverings is indeed that they are as unreliable as it appears, why would this make any difference to being able to get people back on trains?

 

[bramling]

If the evidence for face masks/coverings is indeed that they are as unreliable as it appears, why would this make any difference to being able to get people back on trains?

It’s surprising there’s still so much unknown over masks. This ought to have been nailed down by now. Alternatively the continued debate over this perhaps points to how many unknowns there still are about C19 and how is spreads, which isn’t wonderful for politicians needing to make decisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I personally have low expectations for a vaccine. Nobody has even developed a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. Why people think one is going to be available in a few months bemuses me.

Because there are two very big differences between this and other situations.

1. Labs are basically being told to drop everything and work on this.
2. There is effectively unlimited funding available for it.

 

[westv]

It’s surprising there’s still so much unknown over masks. This ought to have been nailed down by now. Alternatively the continued debate over this perhaps points to how many unknowns there still are about C19 and how is spreads, which isn’t wonderful for politicians needing to make decisions.

Perhaps Governments that have brought in mask policies have done so not because they are effective but because, like all Governments, they feel they must be seen to be doing something even if that something is of little practical use?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps Governments that have brought in mask policies have done so not because they are effective but because, like all Governments, they feel they must be seen to be doing something even if that something is of little practical use?

Or a similar "loads of countries have done this, we're going to look stupid if we don't follow and it is found to work"?

 

[trebor79]

Because there are two very big differences between this and other situations.

1. Labs are basically being told to drop everything and work on this.
2. There is effectively unlimited funding available for it.

Neither of those mean that there is a viable vaccine to be discovered, unfortunately. Previous attempts have resulted in either low efficacy, or the vaccinated individual suffering extreme and dangerous immune response such as cytokine storms when subsequently infected by the target virus.

 

[underbank]

But even that's not workable. What if my Peterborough to Ely is full and standing (as it often is)? So I kick my heels at Peterborough for another hour and the next one will be just the same. Eventually I miss the last connection from Ely to home. Then what?
Surely we have to be treated as adults? If I don't want to take the risk then I won't get one. Similarly, if I feel the train is getting too crowded I can get off.
Personal responsibility needs to be utilised, not a nanny state trying and failing to legislate for every possible situation.

Trouble is it's not just "your" risk is it? Other people need protecting from you too if you're carrying the virus. Fair enough for the most vulnerable to be shielded for a year or so until a vaccine, but there are also millions of "vulnerable" people needed for normal daily life to function, i.e. essential workers with diabetes etc (teachers, doctors, nurses etc). Public transport needs to be safe for them too. I think it's inevitable that face masks will be compulsory, along with as near normal timetable as possible with as few short formed services as possible. We need to do whatever it takes to try to ensure trains and buses aren't overcrowded and to make passengers as safe as possible on them.