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

[yorksrob]

The sooner any transport plans are brought out into the open for proper public scrutiny, the better.

 

[trebor79]

Meanwhile I hear from a reliable source that, as if there was ever really any doubt, we’re going to be going down the road of heavily reduced capacity and essential journeys only, with planning now going on behind the scenes on that basis.

Permanently or just until virus cases are down to a level at which contact tracing and testing can contain it?
If the former this is a ludicrous "solution" and the government might as well shut the passenger railways and buy a car for those who don't already have one.
I'm not sure I even agree with it as a temporary solution.
What is the definition of "essential journey"?

 

[yorksrob]

Permanently or just until virus cases are down to a level at which contact tracing and testing can contain it?
If the former this is a ludicrous "solution" and the government might as well shut the passenger railways and buy a car for those who don't already have one.
I'm not sure I even agree with it as a temporary solution.
What is the definition of "essential journey"?

The definition of an 'essential' journey is something which will need to be scrutinised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The definition of an 'essential' journey is something which will need to be scrutinised.

It would manage itself if all discount tickets were abolished - Anytime Single and season only. If you went for compulsory reservations you could then, on the day, release some Advances for trains which had spare capacity having already served those people.

 

[yorksrob]

It would manage itself if all discount tickets were abolished - Anytime Single and season only. If you went for compulsory reservations you could then, on the day, release some Advances for trains which had spare capacity having already served those people.

Yes, I can see that working as a way of managing capacity and cutting down on frivolous travel. It wouldn't necessarily include a strict definition of 'essential'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I can see that working as a way of managing capacity and cutting down on frivolous travel. It wouldn't necessarily include a strict definition of 'essential'

It would also solve any arguments and make BTP checks etc dead simple - if you have a ticket and reservation for a given train, you get on, otherwise go away.

And also, "you must sit in your reserved seat" would mean no arguments about who's too close to who.

I don't normally support compulsory reservations but it seems to have many upsides and few downsides in this specific context.

 

[HH]

After the Aer Lingus fiasco perhaps airlines need to check on essential journeys rather more than TOCs...

 

[JonathanH]

Meanwhile I hear from a reliable source that, as if there was ever really any doubt, we’re going to be going down the road of heavily reduced capacity and essential journeys only, with planning now going on behind the scenes on that basis.

I hope that car travel is treated likewise such that only essential travel is permitted. The last thing we want from this is to divert public transport use to the roads, given the pollution and congestion impact.

It would manage itself if all discount tickets were abolished - Anytime Single and season only. If you went for compulsory reservations you could then, on the day, release some Advances for trains which had spare capacity having already served those people.

Surely anytime single only and no seasons. Season tickets encourage non-essential travel and (often) offer a material discount. I think some easement for key workers is fine but other than that seasons could be cashed in.

An increase to Oyster and Contactless fares in London (over and above peak fares being charged all day and no capping) would also be appropriate.

 

[Non Multi]

It would manage itself if all discount tickets were abolished - Anytime Single and season only. If you went for compulsory reservations you could then, on the day, release some Advances for trains which had spare capacity having already served those people.

I'll just do my essential shopping trip in the morning peak then if I'm paying a peak fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll just do my essential shopping trip in the morning peak then if I'm paying a peak fare.

Very few people will be that stubborn as to wilfully do that.

 

[Non Multi]

Very few people will be that stubborn as to wilfully do that.

Off peak fares incentivise travel at quieter times when the trains aren't full. You're just pricing people off trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Off peak fares incentivise travel at quieter times when the trains aren't full. You're just pricing people off trains.

Which is what we want to do, effectively. Most truly essential journeys are peak-time.

 

[JonathanH]

Off peak fares incentivise travel at quieter times when the trains aren't full. You're just pricing people off trains.

There is an argument that rationing is better (and applied to all travel could remain in place forever to limit carbon emissions) but as a blunt tool and something that be implemented immediately, pricing people off travel is probably the way forward. This could extend to the price of petrol as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is an argument that rationing is better (and applied to all travel could remain in place forever to limit carbon emissions) but as a blunt tool and something that be implemented immediately, pricing people off travel is probably the way forward.

As I mentioned it could be combined with compulsory reservations and limited Advance Purchase on the Day tickets released at lower prices to fill the spare capacity, if there is any, with discretionary travel.

 

[bramling]

I hope that car travel is treated likewise such that only essential travel is permitted. The last thing we want from this is to divert public transport use to the roads, given the pollution and congestion impact.

I don’t think that will necessarily follow. It’s not that they *want* to restrict public transport, but more that they feel there’s a *need* to. Hell does anyone seriously think the government wants to castigate rail fares revenue at a time when fixed costs are essentially the same or perhaps even more?

By contrast car use offers a way to restart elements of the economy without having to worry about it being spreading mechanism (although of course movement of people in itself acts as a risk too, but this can be mitigated in a way that a packed train seems unable to be).

It’s pretty rubbish, but then so is all of this.

 

[yorksrob]

Which is what we want to do, effectively. Most truly essential journeys are peak-time.

That's only true of work though. Essential journeys, such as hospital appointments or visiting relatives is likely to happen at other times.

 

[JonathanH]

As I mentioned it could be combined with compulsory reservations and limited Advance Purchase on the Day tickets released at lower prices to fill the spare capacity, if there is any, with discretionary travel.

What is the point? If someone really needs to make discretionary travel at the last minute, why should they pay less than those whose need is 'essential'?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the point? If someone really needs to make discretionary travel at the last minute, why should they pay less than those who have to travel essentially.

That's what happens normally. As I said, most essential travel is peak time, and most discretionary travel is off-peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's only true of work though. Essential journeys, such as hospital appointments or visiting relatives is likely to happen at other times.

Visiting relatives is discretionary unless you are a carer, in which case some sort of subsidy could be introduced for that specific edge case.

Hospitals is an interesting one and may well need some other sort of arrangement, which may indeed not include the railway. Most people do not go to hospital by train, it may be better to provide something specific for the few that do, such as extending the car services using NHS volunteers of whom there are loads.

 

[trebor79]

There is an argument that rationing is better (and applied to all travel could remain in place forever to limit carbon emissions) but as a blunt tool and something that be implemented immediately, pricing people off travel is probably the way forward. This could extend to the price of petrol as well.

There is zero chance of petrol duty being increased in the near future, and certainly not to a point that would seriously dent private car usage. That would be absolutely politically toxic in normal times let alone now.
In fact I'd view it more likely that duty would be cut as a sop to people who now can't get about on public transport (still not very likely though).

 

[yorksrob]

I don’t think that will necessarily follow. It’s not that they *want* to restrict public transport, but more that they feel there’s a *need* to. Hell does anyone seriously think the government wants to castigate rail fares revenue at a time when fixed costs are essentially the same or perhaps even more?

By contrast car use offers a way to restart elements of the economy without having to worry about it being spreading mechanism (although of course movement of people in itself acts as a risk too, but this can be mitigated in a way that a packed train seems unable to be).

It’s pretty rubbish, but then so is all of this.

By that logic, one could pick a quiet train and go for a non-essential journey on the basis that the spreading risk won't be much different from a car journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst it might be with the best of intentions, pricing people off the trains hurt British Rail, leading to decades of closures and managed decline. You do want a railway after this?

The railway is going to lose loads of money operating at about 1/5 capacity. Therefore, the decision of "if we want a railway after this" is a purely political one as it will rely on subsidy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By that logic, one could pick a quiet train and go for a non-essential journey on the basis that the spreading risk won't be much different from a car journey.

And that's exactly what I meant in my proposal. If it's looking quiet, release some Advances on that train on the day. If not, don't.

 

[trebor79]

The railway is going to lose loads of money operating at about 1/5 capacity. Therefore, the decision of "if we want a railway after this" is a purely political one as it will rely on subsidy.

If it's a temporary capacity constraint then it shouldn't affect the long term. If it's permanent (which I think would be incredibly silly) then that's a whole different matter. Those in the know aren't telling though, so all we can do is speculate.

 

[yorksrob]

Visiting relatives is discretionary unless you are a carer, in which case some sort of subsidy could be introduced for that specific edge case.

Hospitals is an interesting one and may well need some other sort of arrangement, which may indeed not include the railway. Most people do not go to hospital by train, it may be better to provide something specific for the few that do, such as extending the car services using NHS volunteers of whom there are loads.

This is why the proposals need to be properly scrutinised. The population's idea of what's essential may differ, particularly if the every Tom, Dick and Harry with a car can go where they want.

 

[bramling]

By that logic, one could pick a quiet train and go for a non-essential journey on the basis that the spreading risk won't be much different from a car journey.

Yes absolutely you could now. I could pick services local to me where there would be no more than about 5 people on a 12-car train.

But we’re not talking about now, they are planning for when more people will be using trains. If too many people have the same idea then all of a sudden the train won’t be empty. We’ve already seen issues just with KFC opening up!

 

[yorksrob]

And that's exactly what I meant in my proposal. If it's looking quiet, release some Advances on that train on the day. If not, don't.

That could facilitate some such journeys.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

It would also solve any arguments and make BTP checks etc dead simple - if you have a ticket and reservation for a given train, you get on, otherwise go away.

And also, "you must sit in your reserved seat" would mean no arguments about who's too close to who.

I don't normally support compulsory reservations but it seems to have many upsides and few downsides in this specific context.

What about if, like me, you work in a job where your variable workload can mean you usually end up finishing at different times on different days and therefore can't specify what train you'll get home?

Or what if you wish to stop off to do your shopping or have a walk before getting your train home?

Some commuters need flexibility - taking that flexibility away isn't an acceptable solution.

 

[bramling]

If it's a temporary capacity constraint then it shouldn't affect the long term. If it's permanent (which I think would be incredibly silly) then that's a whole different matter. Those in the know aren't telling though, so all we can do is speculate.

The reason no one is telling is quite probably because they genuinely don’t know. A massive amount will no doubt depend on what happens over the next few weeks and months. The virus may die away, or we may get a deadly repeat wave. Will it overwhelm us again in the winter? Will a vaccine appear?

There’s so many unknowns so it’s no surprise the politicians don’t have all the answers.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes absolutely you could now. I could pick services local to me where there would be no more than about 5 people on a 12-car train.

But we’re not talking about now, they are planning for when more people will be using trains. If too many people have the same idea then all of a sudden the train won’t be empty. We’ve already seen issues just with KFC opening up!

Then you'd be better off just having a system of reservations, rather than a blanket definition of essential journeys.