There’s been a lot of comment on roadworks recently.
Here’s a good example of a bus company getting it right.
It’s an occasion where the operator knows well in advance and has publicised matters accordingly. The web notification even advises passengers to check out bus and stop notices should the roadworks over-run. A sensible precaution, I’d say.
But, even so, there are problems. What about people who don’t read the notices and aren’t aware? The usual service operates every 10 minutes as a circular. The temporary timetable splits this into two 20-minute sections. There’s potential for confusion. And loss of revenue, of course.
I’ve known going to a lot of trouble to get things right, close stops, create bespoke timetables and so on for a temporary timetable during roadworks, including plenty of advanced publicity, only to find the works started several days late. What happens in such situations? Run the old timetable or the new (which is dated)? The answer is the new… but it can look a little daft.
Most roadworks actually seem to spring up overnight without much warning. Most are simply shuttle workings that delay rather than divert. It’s very difficult indeed to react to these sorts of problems. Other traffic will eventually filter away, taking whatever rat runs it can find and this sometimes means bus delays are minimises. But on other occasions, things can actually get worse, particularly if they over-run or if they lapse into holiday seasons. And they *do* have a habit of over-running. But, say the utility adds two days to the roadworks just in case of an over-run… and say this isn’t required… any temporary timetables that are timestamped will instantly cause confusion.
Roadworks cost operators dearly. Slow progress means that buses consume more fuel. Delays will mean that short distance passengers may give up altogether. Buses can end up off-timetable, a cumulative effect as the day progresses. This will drive passengers away. Or one service can affect others where buses inter-work. Those miles away from roadworks see the problems but don’t understand why.
In both these circumstances, it may be prudent to stick another bus in the respective cycle. This, too, comes at a cost at the very time when revenue goes down. Using your spare driver duty for this opens up a vulnerability elsewhere should something else go wrong.
Why then do utilities always seem to think that provided they’ve told bus operators of the disruption that they can then disown the whole affair? There’s absolutely no prospect of compensation should the local highways engineers decide to dig the roads up. There may be in other circumstances but it’s a battle royal getting any cash.
The answer is to undertake roadworks in the evenings & overnight, under floodlights. Disruption is minimised for all concerns… general traffic, bus services, passengers… except for those who live on the roads themselves and the utilities who will obviously have to pay more for their work. But for once, that would actually benefit other people than themselves.
14 comments:
"The answer is to undertake roadworks in the evenings & overnight, under floodlights. Disruption is minimised for all concerns… general traffic, bus services, passengers… except for those who live on the roads themselves"
Most roadworks can't be "put back" during the day, though - if it's going to take 2 days, you can't always fill in the hole overnight. And I think slight travel delays are a lesser of the two evils than no sleep. So I don't agree.
I agree that W&D are doing this in a very professional way, though. Perhaps there should, except for genuine emergencies, be a legal requirement for notice to be given of roadworks that may disrupt bus services, and a guaranteed waiver for the 56 days notice for a new timetable in those cases. Indeed, you could perhaps say they should give 56+N days notice?
Neil, where did you get "slight" travel delays from?
Have you never seen absolutely monstrous queues that cause a whole town to gridlock? Certainly, last year, my town came to a complete standstill every day for about two weeks because of one set of two-way temporary traffic lights. Often, no one was working at the roadworks.
W&D have done well, but as per one complaint on their Facebook page - why are they not any 1Bs at all early in the morning or in the evening, it seems rather unfair.
There already is a waiver of the 56 day notice...
You do have to register a temporary diversion or change now which you didn't before - but you don't even have to pay for it or gve any notice.
It's Anon 0924 again.
And what's this "56+N" thing you're proposing, I don't understand?
And of course, in proportion, the number of people who have their sleep affected is going to be tiny in comparison to the number of people that get delayed, probably more than "slight travel delays" (which could actually be major gridlock) across the course of the day. So when you actually consider the wider picture, which is the lesser of two evils?
Plymouth has been suffering exceptionally for the past 6-8 months from a series of major road works being undertaken across the city. This has had a major effect on bus services - you only need to look at Plymouth Citybus or First D&Cs website to see what this has meant to passengers. To illustrate the scale here is the roadwork list affecting Plymouth Citybus services in October alone - http://www.plymouthbus.co.uk/about-us/news/roadworks-october-2011
The two operators in the city have not always seen eye to eye (there are past posts on this blog about the 'Plymouth bus wars'. The roadworks have however brought the two companies together and there appears to have been some joined up thinking to put passengers first. For example this message was posted on the Plymouth Citybus facebook page recently:
"During the duration of the road closure affecting our Oreston services 5 and 5A First Devon and Cornwall have kindly agreed to accept key cards as flash passes on their service 2 for customers boarding or alighting at bus stops in Plymstock Road, Randwick Park Road, Foresters Road, Pomphlett Close and Pomphlett Gardens ONLY. Thank you FDC."
I think it is excellent that the companies have decided to put aside their differences in the short term, to focus on making sure that disruption to passengers is minimised. In the long term this has to be the best move. If bus users decide to find alternative means of travel during the roadworks, there is no guarantee that they will come back once the works have finished.
"And what's this "56+N" thing you're proposing, I don't understand?"
I mean that if 56 days notice was considered a reasonable time for a bus company to plan in, more than 56 days (hence 56+N) should be given for a utility digging up a road with a bus route other than in emergency (gas leak etc).
"So when you actually consider the wider picture, which is the lesser of two evils?"
Depends where the roadworks are. In a residential estate the noise could carry and prevent hundreds of people sleeping. So if planned properly, that may well be the greater of the evils.
What is needed is mandatory communication between those digging up the road and those affected by it.
Roadworks aren't an easy thing to manage from a bus point of view. We certainly try to work closely with Highways/the utilities and the bus operators (contracted and commercial) to minimise delays, and we are beginning to get an understanding on both sides.
We've had a lot of evening/overnight work for resurfacing this summer/autumn, but even that can effect buses, and has cost us to provide extra vehicles where necessary - plus the time planning and organising it all.
Very often although things can be planned well in advance (certainly the bigger schemes) it remains a last minute job to get the confirmation that things will happen as planned as much of this work is weather dependent.
Informing the public via stop notices and ideally on vehicles is essential, as is having a LA telephone contact point, and we'll often send an officer out as well to inform people for the first day or more. Perhaps we are the exception!
Surely utility companies and Highway Authorities will also have their own budgetary concerns regarding the costs of these works, and will also be under pressure to minimise them.
The same way that we may feel that it is not just a case of 'a diversion' or 'a few minutes delay' they may have similar problems that we do not appreciate.
However the term 'emergency' does seem to be used far too easily. Thankfully the local HA do seem to be questioning this and trying to restrict roadworks on key sections of main roads to school holidays, sundays etc.
I know of occasions where roads have been closed for several days for resurfacing where buses were allowed through the affected area. This was the case when the A4 through Saltford was closed for a lengthy resurfacing. First's Bath - Bristol services were allowed through. They even used this in an advertising campaign as the road diversions for all other traffic were lengthy.
One answer might well be the implementation of lane rental schemes, whereby local councils would charge utilities for digging up the road during busy times.
The DfT is actually running a consultation on lane rental schemes at the moment, which ends in a few days time on the 31 October - for more information on the concept, and the chance to respond, see the DfT website here:
www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-25
TfL has long been a proponent of lane rental in London - this recent-ish press release outlines their take on the matter:
www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/20797.aspx
Doing it overnight is agood idea in theory, but in practice environmental health officers often won't allow it in resdential areas due to the noise. Highway engineers need to stop thinking of buses as traffic snd think of them as an essential service whch needs special arrangements.
@ Anon 0128
Highway engineers need to stop thinking of buses as traffic snd think of them as an essential service whch needs special arrangements.
Why should a commercial operator be given special dispensation? Bus operators are the same as taxi operators, HGV operators, etc...
@ David 1006. Bus operators are running timetabled services and carry far more people than taxis. HGVs carry freight. People are more important than freight.
Anonymous said...
"HGVs carry freight. People are more important than freight."
Something of an over-simplification. It depends what that particular freight is, or what those people are traveling for. Urgent medical supplies would deserve priority over people just going to do their shopping.
David said:
" Why should a commercial operator be given special dispensation? Bus operators are the same as taxi operators, HGV operators, etc..."
HGVs and taxis are not the same at all. Buses carry lots of people, many of whom may be elderly or young. Also, many highway authorities have policies supposedly aimed at promoting bus use to achieve modal switch. Then they go and mess it up by closing the road. Bus patronage is fragile. Cancel the journeys and people find other ways to travel and then do not return when the bus service is reinstated.
Bus services receive public funds through BSOG and concessionary payments and might even be financed by the highway authority if it's a contract service, so there's considerable public benefit in not messing them about.
Arrangements could be made to allow buses to travel through works, because bus drivers follow the same route regularly and can be instructed by their employers on how to travel through the works safely. Taxis and HGVs are random travellers and cannot.
The fact that it may be a commercial operation is irrelevant if highway authorities want more people to use buses.
Post a Comment