“To get the right stories about transport, talk about the place first”
That was the final advice given by one of the experienced strategists at the recent annual conference of the Campaign for Better Transport. This non-profit organisation began under the name Transport 2000 in 1973, an initiative of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway Industry Association and the Liberal Party Environmental Panel. In 2007, it merged with Roadblock, an anti-road-building organisation, and changed its name to the Campaign for Better Transport.
Between the plenary sessions, the conference programme this year had 2 tracks for the breakaway sessions: trains or buses. Last year, I selected trains because I am a member of Bring Back Euro trains, a campaign advocating for cross-channel trains to resume stopping at Kent stations, and I am also a member of Railfuture, which has members across the UK rail network, including some ex-railway managers who push for various improvements within their areas. My specific focus last year was to reopen station waiting rooms open for longer hours along the south Kent coast.
Improving bus services
This year I decided to attend the session about buses. I am impressed by the work that the Campaign for Better Transport has done this year to draw attention to bus stops and to develop a 4-star classification system. Local and national governments have made various pronouncements and policies to improve bus services, as discussed by Richard Styles in his KSB articles. The Government has allocated more funding for improvements in the bus network.
In Kent this has mostly been spent on the 2 Fast-track projects, in Dartmouth and Dover. But what we fear in this part of mid-Kent (Ashford) is more routes being cut. There was someone from Folkestone who complained about bus cuts there. But KCC has intervened to stop the axing of the number 10 bus route, because the route included William Harvey Hospital.
Every step matters
I highlighted the need for bus planning to be linked with health planning, stating that when I attended the public hearings in 2018 about the possible plans to move trauma care to Canterbury, it was evident that the decision-making was being made by the health professionals, with not a single transport expert in the room. Health professionals do not seem to be trained to include transport in their treatment protocols.
Obviously, once a person is classified as disabled, then certain procedures are undertaken booking of an ambulance, availability of a wheelchair at hospital entrance etc.
But if the patient is temporarily disabled, as I have been twice in the last 8 years with foot or leg afflictions, then various obstacles on the way to and from treatment can hinder the non-car-owner: appointments made at times when the pensioner cannot use the free bus pass (i.e. before 9.30 am), or when there is no bus, such as none between Canterbury West station and the hospital.
Then if the patient takes a taxi, how will they travel from the hospital entrance and through long corridors to the actual clinic? I suppose there is an assumption that most lame patients would arrive with a helper, but the staff need to notice and ask. Sometimes there even seems to be a shortage of wheelchairs!
Although I did not mention this wheelchair shortage specifically, several people supported my general argument strongly for better link up between health and transport planning, including the expert from Podaris who works full-time in data-linking for various local authorities.
One solution for patients who live in the rural villages off the main bus route is to rely on the teams of volunteer drivers. The system works by pre-booking a volunteer driver, who the user then pre-pays. There is also an office near the entrance to the hospital that gives advice to patients needing free transport (eligible to those on Universal Credit).
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
How does it aid our environment?
But the predicaments of NHS patients are not the main thrust of campaigns for better transport. Many of us want to see fewer cars on the road, for health and environmental reasons. I follow air quality news, with weekly bulletins. It is pleasing that the controversial initiative of the Lord Mayor, Sadiq Khan, to improve the noxious air of London by imposing the ULEZ zones has been so successful, despite the noisy opposition from some neighbouring Kent boroughs. The mayor’s recent press release claims this has made a measurable improvement in air quality in London.
Car domination: Why is it such a big issue?
Whose voices get to dominate the media with stories about transport? With car ownership being so high in the UK (sometimes 3 cars parked outside the house even in modest suburbs), proposals to disincentivise car travel by improving public transport do not gather votes. Fixing potholes does. Until the public transport option, or active travel (by bicycle or scooter, or walking) becomes easier and cheaper than the car, political priorities are hard to shift. But once improvements are made, such as how Andy Burnham, as Mayor of Manchester, took control of the privatised bus system, it is easier to see what more could be done by consolidating strategic planning in other metro regions.
One of the panellists at the CBT conference recommended getting over ‘the hill of hysteria’, that is, the storm of protest from car-owners who can’t imagine any other way of travel; once on the other side of an improvement, the quiet supporters emerge, such as the women and children who prefer quieter streets.
Would less traffic encourage more outdoor activity?
At the last local election, I was canvassing on foot near a route to a public park and play area and met a woman walking to it with a child of about 8. I asked her what improvements she would like to see in the area and what the problems were. We talked for about 5 minutes about these, and then I asked the child. Her one comment was ‘there are too many cars’!
Too right! The freedom of children to play around their homes is visibly restricted by traffic in most places. I had an uncle who could recall playing cricket in London streets 100 years ago. There is a general fear (whipped up by the sensationalism that garners attention in the media and social media) that public spaces are unsafe for children. So, our young people are hindered in making friends outside their homes and exploring activities together, without adult supervision, as used to happen.
A greener future
The government has noticed this and is aiming at getting a norm of 60% active travel to school. A policy of ‘school streets’, where cars are banned during school opening and closing times, is well supported by all voter groups. Some cities, like Brussels, have ‘no car’ days when it is possible to see what the streets are like without cars. Then many more youngsters can emerge on their bicycles and scooters.
Once one sees how much better a place can be without the traffic, one wonders why the majority take their cars even for short journeys of under 5 kms. Making active travel easier, as recommended by the organisation Living Streets, makes sense.
