Memorandum from Stephen J Palmer

 

1) Have often found that political expediency means things are rushed through, only narrow and obvious constituencies of stakeholders considered, finance and formal structure/targets predominant, interaction with 'competitors' dealt with superficially, interaction with other colleagues ignored? etc etc.

2) Have been a reasonable user of public transport facilities in Plymouth (ferry, bus, train, taxi, foot, cycle, private driver/chauffeur). Used some of the day passes, Plymouth, Cornwall (train/bus), south west (bus).

3) Pretty wealthy so not that cost constrained but find some travel still expensive and that seems much particularly bus travel probably driven by subsidy considerations at expense of general public.

 

There was a bit of a fracas between a young lad and the 'conductor/ticket collector' on an early evening train from Penzance to Plymouth. The youth seemed to be venting frustration to what to him seemed very high fares to the conductor who seemed somewhat shocked. Both parties seemed close to unwarranted physical aggression. I sought to avoid things getting out of hand by personally giving 5 pounds to the lad. Issue of public transport cost to the low/moderate waged, unwaged etc remains. (interesting pensioners get subsidised, isn't this inappropriate [if electronically expedient] and perhaps illegal?).

4) Interested that there doesn't seem to be a policy of encouraging public transport use rather than car. Is this driven by easy raising of funds by tax on fuel/cars and car parking fees?

5) Would expect some 24 hour bus/train services, why aren't there any? Is this to encourage taxi usage at odd hours? Couldn't some innovation result in fair income for taxis, etc. What about bulk buy/events etc.

6) Interested in disabled travel provisions. Seems as in many charitable/disabled provisions that providers blatantly discriminate against certain disabled users whether through lack of understanding, laziness, or prejudice. Interested in supporting disabled servicemen where invisible disability often as limiting/destructive as physical (and both treated negatively/inappropriately?)).

7) Re cars, like mine, were prized possessions, and expensive. Couldn't some greater car share be encouraged, perhaps getting insurers on side (greater excesses, no ridiculous claims for pure cosmetic work,) perhaps range of cars in car share plan, range of ages.

8) Question how much transport provision limited by unintended impact of rules, standards, health and safety, unions, short term funding/expediency, avoidance of personal risk etc etc. Same question re fuel efficiency in cars (design of cars/engines/fuel etc etc).

9) Found use of outsourced security guards abysmal.

 

10) there was a trackside fire a few weeks ago on a Sunday. I purchased a £10 round-Cornwall ticket which I was then unable to use for the purpose intended since no Penzance trains were running due to a trackside fire. I hired a car and driver at short notice for in excess of £150 to go to the stock cars. Somewhat put back when a refund refused and blagged off (most stations can analyse customer spend by debit/credit card, or at least they used to and from a system standpoint should be very easy), so the fact that my word was totally discounted and some rubbish system of the trainco's choice offered seemed somewhat inappropriate. If public transport entities have readily available evidence which supports a customer claim, it seems incumbent on them to provide this. If they don't, seems in breach of public service duty and possibly criminal if litigation possible. Similar issue re buses where appeared photo evidence would be withheld if benefited customer.