Also to have given first thoughts on how to extend this towards "what is required",
and by what means needs are to be assessed ( e.g. questionnaire, door-step survey )

(d.i) ---The "A.367" trunk corridor routes ( Rtes.173, 178, 184 )

(d.ii) ---‘Orchard Way’ services ( experiments and residual Rte.175 )

(d.iii) ---Serving PSJ with a Shoscombe service ( Rte.757 )

(e.i) ---Radco

(e.ii) ---Tesco ( and Sainsbury )

(e.iii) ---the eternal magic of Asda

(e.iv) ---Bristol

(A) Definition : ‘Transport’ i.e. Public Transport.

Primarily those bus and coach services readily available for use by -any- residents.

It follows that although an extensive number of school-daily coach services operate from / to
the village carrying school-age children, these are Contract services provided by the Local Authority, are not available for use by other residents, and therefore excluded from this review.

Firstly to determine and examine services that currently exist and their usage patterns.

Then consider how any latent true demand can best be assessed for any potential future services as timings and/or routes which do not currently exist. Can such demand be met ?

This has been logically extended to take note of services which may have been provided in the past but have subsequently been discontinued, for whatever reason. This will guard against otherwise unnecessarily ‘reinventing the wheel’ regarding potential ‘new’ services.

Note also to be taken that this is an ever-changing situation, e.g. the need to anticipate changed patterns such as "Over-60s Free Travel" that is applicable from April 2006, an event even falling well within the intended -preparation- cycle for this Village Plan project.

From the early 1930s until recent times provision of bus services ( "stage carriage services" ) was very strictly licensed and regulated indeed. The current regime, intended to provide a ‘lighter touch’ to licensing, has also brought in complications that were not foreseen or intended by the legislators.

In simple terms there are now two broad types of bus service :

"Commercial" services : An operator makes his own decision that a particular bus route and operational timings would provide him with an adequate revenue income, and registers the service accordingly, taking all risk that he has correctly assessed the revenue potential from the service he provides. He has an obligation to run the registered service but can ‘de-register’ it by giving a prescribed period of notice of intention to do so. Note that the Local Authority has no say or control whatsoever regarding the running of ‘Commercial’ services or their farescales.

"Supported" services : Where a Local Authority considers that a need exists for a particular service ( either a whole route, or ‘missing’ timings on an existing Commercial route, such as morning, evening or weekend journeys ) they will seek tenders from operators to enter into a contract for such route or journeys. Such services are planned by the ‘Transport’ department of the Local Authority and will include detail of exact route, timings and farescale conditions.

Theoretically a Parish Council could Support a particular service, but this is generally unlikely because of the dislike of "double taxation", and lack of skill at that level to manage the contract.

In B&NES area passengers can generally ( but not entirely ) visually identify ‘Supported’ services as the buses carry route numbers in a ‘700’ or ‘900’ series ( i.e. as seen at Peasedown St.John, elsewhere ‘Supported’ services are also in ‘600’ and ‘800’ series ).

Peasedown St.John area examples include the whole of the ‘757’ ( Shoscombe ) service, and some journeys only ( e.g. morning, evening and $undays ) on Rte.178, with these journeys publicly displayed as ‘778’ on vehicle destination screens and in public timetables.

As the Local Authority has a hand in setting fares on ‘Supported’ services this can sometimes cause confusion to passengers who may be charged differently for same ride on a ‘Commercial’ service. Fortunately this normally only arises with Single Tickets. A supreme local example of this ( though working to passenger advantage ) was when Bath Bus Co. Rte.C.3 existed. During the day a Bath Bus Co. return half ticket was strictly non-available on the corresponding FirstGroup service ( both being ‘Commercial’ services ). During the evenings however Bath Bus Co. return half tickets could be used on FirstGroup-operated ‘Supported’ ‘778’ services.

Where passengers encounter such anomalies it has an unfortunate ‘off-putting’ effect regarding the whole ambience of bus travel, and in an ideal world complete interavailability of ticketing encourages more use of buses. Sadly, the current bus licensing regime, coupled with ‘monopolies’ legislation, discourages, and even prohibits, such potential schemes of
co-operation between operators. However one section of the travelling public is shortly to experience greater ‘seamless’ travel opportunities when the ‘Over-60s’ receive free local bus travel from April 2006.

In terms of many comparable-size villages to be found within the U.K. in Year 2006,
Peasedown St.John is very favourably well-provided with existing bus services.

In great part this is due to geography, the village lying astride the A.367 road which provides a narrow linking spine or channel from Bath to Radstock, Midsomer Norton, Wells, and to a lesser extent Frome ( which is also bus-served from Bath via another slightly more direct route ( Rte.267 ) ).

Historically this basic route is a -very- old-established one, open-top double-deck buses having commenced to ply the road through Peasedown St.John to Radstock and Midsomer Norton in 1905. In those earliest days the buses did not terminate in the centre of Bath, but at Glasshouse, where they acted as ‘feeders’ to the city tram service, which had been electrified and greatly extended the previous year. Although the ‘Midsomer Norton’ service was thus the pioneer, the accolade of ‘flagship service’ passed to the longer Bath to Wells service, and indeed, even until the very recent weeks of wholesale fleet renewal, the current Bath to Wells service was always distinguishable by having a better class of vehicle than on the other routes.

The current primary bus operator in the area, FirstGroup, nowadays provides three distinct services to destinations via this main corridor, as follows :

---Rte.173 Bath to Wells

---Rte.178 Bath to Paulton ( with many journeys extended via Keynsham to Bristol ).

---Rte.184 Bath to Frome

There is a basic day-long hourly interval on each of these three routes with evenly spaced departures, so that effectively Peasedown St.John has a twenty minute interval service
within the Bath to Midsomer Norton segment, which in practice covers the majority of the most popular destinations sought by bus users from this village.

‘Supported’ journeys ( Rte.778 ) continue into the evening.

Whilst the late evening journeys on Rte.173 have now been lost for some time, ( due to withdrawal of funding by the Somerset Council ) all journeys on the ( basically hourly )
mid-evening frequency of Rte.778 serving Peasedown St.John from Bath are clearly very well used, and there is a sustained level of patronage to justify the frequency and regularity of this evening service being maintained, at least as at present, into the foreseeable future.

In a westbound direction PSJ residents clearly use buses substantially for local journeys to Radstock and Midsomer Norton. Beyond Midsomer Norton there is a lesser demand for bus travel to available destinations, though some demand can be noted for Wells ( Rte.173 ) particularly for Wednesday market days and Saturdays. Until the late 1940s there were variants on this particular routing direction giving direct bus service connecting Bath ( and PSJ ) with places such as Priddy and Cheddar. These links have long been abandoned and there is no evidence of any resulting hardship or demand for reinstatement.

As far as Chilcompton the road is served by both Rtes.173 and 184, the latter then diverting to Frome via a succession of Mendip villages.

Rte.178 diverges to serve Tesco and then Paulton ---the latter important to PSJ villagers as it gives direct door-step access to Paulton Hospital--- then on to Keynsham and Bristol.

This Bristol routeing is a good example of "a journey too far syndrome", as although the route provides a direct ‘no-change’ service to the Broadmead central business and shopping area of Bristol, adjacent to the newly-rebuilt Bristol bus station, the length of journey time has a most ‘offputting’ feel due to the circuitous journey. Indeed, the journey to / from PSJ is obviously even longer than from Radstock, yet efforts to provide "Fastbus" commuter service to improve Radstock / Bristol timings for Radstock commuters have also failed to make that shorter journey attractive to significant numbers of travellers. A majority clearly prefer to make a quick transit by use of private car, either directly into Bristol centre via Whitchurch, or by utilising Brislington P+R.

Late afternoon ‘return’ bus journeys from Bristol to PSJ on Rte.178 are also often severely delayed by traffic congestion on the way out of Bristol, producing a ‘knock-on’ effect that travel from PSJ to Bath in the early evening is somewhat unreliable due to late-running journeys.

In an era of generally declining bus service provision it is heartening, even as this Report is being prepared, to learn that FirstGroup are prepared to further improve the combined daytime service frequency of these three routes through Peasedown St.John, reducing present all-day
interval of twenty minutes down to fifteen. This should further boost patronage, as with closer frequencies there is less need for potential passengers to be constrained by precise ‘next bus’ timings, it is acceptable to "just turn up and wait" when this is for no more than fifteen minutes.

On Saturdays, these services are maintained at practically identical frequencies as apply on Mondays to Fridays, with the omission of some early morning ‘commuter’ journeys, and the removal of some extended timings that are applied to Monday to Friday morning journeys that are habitually delayed by traffic congestion into Bath.

On $undays and Bank Holidays Rte.778 forms a basic Bath to Paulton via Radstock and Midsomer Norton service with -all- journeys ‘Supported’ (by B&NES ).

This interworks with Rte.973 ( nee Rte.173 --‘Supported’ by Somerset County Council )
to provide a regular interval half-hour service through PSJ throughout the day, with a reasonable level of service continuing into the evening. From observation and patronage it is confirmed that significant levels of originating and destination passenger journeys are sustained from / to Peasedown St.John throughout the traffic day, and this is reflected in the overall modest level of subsidy cost that B&NES reports as being needed per passenger journey.

Exponential residential expansion of Peasedown St.John came in the 1990s, and a by-pass
of the whole village section of A.367 : Bath Road, Huddox Hill, Ashgrove, opened in 1996.

The ‘main corridor’ bus services have all continued to run through the original alignment, and traffic levels to / from the older part of the village clearly still justify this.

Meanwhile the main concentration of new housing development is served from a new spinal distributor road Orchard Way, which links solely to the new by-pass and does not connect directly anywhere to the original roads within the older built-up PSJ village boundaries.

The geography of this layout brings a problem over conveniently linking the off-Orchard Way communities into existing bus service provision for Peasedown St.John, or of economically providing that area with some form of standalone bus service.

In fact however a surprising number of attempts have been made to solve this, -none- of which have proved to be long-term successful, and it is useful to recapitulate these as a background of caution regarding any future proposals for new services that may be mooted when canvassing for ideas for this Plan.

It has been a common U.K. bus operating practice in the past, when vast new housing estates were being built-up, to provide a reasonable basic bus service through the area before all the properties are built and occupied. As the newcomers then find a bus service already in place and operating when they arrive, it is a big factor in encouraging their immediate and continued use of buses from the outset.

Traditionally such services, which are bound to be loss-making at first, are cross-subsidised from the revenues of other established and more profitable local routes.

Although such speculative attitudes towards provision and financing of bus services into new areas no longer applies to the extent it once did, a vestige of the philosophy was indeed still tried in respect of the new Orchard Way estates. After the Peasedown St.John by-pass was opened in 1996, the then main operator Badgerline ( forerunner of FirstGroup ) augmented the ‘straight through’ service with up to ten journeys each way on weekdays, designated as Rte.175, each journey first serving the Ashgrove, Bath Road spine of the village, ( i.e. from Bath ) then serving Wellow Mead and Wellow Lane before using a specially-provided
buses-only slip-road onto the by-pass, thence via the Orchard Way distributor road before regaining the by-pass for onward journey to Radstock, etc. In the early months before Orchard Way itself was completed, buses needed to ‘shunt’ to turnaround at Faulkland View, which for some time was the limit of constructed roadworks.

Return journeys towards Bath followed the same route ( i.e. from Bath Road into Wellow Mead, Wellow Lane, etc ) thus providing the Orchard Way estates with a regular direct service either into Bath, after a retracing move back to Bath Road via village entry junction, or, in the opposite direction, to Radstock, etc.

Sadly the incoming residents failed to appreciate the benefit of having a ready-established bus service on their distributor road, and the amount of support given to the service was minimal.

As a result the original ten journeys a day were excessive overprovision, and Badgerline and FirstGroup have steadily needed to delete those journeys with the most uneconomic loadings.

In 2006 a vestigial service still remains on Rte.175, a seemingly unbalanced service of two morning journeys in the direction towards Bath, and two afternoon returns, the first specifically timed to pick-up scholars from St.Gregory’s School, and a later one to return commuters.

The routing means that passengers only able to use a one direction journey from Orchard Way do not incur financial penalty as their return ‘half’ ticket is validly available to a Bath Road bus stop by other FirstGroup services, though they then have to walk down to their housing.

In more recent years the independent ‘Bath Bus Company’ was formed to exploit potential traffics they saw in a number of areas across Bath and suburban Bristol, as well as running a core business of open-top sightseeing services within Bath. As a result Peasedown St.John was to witness an exciting new experiment as part of their enterprise. Articulated buses on public roads within the U.K. were virtually unknown at that time, apart from a few examples within airport boundaries for airside use, though a pioneering batch of vehicles had been brought into the U.K. in 1985, made by Leyland-D.A.B., who were the Danish partner of Leyland. ( Denmark already had considerable experience of operating articulated buses ).

After these vehicles had been used on experimental services in Sheffield, Bath Bus Co. acquired a small batch and introduced them on a new Rte.C.3 operating :

Bath, PSJ, Radstock, Midsomer Norton, Tesco, etc, with a skeleton service onwards to Shepton Mallet ( but that using ordinary single deckers ). The interesting aspect was that the C.3 route also, after traversing the village from Bath, turned back down the by-pass to serve around the Orchard Way distributor road ‘loop’. Due to the length and articulation of the buses, they proceeded direct from Bath Road onto the by-pass, leaving Wellow Mead, Wellow Lane, unserved, as sensibly no attempt was made to use the Wellow Lane ‘buses-only’ slip-road.

This ‘Bath Bus Co’ initiative reinstated to the Orchard Way estates a daytime service of at least hourly interval in each direction. Although not generally revealed publicly, it is believed that B&NES ‘Supported’ this service by providing ‘Bath Bus Co’ with a nominal lump sum finance to route -all- its journeys via Orchard Way. Sadly the traffic from the Orchard Way estate area

still failed to build up to provide direct ‘fare-box’ revenue, and it is believed this led to ‘Bath Bus Co’ requiring the B&NES lump sum subsidy to be increased if the service was to be maintained.

This request was evidently met with refusal, as shortly afterwards not only the Orchard Way loop but the whole of the ‘Bath Bus Co’ Rte.C.3 service was withdrawn.

Although Bath Bus Co. had pioneered this use of articulated buses on a routing primarily away from the hazards of Bath’s centre, the mode has since been enthusiastically used by FirstGroup on services that do cross the city centre to serve the two Universities.

A more modest operation was later tried from April 2004 by another local independent operator, Somerbus, who introduced Tuesday journeys to Bath, as Rte.174, starting from their own conventional operating area of Midsomer Norton and routed not through Peasedown St.John
‘main road’, but only via the by-pass and Orchard Way to specifically target the new estates.

These journeys were commendably attempted as entirely ‘Commercial’ services, to operate entirely without any subsidy or ‘Support’ to see if the claimed potential traffic demand truly was there. Had it been proved so, this service could of course have been augmented and extended.
A feature at the Bath end was that the service ran beyond the Bus Station or usual adjacent street termini for independent operators, going further into the centre of the city at High Street. Once again the venture failed to be supported by enough users to make even the one journey viable, and after a fair trial period the experimental route had to be de-registered and dropped.

On $undays a joint service was operated for some time by the then Badgerline and Southern National companies, sharing alternate journeys, on a route linking Bath with Bridgwater.

This also traversed by-pass and Orchard Way in both directions, not serving central PSJ at all.

The above ( and Rte.757 discussed in the next paragraph (d iii) below ) were not to be the last attempts to provide bus service primarily for the benefit of potential passengers from the

Orchard Way distributor road estates.

In June 2004, amid a blaze of publicity, a new Rte.747 was commenced on a one-way clockwise internal route entirely within Peasedown St.John. Provision was on a lavish scale,
a 20 minute frequency of continuous service giving seventeen round journeys each weekday. Representatives of PSJ Parish Council were aghast at the lack of local consultation prior to the intended introduction of this service, as B&NES usually circulate this information to bodies such as Parish Councils before contracting ‘Supported’ services. It seemed very obvious that the route and service had been ill-conceived, and sadly this rapidly proved to be the case.

In practical terms the contract was with C.T.Coaches of Radstock, the service vehicle always being a midibus, and mostly driven by a mature driver resident in the village and sympathetic to the needs of the passengers, albeit few in number. To this end, although no deviations were made to the route ( which would have been a serious legal breach ), a number of informal additional stopping places did develop to best serve the individual boarding and alighting needs of the few passengers. ( see Rear Cover photograph )

Inevitably very many journeys ran completely empty throughout their entire circuit, and if the driving had been in the hands of someone less dedicated, temptation would have been very strong to ‘miss journeys’ to relieve the tedium of such operation.

The stated objectives of linking Orchard Way with Health Centre, etc, produced very few passenger journeys. Again the fact of needing to physically change vehicle to / from other services at Bath Road / Ashgrove in order to "get anywhere" was an obvious deterrent to use,  

coupled with the non-interavailability of ticketing between operators thus requiring a further payment on a second vehicle.

The level of subsidy support that was required to be paid by B&NES, whether expressed as the total sum to the operator, or even worse as the averaged subsidy per individual journey for the few passengers who actually travelled, was too obscenely high to be contemplated further.

Rte.747 was finally ( and thankfully ) abandoned in April 2005.

The only other ( at time of writing still -just- surviving ) bus route to serve Orchard Way is Rte.757, and this is discussed in more detail in the following paragraph (d-iii).

Rte.757 is, as its route number implies, a wholly ‘Supported’ service with a southern "terminal" at Shoscombe. Whilst making its way to Bath it does not ignore Peasedown St.John but in fact makes a form of double-loop run through the village to pass through both the main Bath Road alignment -and- the Orchard Way distributor road.

However observations, including some now made especially in course of compiling this report, indicate that in terms of originating or destination journeys there is little or no significant dependence on this service by PSJ residents, even for those on the Orchard Way estate,
as the primary ridership is a very small number of semi-regular passengers from Shoscombe.

A B&NES source has revealed that the level of subsidy paid to the operator ( Somerbus ) equates to £ 7.93 per passenger journey, which is clearly an untenable figure. It is likely that if any future service is justified at all it will be some form of much lower cost alternative such as demand-responsive taxibus.

Although Rte.757 follows a unique route on its journey into Bath, via Wellow and Combe Hay, this does not involve much greater running time than on the "A.367" services, and -should- be an acceptable alternative, especially as at the Bath end it not only serves the usual Bus and Rail Stations but runs on to serve the more central points of High Street and Grand Parade.

With this in mind I have conducted observations of the operation along the Bath Road and Ashgrove segment, and it is noticeable that even if there is a queue waiting ( which is often the case at Methodist Church bus stop ) absolutely no-one attempts to board a Rte.757 journey !.

Due to the nature of the route and its low patronage, Somerbus normally operate with a midibus rather than a full-size single-decker. However this is normally a Mercedes vehicle of high standard, and in particular has clear modern dot-matrix indicators always seen correctly set with route number and destination, thus there can be absolutely no doubt on the part of an awaiting passenger as to the route the vehicle is on, and its current destination.

Some future analysis needs to be done as to why this phenomenon occurs.

First thoughts are that presumably intending passengers are put off either by :
--lack of knowledge regarding timing of return Rte.757 journey if they use that route into Bath;
--non-interavailability of return fares precluding a return by alternative FirstGroup route;
--some inherent reluctance to travel by midibus ( however well-appointed ) compared with
the ride on a new full-size vehicle with a host of modern amenities
--some other factor(s) altogether ?

However all such thoughts are likely to become merely academic if, as expected, B&NES soon finds it unacceptable to continuing subsidising just a few Shoscombe residents at current cost !.

 (E) Shopping

The Co-operative movement has always had a strong influence in the area, dating back to when the coal mining industry, with its concomitant social framework, was predominant.

A Co-op store mainly for food and drink consumables exists within the village itself, but a larger establishment "Radco" in the centre of Radstock provides not only foodstuffs but also clothing and a wide range of durable wares presented in a small-scale ‘departmental store’ format.

"Radco" can be reached from PSJ ( "A.367" alignment ) by the use of bus services listed in (d.i),

on the present twenty minute daytime frequency.

However "Radco" has seen fit to entirely subsidise a weekly shoppers’ service from PSJ to the store ( as Radco is central in Radstock this means it also serves other Radstock facilities )

provided free of charge to passengers. This runs once weekly, the contract placed with PSJ operator ‘Arleens’, and in addition to the attraction of free travel, the coach loops around the inner roads of the village to minimise the need for shoppers ( mainly over-60s ) to walk.

It will be interesting to see, when the over-60s all receive free travel valid on the (d.i) services, whether the local village loop continues to attract enough custom to justify Radco maintaining the service.

Tesco have a medium-to-large ( recently extended ) supermarket "nearly out-of-town" on the edge of Midsomer Norton. All journeys on Rte.178 ( and its variants ) make a small diversion in both directions between Midsomer Norton and Paulton to loop through the store to service the front entrance. It is not known whether this deviation is regarded as "commercial" by FirstGroup or whether Tesco specifically provide blanket subsidy to the operator to do this.

( Other journeys operated by Somerbus, etc, also make this loop through the store ).

Shoppers from PSJ can therefore access Tesco at all opening times with zero need for walking at the Tesco end, but there is little evidence of substantial such traffic from PSJ. Indeed the persistency of the service provided is a little eerie, exemplified (in a non-PSJ-relevant example)

by the unique Rte.777 journey back from Farrington Gurney to Midsomer Norton which loops through Tesco at a timing close to 2200hrs ! Although the store is nominally open 24-hours, the likelihood of a pick-up at that hour onto a journey in that direction is remote indeed !.

The other similarly popular supermarket chain is Sainsburys, and until very recently it was necessary to travel to Bath ( old Green Park station ) to reach one of their stores.

Now however, the former Safeway store centrally located in Midsomer Norton’s main street, has, after a brief takeover spell as Morrisons, now been sold on and reopened after refitting as a medium size Sainsburys. Shoppers from PSJ wishing to visit a Sainsburys by bus have just a short walk to this store from the main bus stop at Midsomer Norton Town Hall.

Despite the relatively local proximity of Radco, Tesco and Sainsbury there is still something almost magical in the ability of Asda to attract shoppers.

Geographically the nearest Asda store is in the centre of Trowbridge. Independent operator Somerbus runs a once-per-week ‘Commercial’ service ( Thursdays, Rte.185 ) linking through from its own local service area via Midsomer Norton and Radstock to Trowbridge. This service, accessible from PSJ by interchanging at Radstock, is enormously popular with its clientele and requires use of a full-size single-deck bus for each journey. Indeed the service was commenced as a double-decked operation ( affording unprecedented views during the journey) but as vehicles of that size had not previously traversed that route, there was an unacceptable level of top-deck damage caused by untrimmed low tree branches. Passengers have sufficient time in Trowbridge to not only visit Asda but also the undercover shopping arcades of the Shires Centre, with attractive fresh produce displays, and the more conventional indoor market hall area at Castle Place.

Despite this facility for persons in this area to reach an Asda, Asda themselves have now commenced a once-per-week coach service offering free travel, but this to their -Frome- store

( not Trowbridge ) which is situated on the outskirts of that town, so the free service does not offer a ‘bonus’ opportunity to reach other amenities in Frome. However, this service does perform a comprehensive loop-around within Peasedown St.John to pick-up and set-down passengers, so intrinsically more attractive than having to change at Radstock (and pay fares !)

I have observed loadings on this free service from various parts of the village and this is an instance where the facility is well-supported at pick-up, drop-offs, in Orchard Way.

As mentioned in (d.i) above, there -is- a direct ( Rte.178 ) service from PSJ through to Bristol Bus Station ( itself very recently extensively modernised ) which is directly adjacent to the main in-town central shopping centre of Bristol at Broadmead. However the length of the journey combined with slow service speed by bus makes this seem an unattractive option.

FirstGroup have recently attempted to speed up the journey by routing more directly a little used section, but received vigorous protests from an articulate minority in the Timsbury area, though their protests are not matched by passenger numbers actually presenting themselves to travel !.

The ‘out-of-town’ Bristol shopping venue at Cribbs Causeway is not directly served by bus from PSJ, but can be reached by making one interchange at Bath Bus Station to Rte.319

 (F) Hospitals

The description of Rte.178 above has already mentioned that Paulton Hospital can be conveniently reached from PSJ on the hourly service to Bristol. This is most useful as Paulton Hospital, whilst only a small unit, does handle a lot of minor outpatients’ work for patients in the area, exactly the clientele who can appreciate an easy access by bus service to attend for their small-scale medical attention, physiotherapy, etc.

All significant hospitalisation of PSJ residents takes place at the Royal United Hospital ( R.U.H.)

in Bath. A fairly recent innovation has been the introduction of Rte.42 operated by Abus between the Odd Down Park+Ride site and the R.U.H.

This is a service whose route lies nowhere near the physical parish of Peasedown St.John, but it is fair to say that since introduction it has been of overwhelming value to a great majority of Peasedown St.John residents. Due to the extreme difficulties incurred when patients or visitors attempt to park cars at R.U.H., the delays sometimes leading to missed appointments, etc, the facility to park at Odd Down Park+Ride and experience a virtually guaranteed timed arrival at R.U.H. by use of Rte.42 is of inestimable value.

In terms of financing this is not an altogether straightforward example of a ‘Supported’ bus service by B&NES. This route was initially introduced with separate special funding from the government’s "Urban Bus Challenge", which is basically a once-only grant and not an
on-going source of finance. However in local ‘social’ terms this service has been an undoubted success story, and it would be something of a disaster if funding means cannot be found to maintain and continue Rte.42 into the future at present levels of service and frequency.

The number of airline services flying from Bristol Airport have increased exponentially in recent years, and much more is expected with the major planned expansion of the airport facilities.

All this is of great interest and benefit to the local population, curbed by some concern that the intended airport expansion investment includes -nothing- for transport access infrastructure leading to and from the airport. The direct road route from PSJ is circuitous and not an easy journey even by use of small private car, with frequent congestion spots such as negotiating

the villages of Chew Magna or Winford. It is hard to imagine a regular bus service over the same route. A direct coach route was attempted from central Bath but levels of patronage failed to justify the service. One difficulty is that a relatively frequent service is essential to ensure reasonable buffer of connection with the very many flight departures now operated,
plus acceptable waits for homecoming transfers from incoming flights often subject to delays.

From central Bath the speediest and most efficient journey to Bristol Airport using public transport is to take the train from Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads, then fairly convenient transfer to dedicated coach service to the Airport, "Bristol International Flyer". operating on a 15 / 20 minute frequency for most of the day. Although this service is operated with coaches, the way it has been registered as a bus service means that from April 2006 holders of

‘Over-60s’ free travel passes will be able to use it without payment of fare.

Travellers from PSJ can of course go the same way, but once again introducing the extra

Bath to PSJ ‘leg’, causing two interchanges, especially with luggage, can feel very offputting.

It is hard to visualise how a direct and convenient public transport service from PSJ to Bristol Airport might be introduced, that would be sufficiently attractive to passengers with luggage.

 (H) Leisure

Rte.791/793 is a year-round twice-weekly service from Bath to Weston-s-Mare, operated by Abus as a ‘Supported’ service ( as its route number implies ) which serves Peasedown St.John directly. Observation and experience has revealed that there is a surprisingly high level of passenger support for this service, and not only just in school holidays or high summer, but throughout the year. It would appear that a number of people use it regularly to visit relatives, etc, at Weston-super-Mare, and the route seems to serve something of a ‘social need’ for pensioners and others who do not have the facility of a car but can achieve a direct
---and economically priced--- outing conveniently from their local bus stop.

Good loadings are derived en route from areas where the clientele is similar to that of PSJ,
such as Writhlington and Westfield. The journey itself is immensely scenic, taking in the Chew Valley and lakes. The view is enhanced by normal use of double-deck vehicles on the service.

It is believed that the current subsidy level per passenger journey that has to be put in by B&NES is commendably low. Partly this is due to sensible co-operative journey scheduling as overall costs are kept down by Abus, for example, conveniently integrating the Wednesday service with their existing schools contract journeys which precede the morning and afternoon Rte.791 ‘leisure’ journeys to and from Bath and Weston-s-Mare.

Pensioners enjoy half-fare travel of an already modest fare scale under the B&NES scheme.

Again, by the way this service has currently been registered it should become totally free of charge for ‘Over-60s’ under the published conditions for the B&NES element of the ‘England’ scheme when it commences in April 2006. This "almost too good to be true" scenario will be watched with interest, as on the face of it buses on Rte.791/793 can expect to have exponentially increased loadings on sunny days from April onwards !

Extending public transport travel horizons beyond local destinations in the area, a first thought is to explore possibilities of utilising scheduled express coach services.

At present date there is -no- such service which provides Peasedown St.John itself with an intermediate stopping place. This was not always so, in the late 1990s the travel firm

Bakers Dolphin ran a daily express coach service to London ( using double-deck vehicles of particularly high standards of finish and comfort ) with one pick-up / set-down point in

Peasedown St John ( Bath Road, Methodist Church ). This was effectively a ‘long distance commuter service’, with one early morning departure from PSJ and a late afternoon return.

Although the number of ‘daily work commuters’ from PSJ may have been fairly thin on the ground, the service appeared to pick up a fair trade from villagers seeking the ‘occasional day in London’, and this was assisted by an affordable fare tariff. Bakers Dolphin eventually pulled out of this type of scheduled express coach service operation altogether, not just this run.

National Express has their ( primarily ) Bath / London service as one of its prestige routes, with an impressive daily frequency linking Bath directly to Swindon and Heathrow Airport en route to London, fast sections of M.4 running minimising any otherwise extended journey times.

Although most journeys begin and end at Bath bus station, some commence or extend south of the city to termini such as Street, and these journeys include a scheduled pick-up / set-down at Radstock, which is therefore the nearest served point to PSJ. Tantalisingly these journeys are of course routed non-stop along the PSJ by-pass, so do not pass through the village.

There is slight scope to campaign with NatEx for a PSJ stop on these journeys, but the traffic potential would have to be very strong indeed to provide persuasive justification to them for so increasing the journey time, and realistically it is most unlikely this extra stop would be agreed.

Apart from the main Heathrow Airport and London service, the National Express network from Bath provides relatively few coach services to other destinations, and journeys to obvious centres like Birmingham or Cardiff are in practical terms only accessible by train.

The ‘Over-60s’ free travel scheme to be introduced in April 2006 will not include availability on formal National Express services, though there will be a few "coach" travel opportunities for these passengers where ( usually longer distance ) services that can be visually described as "semi-coach" operations are in fact operated as registered bus services by their operators.

These services, whilst "available to all", necessarily need to be pre-booked.

There has been an ‘in-village’ ( based literally in the centre on the Bath Road ) operator of coach Excursions and Tours since 1925, when the firm of N.King & Son was established.

The present operation is conducted under the fleetname of ‘Arleens’, and provides a range of ‘Day Excursions’ ( roundly five or six a month ) to a wide variety of U.K. destinations, either of the scenic variety or to entertainment events such as pop concerts and exhibitions.

Longer ‘Holiday’ tours with hotel stays are run, once or twice a month during the season,
to more distant venues in U.K. and Europe. As stated, the main location and garaging of ‘Arleens’ is very central within PSJ, but some additional pick-up / set-down points are arranged, as requested by passengers, within the village.

There are several other coach operators in the district who operate similar ‘Day Excursion’ and ‘Holiday’ tour programmes to those provided by Arleens, but only one, ‘John Martin’ Coaches of Midsomer Norton, actively and specifically publicises that pick-ups / set-downs are available within PSJ, these including not only stops along the Bath Road / Ashgrove alignment, but,
if required, also in Wellow Lane, Braysdown Lane, and Orchard Way to serve the new estate.

 (L) Railway

The bus services previously described are primarily routed through the original heart of Peasedown St.John village on an east-west alignment across the top of a northern fold of the Mendips. This roadway has an honourable tradition, largely coinciding with the Fosseway built during the Roman occupation of the First Century.

The ridge is complemented by a parallel valley on either side, each with a watercourse, the Cam Brook to the north and the Wellow Brook to the south. Each valley has carried a railway.

The northern one connected to the G.W.R. at Limpley Stoke, latterly operated as a branch

( "the Camerton branch" ) whose primary fame came at point of final closure when it was the setting for the "Titfield Thunderbolt" film. Stations nearest to ( but not within ) the boundaries of Peasedown St.John were Radford, which closed in the 1920s, and Dunkerton.

In the 21^st century situation it is inconceivable that there can be any development of traffic demand ever likely to justify a reactivation of a rail line on this alignment, although much of the original route remains intact. Even were a line to reopen, it would only be of minimal use to PSJ residents due to limitations on ‘getting down the valley’ to access through Carlingcott, etc.

The Wellow Brook valley carried a much more significant railway, the legendary Somerset & Dorset line south from Bath ( Green Park station ---now Sainsburys ! ). This passed through Radstock and Midsomer Norton before heading south. Stations nearest to ( but again not within ) the boundaries of Peasedown St.John were Wellow and Shoscombe & Single Hill.

Unlike the situation in the Cam Valley, there -are- recurring campaigns to reactivate this line as a light rail line carrying commuter traffic to Bath as a relief to A.367 road traffic.

Unfortunately such dreams are quite unrealistic in practical terms. In the 21^st century it would be a nonsense to build such a line carrying passengers from Midsomer Norton and Radstock but ignoring the massive residential development of Peasedown St.John itself ! Conversely,
to re-establish stopping places at the Wellow and Shoscombe & Single Hill station sites is equally unrealistic, both sites being beyond reasonable walking distance from PSJ on a regular basis, and with unsuitable narrow roads for a new pattern of commuter car journeys, or the provision of commuter car parking at the sites themselves.

The engineering obstacles to reinstating this line would also be enormous. Casually, much of the alignment ‘appears’ intact, with some massive bridgeworks that might still prove to be largely sound after close inspection. In other places such bridgeworks have been swept away entirely in order to facilitate adjacent roadway improvements or other developments, and would necessitate very expensive reinstatement with associated planning and design problems.

Nowadays the application of Compulsory Purchase Orders requires full market compensation value to be paid to displaced current owners. Houses such as the one now created out of the former Wellow station would be likely to cost a half-million pounds or so each, just to regain possession of its land site on the railway alignment !. Nearer Bath, the Midford Tunnel is still largely intact and as a structure continues to receive light maintenance at the hands of present owner Wessex Water. However the original rail line through the tunnel was nationally notorious for both its steep gradient and the tight bore diameter for the original steam working, Although future traction would not be steam, the tight bore would still present design problems for re-use with overhead electrification supply. So an impracticable and not even useful pipe-dream !

Only where the line emerges within Bath could it start to prove really useful, as fortuitously it could be run as a spine across the new Western Riverside development into centre of the city.

In short summary it is not considered that there will ever be any practical possibility of local rail services being provided to benefit residents of PSJ. For longer distance journeys use of rail is of course desirable, and once again the first segment of a journey from PSJ will normally involve a bus journey to Bath, where at least the Bus Station and Rail Station premises are conveniently adjacent, and will remain so even after relocation of the former as part of the Southgate redevelopment that is just commencing.

Theoretically, at least some journeys to southern rail destinations could be equally-well accessed via commencing the rail journey at Frome, but there is no evidence that anyone locally ever considers this to be a useful or desirable option when starting from PSJ.

 (M) The Future : B&NES and the ‘Joint Local Transport Plan’ (JLTP)

Nationally, Local Authorities are currently within another ‘round’ of the repeating

‘Local Transport Plan’ exercise, which determines how government’s "bottom line" allocation of available funding for ‘transport’ projects is to be apportioned across all Local Authorities.

In the past B&NES submitted a standalone LTP bid, as did Bristol and South Gloucestershire.

This caused disapproval at national level as the individual schemes were considered to be uncoordinated with each other, and did not provide a rational scheme across this whole swathe of England. Bristol had also created something of a ‘vacuum’ in transport aspects by a major political reallocation of funds, which had already long been earmarked for the city’s light rail project, in order to meet a spending shortfall in unrelated projects.

For this LTP planning cycle the government therefore instructed B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council to come up with a ‘JLTP’

( i.e. ‘Joint’ ) rather than individual plans.

To ensure that it is ‘properly’ coordinated this time, the draft JLTP is having to be passed through the South West Regional Authority for their specific agreement that it can be ‘approved’ for passing forward to the Transport Secretary ( currently A.Darling ). The present timetable is for the final local JLTP to be submitted to the government by March 2006, but there have already been difficulties in getting SWRA approval of parts of the draft, though, perhaps surprisingly, the individual projects sought by B&NES seem likely to get the ‘go-ahead’.

The part of B&NES part ( !! ) of the JLTP that concerns us here in Peasedown St.John,
is related to one of B&NES’ stated aims :

"….to provide good quality alternatives to using the car for trips ( in ) the city… "

Specifically :

"….to provide bus infrastructure improvements on local routes throughout the city, providing quicker and more reliable access between residential areas and employment and leisure in the city centre……"

"…..The bid will provide

---bus priority measures to improve bus journey time reliability

---real time passenger information

---improved stops……."

Interestingly. the "A.367 corridor" has further been specifically identified by B&NES as a prime candidate for ‘key bus route’ upgrading as part of the JLTP ---assuming the JLTP is approved.

Although a specific "Quality Partnership" has not been proposed between the Council and the bus operator(s), The main operator FirstGroup also committed itself to immediate widespread renewal of virtually the whole bus fleet serving Bath and the ‘country’ routes (so including PSJ).

This commitment has -already- been almost entirely honoured.

Concurrent with new buses for the central city services, we have also experienced suitable new vehicles for our outer services, mostly Volvo/Wrightbus buses of the ‘B7RLE’ and later ‘B7TL’ model series, featuring easily accessible low-floor entry for the elderly and impaired, wheelchair accommodation and other comfort features, such as air-conditioning, which benefits all travellers. Externally the route and destination displays are of unprecedented clarity and brilliance by means of dot-matrix displays, giving greatly improved at-a-glance route identification for the partially-sighted,

As these vehicles are new now, and the PSJ Village Plan of which this Report is a part aims to set the scene for the ten years 2005 to 2015, it follows that in terms of bus rolling stock at least, the situation is now already satisfactorily set, possibly for the whole of that time-span.

In practice, with vehicle fleet movements and other developments, we may see some further changes in the bus fleet we have in the latter years of the next decade, but this is not ‘essential’.

So, the unfulfilled aspect is the ‘Infrastructure’……

Current relevant infrastructure within PSJ consists only of four bus shelters, two

( one eastbound and one westbound ) at bus stops in Ashgrove, and two ( again one eastbound and one westbound ) at the Red Post bus stops.

These four shelters were specifically provided and fixed by Peasedown St.John Parish Council, with fifty per cent funding grant from B&NES.

The two bus shelters in Ashgrove are elderly and of poor visual appearance, the westbound unit having had part of the original glass vandalised at some stage and replaced by a cheaper plexiglass substitute which is now discoloured and compares badly with the glass of the original.

Because they provided the units, Peasedown St.John Parish Council have retained a continuing ongoing maintenance ( cleaning, etc ) financial commitment for these shelters.

Positioning of these shelters seems to have been influenced more by availability of siting space at the bus stops rather than ‘real actual demand’ for the facility at each site. The two existing eastbound shelters do serve bus stops where people regularly wait.

However, the bus stop that has by far the greatest volume of passengers regularly waiting to board a bus from Peasedown St.John is the eastbound one at the Methodist Church.

This not only has no shelter provided, but at times of rain there is absolutely no other protection here, such as any convenient adjacent shop canopies. There have been proposals to provide a bus shelter in the future associated with a proposed shopping development a little further to the east, but these plans seem to be indefinitely stalled. In any case this particular stop has already migrated sufficiently far ‘east’ from the epicentre of the village, bearing in mind that at one time it was adjacent to the ‘Waggon & Horses’.

The Cover Picture to this report visually demonstrates that if a small piece of a present decorative lawn could be acquired there is in fact already an excellent site for a bus shelter immediately adjacent to the existing bus stop that would not involve moving the bus stop again.

In the terms of the submitted JLTP, as stated above B&NES are proposing various infrastructure improvements on the alignment of key bus routes.

Note that the funding for this, if approved, should pass down from government and not have to be raised directly by B&NES ( or the Parish Council ! ) and vigilance is needed that provision in this funding is included for subsequent maintenance as well as initial supply of new facilities.

It is assumed that to meet B&NES’ aims of "improved stops" and "real time passenger information", PSJ will benefit from a new set of bus shelters with electronic ‘next bus’ display system similar to that now in widespread use in London, Cardiff, etc.

The current bus shelters provided and maintained by Peasedown St.John Parish Council are unlikely to be suitable for such upgrading, and the awkwardness of dual-responsibility thereafter, and their replacement should fortuitously rid the Parish Council of an on-going "double taxation" example. This would also provide the opportunity to get some new shelters, ---at least one for the eastbound bus stop at Bath Road, Methodist Church !

In postwar years there has been a growing tendency to grant some element of concessionary or even free travel facility to pensioners ( once this was a valued ‘perk’ only enjoyed by long-serving employees of transport organisations --a benefit now eroded by this wider availability !)

Such schemes, administered by relevant Local Authorities, have varied considerably in their extent, from the extremely generous as in London and Birmingham, down to minor concessions.

B&NES have run a two option scheme, either a fixed sum in ‘Tokens’ used to pay fares at full face value, or by issue of a ‘half-fare pass’, allowing a half-fare ride on all bus journeys commencing or finishing within the B&NES area. The Tokens could be used at any time, the half-fare passes only valid after 0900hrs on Mondays to Fridays. Recently B&NES somewhat surprisingly greatly increased the validity of the half-fare pass to any journeys within the other ‘Avon’ councils, though not Somerset Council whose northern boundary passes depressingly near to PSJ at closely to the south of Radstock.  

The April 2006 ‘England’ scheme only requires free passes to be valid after 0930hrs on weekdays, but B&NES have generously agreed to fund from the 0900hrs starting time of the existing half-fare passes. Similarly, although only ‘local’ journeys need be provided free, B&NES has also agreed that free pass availability will continue across the whole of the recently extended ‘Avon’ half-fare pass availability. It would also appear that the worst effects of the adjacent Somerset Council boundary are to be mitigated, as a traveller boarding say, a Rte.173 service in PSJ, will be allowed to travel free for the full journey to Wells.

It can be anticipated that the concession will result in some major shifts in travel patterns, though experience in Wales ( where Over-60s have had free travel valid throughout the whole of their country for some time ) brought not sudden changes but a slow build-up, and then more in the rural areas than in the southern conurbations of Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, where sudden dramatic change in usage and loadings of bus services had been expected.

One potential for change is that validity of the scheme is for ‘Over-60s’ rather than from the normal pensionable age of 65. This means there will be "five years’ worth" of population legally entitled to travel free to work, provided they can arrange working hours with their employer to have a work starting time later than 0900hrs. Even greater potential with B&NES’ agreement to validity from 0900hrs rather than the statutory required time of 0930hrs.

Some problems have been foreseen as the scheme gets under way. At present the basis of remuneration from B&NES to the bus operators is scrupulously open and accountable.

Every existing half-fare passenger receives a half-fare ticket, coded to the B&NES scheme,
so the value extent of the "missing" half fares is known exactly down to the last penny.

Also, if needed, a statistical traffic pattern of use of half fares can be easily determined by summation of journeys from the originating and destination points of all tickets issued.

All this will be lost when ‘free’ journeys are granted on display of a pass by boarding passenger.

Even if the drivers accurately maintain a plunger tally of each such person, this will not provide any indication of the actual revenue ‘loss’ or the extent ( passenger loading ) of the journeys actually made.

Scope here for future contentious negotiations between B&NES and the operators !.

In London the problem has been neatly overcome by issuing pensioners with cards that are of the same type and compatible with the system of ‘Oyster’ ( proximity sensing ) cards that are now used by fare-paying passengers ( and staff ! ) in London. Thus the full statistical data on pensioners travelling ‘free’ is captured in as much detail as requitred.

To current date the official attitude by FirstGroup has been cautiously benign in anticipation of the effects of the scheme. At B&NES’ Public Transport Liaison Group meeting in November 2005 the senior FirstGroup representative was ‘relaxed’ about honouring passes from 0900hrs instead of 0930hrs, and indeed about all such ‘free’ loadings providing they were taking up existing capacity slack within the midday, etc, services. He urged B&NES to accompany issue of the free passes with a publicity campaign to the holders to mostly use the facility in the quieter midday hours ---but there has been no sign of this requested publicity so far.

The introduction of the new ‘Over-60s’ free bus passes will undoubtedly have noticeable effect on usage of bus services in PSJ ( as elsewhere ) and, as this will be within the anticipated one year preparation cycle for the Peasedown St.John Village Plan project, due observation and note can be taken for subsequent editions of this report.

 (P) The Future : how to assess demand and type of future transport services for PSJ ?

This first report has met its remit of setting out the current situation regarding public transport services available to Peasedown St.John residents.

It has been taken a little further by also recording services that have been tried, but have not
---for whatever reason--- survived. This is of cautionary value against any future "reinvention of the wheel" without taking heed of the past.

Of possible ‘potential’ services the geographical areas in an alignment alongside the main Ashgrove, Bath Road axis are the most logical to require closer examination.

As shown earlier in this report the new estates off Orchard Way have the highest profile in this regard, but are also the most contentious and have not been neglected in regard to services that have already been attempted.

On the other side of the ‘ridge’ the communities in New Buildings, Carlingcott, etc are totally devoid of any public bus services, but if there is a demand it is latent and not at all obvious.

The future scope for services would seem not to lie so much in ‘geography’ but in providing help

for those with mobility and other problems preventing use of the good level of existing main road routes through the village. This points to some form of "dial-a-bus" service.

The local B&NES Councillors for Peasedown St.John have already commenced some analysis of the possibility of extending the existing Radstock Midsomer Norton dial-a-bus scheme, most likely with a second vehicle, to serve appropriate users in Peasedown St.John.

As author of this report I have not sought to duplicate the work now being undertaken by the local B&NES Councillors, however the next steps into the future should be to logically take note of demand detail they will be identifying for extended dial-a-bus service into the village.

Once such a service is established of course, any frequent repetitive demand patterns for
dial-a-bus journeys would point the way for consideration of new regular scheduled bus route journeys.