Three buses come along at once. Which should you take?

Typical. Bloody typical. Two London buses serving the same route, bunched up in the Clapton area. Image: Felix O, via Flickr.

It’s typical – you’re waiting at a bus stop for ages, then three buses come along at once. Should you just hop on the first one, or skip to the second or third? Various tech companies are trying to produce apps to help commuters plan for this type of event. But until those are up and running, some basic knowledge of the transport system – and a bit of mathematics – can help you make the call.

Studies have actually proven that buses which run at short intervals often cluster in threes. The theory goes that, when there’s been a delay, the first bus picks up all the waiting passengers: those who have been waiting for some time, and those who have only been there a few minutes and had planned to get a slightly later bus.

This brings about further delays, because – as we all know – more congested vehicles take longer to load and unload. So the first bus often gets caught in a vicious circle of delay and overcrowding.

The simple solution is to get on the second bus. It’s likely to be less crowded, and to arrive at its destination first. This is because bus operators often instruct the second bus to overtake the first, in order to minimise delays.

The risk in opting for the second bus is that the buses may have already changed order. Look to see if the road before your stop has multiple lanes, which could have allowed the second bus to overtake. And check to see if there are plenty of seats on the first bus – if there are, then jump on that one.


And what about the third bus? This should be avoided wherever possible, because two things, which could cause more problems, are likely to happen. It could be instructed to get in front of the first two buses by skipping a stop – which could be yours.

It could also be ordered to terminate before the advertised destination, so that it can return earlier and prevent the delays that the first bus could carry forward into the journey in the opposite direction, by replacing it.

The ConversationSo, when you’ve got to choose between a three buses, our advice is to target the second, consider the first and ignore the third.

Marcus Mayers, Visiting Research Fellow, University of Huddersfield and David Bamford, Professor of Operations Management, University of Huddersfield.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Older people need better homes – but then, so does everybody else

Colne, Lancashire. Image: Getty.

Towards the end of last year, I started as an associate director at the Centre for Ageing Better, working particularly on our goal around safe and accessible homes. Before I arrived, Ageing Better had established some ambitious goals for this work: by 2030, we want the number of homes classed as decent to increase by a million, and by the same date to ensure that at least half of all new homes are built to be fully accessible.

We’ve all heard the statistics about the huge growth in the number of households headed by someone over 65, and the exponential growth in the number of households of people over 85. Frustratingly, this is often presented as a problem to be solved rather than a major success story of post war social and health policy. Older people, like everyone else, have ambitions for the future, opportunities to make a full contribution to their communities and to continue to work in fulfilling jobs.

It is also essential that older people, again like everyone else, should live in decent and accessible homes. In the last 50 years we have made real progress in improving the quality of our homes, but we still have a lot to do. Our new research shows that over 4 million homes across England fail to meet the government’s basic standards of decency. And a higher proportion of older people live in these homes than the population more generally, with over a million people over the age of 55 living in conditions that pose a risk to their health or safety.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to ensure all our homes meet a decent standard. A small number of homes require major and expensive remedial work, but the overwhelming majority need less than £3,000 to hit the mark. We know how to do it. We now need the political will to make it a priority. Apart from the benefits to the people living in the homes, investment of this kind is great for the economy, especially when so many of our skilled tradespeople are older. Imagine if they were part of training young people to learn these skills.


At a recent staff away day, we explored where we would ideally want to live in our later lives. This was not a stretch for me, although for some of our younger colleagues it is a long way into the future.

The point at which the conversation really took off for me was when we moved away from government definitions of decency and accessibility and began to explore the principles of what great homes for older people would be like. We agreed they needed light and space (by which we meant real space – our national obsession with number of bedrooms as opposed to space has led to us building the smallest new homes in Europe).

We agreed, too, that they needed to be as flexible as possible so that the space could be used differently as our needs change. We thought access to safe outdoor space was essential and that the homes should be digitally connected and in places that maximise the potential for social connection.

Of course, it took us just a few seconds to realise that this is true for virtually everyone. As a nation we have been dismal at moving away from three-bed boxes to thinking differently about what our homes should look like. In a world of technology and factory building, and as we build the new generation of homes we desperately need, we have a real chance to be bold.

Great, flexible homes with light and space, in the places where people want to live. Surely it’s not too much to ask?

David Orr is associate director – homes at the Centre for Ageing Better.