Is Sadiq Khan’s hopper fare encouraging Londoners onto the buses?

Some London buses, in London. Image: Getty.

London’s buses form the backbone of the capital’s public transport system. Its 10,000 buses operating nearly 700 routes serve many areas that are not reached by London’s tube and rail, and provide an essential service to many Londoners, especially those on lower incomes who are more likely to use them.

But despite this, the number of people choosing to travel by bus has been falling since 2014, and it is predicted to fall by a further 2.3 per cent per year from 2016-17. Vehicle congestion – on the rise in the capital – is often cited as a major contributing factor, as it means buses have become a less reliable, slower option for commenters.

With ballooning bike numbers, many areas have seen cyclists and buses come into direct conflict, slowing them down further. Private Hire Vehicles emerging as competitors on some routes (especially off-peak), have also contributed to the drop. With fewer passengers choosing to travel by bus, tube ridership and London's suburban rail network are increasing overcrowded.

Reversing the downward trend in bus ridership would ease pressure across London’s transport network. The current mayor has introduced a number of changes to the bus network, made all the more pressing given Transport for London’s declining revenues and rising operating costs, with the view of turning around its fortunes.

One of the first measures introduced was the Hopper fare, which gives passengers the right to a second free bus journey within an hour of their previous one. Its popularity has meant an improved Hopper, allowing unlimited journeys within the hour, will launch in 2018. The mayor has also taken steps to renew bus prioritisation measures, improve information and customer service, and reviewed traffic signals to improve bus journey speeds and reliability.


Are these measures starting to have an effect? Recent TfL journey data suggests at least a slowing down of the decline in use. While four-week periods during 2016 saw year-on-year declines of up to 23 per cent, since May this year, the available data (to 16 September) shows three out of five periods saw year-on-year growth, something not seen since late 2014.

Whether this is just a blip in the longer term trend downwards, or a ‘bottoming out’ is hard to tell – future passenger number releases will start to build up a fuller picture.

On a positive note meanwhile, GLA analysis suggests 100m Hopper fares were used within the first year of operation, although this is small drop in the ocean (compared to over 2.2bn bus journeys in total over the same period), and the net addition of journeys is likely to be lower than this. Other measures – having only been announced earlier this year – are likely to take longer to result in significant changes.

There is certainly more the mayor can do. His draft Transport Strategy contains ambitious targets for reducing private car use, which will be particularly tricky in outer London, and buses will surely play a role in this. The introduction of demand-responsive hybrid bus-taxi services, as suggested in Centre for London’s Street Smarts report on the future of surface transport in London, could be a way to improve the network. Similar in nature to CityMapper’s recently launched ‘Black Bus’ route, these would be smaller than traditional buses, and operate routes where travel demand is high and possibly infrequent, but supply is lacking.

In Central London, more bus prioritisation measures such as developing bus rapid transit corridors would help bypass issues of congestion, although managing the conflicting demands for limited road space is a tricky balancing act.

The game is a long and complex one for London’s buses, and a definitive judgement on the effectiveness of the policies already introduced must wait, but even more can be done to ensure they continue to serve the city and Londoners’ mobility needs.

Tom Colthorpe is a researcher at Centre for London.

Bus journeys are one of a number of indicators analysed in ‘The London Intelligence’, the Centre’s quarterly report which analyses London’s performance across a range of sectors and issues. The Centre’s ‘Street Smarts’ report was launched in October.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Was the decline in Liverpool’s historic population really that unusual?

A view of Liverpool from Birkenhead. Image: Getty.

It is often reported that Liverpool’s population halved after the 1930s. But is this true? Or is it a myth?

Often, it’s simply assumed that it’s true. The end. Indeed, proud Londoner Lord Adonis – a leading proponent of the Liverpool-bypassing High Speed 2 railway, current chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, and generally a very influential person – stood on the stairs in Liverpool Town Hall in 2011 and said:

“The population of Liverpool has nearly halved in the last 50 years.”

This raises two questions. Firstly, did the population of the City of Liverpool really nearly halve in the 50 year period to 2011? That’s easy to check using this University of Portsmouth website – so I did just that (even though I knew he was wrong anyway). In 2011, the population of the City of Liverpool was 466,415. Fifty years earlier, in 1961, it was 737,637, which equates to a 37 per cent drop. Oops!

In fact, the City of Liverpool’s peak population was recorded in the 1931 Census as 846,302. Its lowest subsequent figure was recorded in the 2001 Census as 439,428 – which represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over a 70 year period.

Compare this to the population figures for the similarly sized City of Manchester. Its peak population also recorded in the 1931 Census as 748,729, and its lowest subsequent figure was also recorded in the 2001 Census, as 392,830. This also represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over the same 70 year period.

So, as can be seen here, Liverpool is not a special case at all. Which makes me wonder why it is often singled out or portrayed as exceptional in this regard, in the media and, indeed, by some badly briefed politicians. Even London has a similar story to tell, and it is told rather well in this recent article by a Londoner, for the Museum of London. (Editor’s note: It’s one of mine.)

This leads me onto the second question: where have all those people gone: London? The Moon? Mars?

Well, it turns out that the answer is bit boring and obvious actually: after World War 2, lots of people moved to the suburbs. You know: cars, commuter trains, slum clearance, the Blitz, all that stuff. In other words, Liverpool is just like many other places: after the war, this country experienced a depopulation bonanza.


So what form did this movement to the suburbs take, as far as Liverpool was concerned? Well, people moved and were moved to the suburbs of Greater Liverpool, in what are now the outer boroughs of the city region: Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral. Others moved further, to Cheshire West & Chester, West Lancashire, Warrington, even nearby North Wales, as previously discussed here.

In common with many cities, indeed, Liverpool City Council actually built and owned large several ‘New Town’ council estates, to which they moved tens of thousands of people to from Liverpool’s inner districts: Winsford in Cheshire West (where comedian John Bishop grew up), Runcorn in Halton (where comedian John Bishop also grew up), Skelmersdale in West Lancashire, Kirkby in Knowsley. There is nothing unique or sinister here about Liverpool (apart from comedian John Bishop). This was common practice across the country – Indeed, it was central government policy – and resulted in about 160,000 people being ‘removed’ from the Liverpool local authority area.

Many other people also moved to the nearby suburbs of Greater Liverpool to private housing – another trend reflected across the country. It’s worth acknowledging, however, that cities across the world are subject to a level of ‘churn’ in population, whereby many people move out and many people move in, over time, too.

So how did those prominent images of derelict streets in the inner-city part of the City of Liverpool local authority area come about? For that, you have to blame the last Labour government’s over-zealous ‘Housing Market Renewal Initiative’ (HMRI) disaster – and the over enthusiastic participation of the then-Lib Dem controlled city council. On the promise of ‘free’ money from central government, the latter removed hundreds of people from their homes with a view to demolishing the Victorian terraces, and building new replacements. Many of these houses, in truth, were already fully modernised, owner-occupied houses within viable and longstanding communities, as can be seen here in Voelas Street, one of the famous Welsh Streets of Liverpool:

Voelas Street before HMRI implementation. Image: WelshStreets.co.uk.

The same picture after HMRI implementation Image: WelshStreets.co.uk. 

Nonetheless: the council bought the houses and ‘tinned them up’ ready for demolition. Then the coalition Conservative/Lib Dem government, elected in 2010, pulled the plug on the scheme. 

Fast forward to 2017 and many of the condemned houses have been renovated, in a process which is still ongoing. These are over-subscribed when they come to market, suggesting that the idea was never appropriate for Liverpool on that scale. 

At any rate, it turns out that the Liverpool metropolitan population is pretty much the same as it was at its peak in 1931 (depending where the local borough boundaries are arbitrarily drawn). It just begs the question: why are well educated and supposedly clever people misrepresenting the Liverpool metropolis, in particular, in this way so often? Surely they aren’t stupid are they?


And why are some people so determined to always isolate the City of Liverpool from its hinterland, while London is always described in terms of its whole urban area? It just confuses and undermines what would otherwise often be worthwhile comparisons and discussions. Or, to put it another way: “never, ever, compare apples with larger urban zones”.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary, for example, the well-known and respected journalist Michael Burke directly compared the forecast population growths, by 2039, of the City of Liverpool single local authority area against that of the combined 33 local authority areas of Greater London: 42,722 versus 2.187,708. I mean, what bizarre point is such an inappropriate comparison even trying to make? It is like comparing the projected growth of a normal sized-person’s head with the projected growth of the whole of an obese person, over a protracted period.

Having said all that, there is an important sensible conversation to be had as to why the populations of the Greater Liverpool metropolis and others haven’t grown as fast as maybe should have been the case, whilst, in recent times, the Greater London population has been burgeoning. But constantly pitching it as some sort of rare local apocalypse helps no one.

Dave Mail has declared himself CityMetric’s Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in ‘E-mail from Liverpool City Region’ and he is on twitter @davemail2017.