Lessons transit authorities shouldn't be learning from TfL

A Victoria line train. Image: Wikicommons.

On Monday, the US website CityLab ran an interview with Shashi Verma, director of customer experience at Transport for London, under the headline “5 Lessons US Transit Systems Should Learn from London”. The gist of the piece was that running the transport system like a for-profit private company was the best best thing to happen to Londoners since Boris Bikes or sliced bread, and those in the US should be green with envy.

Tonight at 8pm, London Underground power workers from three different unions are due to stage an eight-day walkout in protest against working conditions and pensions plans. While this doesn’t necessarily contradict everything Verma said, it does at least highlight the downside of a (his words) “relentless push” to increase revenue and lower operating costs.

There are aspects of TfL’s £50m restructuring plan, announced last November, that impress: 24-hour weekend services and the possibility of unmanned trains are the biggies. But Verma’s attempt to portray the closure of ticket offices as a positive, rather than something that’s caused widespread protest from staff and passengers alike, is little more than spin.

What’s even odder is his success in re-framing constant inflation-busting fare rises as A Good Thing. The CityLab piece names “Make fare increases routine” as an apt lesson for US Transit authorities, explaining:

"There are loud objections over there just as there are here, but the critical difference is that TfL has set an expectation in the minds of travellers, not to mention politicians, that fares must rise on an annual basis.”

Londoners may be rather less convinced that this is a lesson worth exporting. This graph pits consumer price inflation against the percentage year-on-year rise of the price of a single cash ticket (that is, those not paid for via the Oyster automated ticketing system) within zones 1-4. (We know most commuters don't pay cash fares, but due to the Oyster's short history they're the most easily comparable figures.) 

Two big rises – of a pound each, in 2007 and 2011 – account for most of the overall increase. If you stack those percentage rises on top of each other, the concession to a minimal, inflation-level rise for this year doesn’t look so impressive. The CityLab piece applauds London's gradual fare increases, as opposed to US Transit Authorities' tactic of holding off until fares take a big jump, but this graph shows that this isn't always the case. We’ve gone from £3 for a single in zones 1-4 in 2004 to £5.70 in 2014. And, last week, the National Union for Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) claimed that fares will rise another 24 per cent by the end of the decade; that’s over a third faster than the expected rise in earnings.

Don’t get us wrong – some of TfL’s flashy improvements, such as those fancy screens on bus stops or contactless paymens, are great. And it would be handy to get the tube home after a messy night out in Camden.

But the story’s just a little bit more complicated than Shashi Verma would like to make out. Contrary to what he might like American transport bosses to think, Londoners are not exactly delighted with the tube, either. 

 
 
 
 

Covid-19 is highlighting cities' unequal access to green space

In the UK, Londoners are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

As coronavirus lockdowns ease, people are flooding back to parks – but not everyone has easy access to green space in their city.

Statistics from Google show that park attendance in countries across the globe has shot up as people have been allowed to move around their cities again.

This is especially true in urban areas, where densely populated neighbourhoods limit the size of private green space – meaning residents have to go to the park to get in touch with nature. Readers from England can use our interactive tool below to find out how much green space people have access to in their area, and how it compares to the rest of the country.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement Monday that people are allowed to mingle in parks and gardens with groups of up to six people was partially following what people were doing already.

Data from mobile phones show people have been returning to parks across the UK, and also across Europe, as weather improves and lockdown eases.

People have been returning to parks across the world

Stay-at-home requirements were eased in Italy on 4 May, which led to a flood of people returning to parks.

France eased restrictions on 1 May, and the UK eased up slightly on 13 May, allowing people to sit down in public places so long as they remain socially distanced.

Other countries have seen park attendance rise without major easing of lockdown – including Canada, Spain, and the US (although states there have individual rules and some have eased restrictions).

In some countries, people never really stopped going to parks.

Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany were not as strict as other countries about their citizens visiting local parks during lockdown, while Sweden has famously been avoiding placing many restrictions on people’s daily lives.


There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that access to green space has major benefits for public health.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Exeter found that spending time in the garden is linked to similar benefits for health and wellbeing as living in wealthy areas.

People with access to a private garden also had higher psychological wellbeing, and those with an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those without access to outdoor space. 

Separate UK research has found that living with a regular view of a green space provides health benefits worth £300 per person per year.

Access is not shared equally, however, which has important implications for equality under lockdown, and the spread of disease.

Statistics from the UK show that one in eight households has no garden, making access to parks more important.

There is a geographic inequality here. Londoners, who have the least access to private gardens, are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. 

However the high population in the capital means that on the whole, green space per person is lower – an issue for people living in densely populated cities everywhere.

There is also an occupational inequality.

Those on low pay – including in what are statistically classed as “semi-skilled” and “unskilled” manual occupations, casual workers and those who are unemployed – are almost three times as likely as those in managerial, administrative, professional occupations to be without a garden, meaning they rely more heavily on their local park.

Britain’s parks and fields are also at significant risk of development, according to new research by the Fields in Trust charity, which shows the number of people living further than a 10-minute walk from a public park rising by 5% over the next five years. That loss of green spaces is likely to impact disadvantaged communities the most, the researchers say.

This is borne out by looking at the parts of the country that have private gardens.

The least deprived areas have the largest gardens

Though the relationship is not crystal clear, it shows at the top end: Those living in the least deprived areas have the largest private green space.

Although the risk of catching coronavirus is lower outdoors, spending time in parks among other people is undoubtedly more risky when it comes to transmitting or catching the virus than spending time in your own outdoor space. 

Access to green space is therefore another example – along with the ability to work from home and death rates – of how the burden of the pandemic has not been equally shouldered by all.

Michael Goodier is a data reporter at New Statesman Media Group, and Josh Rayman is a graphics and data visualisation developer at New Statesman Media Group.