We should talk trains less – and buses more

Buses on Manchester's Wilmslow Road. Image: Divy/Wikimedia Commons.

Buses have long been underappreciated in the UK. In the debates that rage around public transport, the bus seems to lose out to other modes in the battle for attention that has an impact on policymakers.

The traditional New Year uproar over train fares rises is one example of this trend. But it goes unremarked that bus fares have risen in line with rail fares over the last 30 years, with both growing at nearly twice the level of inflation. By contrast, the real cost of motoring has fallen in that period – something which is much worse news for buses than trains.

Who does this bus fare inflation primarily affect? People from the poorest fifth of households catch nearly 10 times as many buses as trains, but buses become much less popular relative to trains as household incomes rise. As we go up the income scale, that ratio shrinks to 7:1 for the second lowest quintile of household, then 3:1 and 2.4:1, until we get to the richest fifth of people, who on average catch more trains than buses.

In other words, the political and media obsession with rail fares is to the detriment of poorer people in cities across the country.

This is one good reason why buses should have a more prominent place in the national debate about public transport – but there are many others.

The scale of bus usage is huge, especially relative to rail/light rail usage outside London

Buses are the workhorses of local transport systems. The National Travel Survey shows that, in urban areas outside of London, around 6 per cent of all journeys are made on buses exclusively – much more than via rail, which accounts for only 0.5 per cent of all journeys, in seventh place behind cars, walking, buses, bicycles, taxis and other modes of transport.

Around half of multimode journeys include rail usage. But even if we add those to journeys taken exclusively on trains, that still equates to less than a quarter of the number of bus journeys in cities beyond the capital.

Bus services reach into almost every corner of our cities, linking neighbouring areas together. Trains play much more limited role in local travel in most cities. In fact, 64 per cent of train journeys begin or end in London – which nonetheless accounts for over half of bus journeys in England.

As such, the debate about train fares is primarily of interest to people in London and its surrounding areas. By contrast buses, by far the main mode of public transport in cities elsewhere in the country, barely get a mention in public discussions around transport.


Buses are a brilliant – and undervalued – mode of transport

We might not think of them as being the newest technology or hugely innovative. However, the modern bus – running in a well organised, integrated transport network – offers economic, financial, social, cultural, and environmental qualities it would be foolish to look past.

For example, a large modern diesel bus can be up to 500 times less toxic (per passenger) than some small modern diesel cars. Around 22 per cent of bus journeys are commutes, underlining their importance as mode of transport for people getting to work. (This figure is bigger in London, where buses are cheaper, more plentiful and more integrated in to the transport system.)

Suffice to say that buses offer benefits that other transport modes do not, and deserve a greater role in the debate on public transport on this basis alone.

Bus services are under threat

Despite some notable exception – such as Brighton, Merseyside and Nottingham – journeys have fallen in most cities over recent years.

The reasons for this are numerous: some people have been tempted into cars because driving, or being driven, is cheaper. Others may be put off buses because the reliability/efficiency/regularity/price have deteriorated, possibly driven by reduced local authority subsidies.

Research by the Campaign for Better Transport shows that, since 2010-11 a total of £73.8m has been cut from supported bus services in England, a reduction of 25 per cent. But the decline of the bus – if allowed to continue – will be result longer traffic jams, dirtier air, and less active, prosperous or integrated cities.

Moreover, the scale of bus usage means that any falls in journey numbers have a big impact on overall public transport usage in a city. In South Yorkshire, a 20 per cent fall between 2010 and 2016 equated to around 15m few journeys per year – greater in absolute terms than the entire annual ridership of the Sheffield Supertram network, which carries around 12.6m passengers.

The truth about trains

Compared to this, trains appear to be in rude health, if a little cramped and expensive at rush hour. Rail passenger numbers have doubled in 20 years. On some parts of the network in the South East growth has outstripped even that: the Thameslink franchise has seen numbers double in just 10 years.

The railways are fantastic feats of engineering. They stand apart from other modes of transport by physically standing apart: they have the privilege of operating on their own network completely free of any other kinds of traffic, apart from freight trains and the occasional level crossing. It’s fair to argue that we need more and better trains.

But whatever the problems with the existing rail system, the threats to bus services across the country are deserving of a much greater focus in national conversations about transport.


Devolution will be integral to strengthening and improving bus networks in cities across the country

These threats have started to get some national media coverage outside in recent months – for example, the BBC highlighted the issue of shrinking services last month as part of its collaboration with local media. But as Chris Todd from the Campaign for Better Transport points out, getting buses up the policy agenda to where they need to be is not helped by the probability that journalists and politicians catch the train more than the bus.

And with national media and politics so focused on London – where bus quality and usage has flourished since the start of the millennium – even those that do catch the bus won’t be having a representative experience. Personal experience can have a huge impact on public policy. This can be for good if it is representative of the broad spectrum of experience. But if it is narrow and unrepresentative, it can blinker policy and warp its focus. Putting more powers and funding in the hands of cities is one way to avoid some of the biggest blunders that this can create.

Buses deserve and demand a bigger place in the transport debate. Much of what makes trains work in this country – franchising, focus and funding – would be fantastic for our bus networks and our cities.

Hopefully this is what the Bus Services Act will help bring to cities with metro mayors.   

Simon Jeffrey is a researcher and external affairs officer at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

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

 
 
 
 

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.