REF0060
Written evidence submitted by Campaign for Better Transport
Thank you for the opportunity to input into your committee’s highly opportune inquiry, Reforming Public Transport After The Pandemic.
Background
We believe that the public transport strategy being pursued by the government prior to the arrival of COVID-19 was broadly heading in the right direction. On rail, passenger numbers had been on an upward trajectory for around thirty years, there was acceptance that investment to grow the network was necessary, and most importantly it appears that the Williams Review clearly recognised that the current franchising model is no longer fit for purpose. As regards buses, the government had committed itself to adopting a National Bus Strategy, something we at CfBT had strongly advocated. And in terms of climate change, the government had adopted a Net Zero target for 2050, the DfT had committed itself to a decarbonisation plan, and there was a recognition that clean public transport was key to achieving these objectives.
COVID-19
The arrival of this virus, and the severe disruption it has caused to the pattern of normal life, presents both a threat and an opportunity for public transport as the country slowly comes out of lockdown.
During the early stages of the lockdown in particular, we saw a welcome increase in cycling and walking and while part of this will have been driven by the government’s exhortation not to use public transport, it does demonstrate that drivers can be persuaded out of their cars, whether for active travel options or for public transport alternatives.
There was also a noticeable improvement in air quality during lockdown. NO2 concentrations plunged by 56%, with motorised traffic back to 1955 levels. Interestingly, by late July, NO2 levels were still only 70% of where they had been pre-lockdown, yet HGV traffic was 95% of what it was, with the corresponding figures for van being 90% and cars 75%. This apparent disparity can be explained by a significant reduction in idling and the stop-start of crowded roads, and shows that even a modest reduction in vehicle movements can produce a marked improvement in air quality. Even a modest modal shift from car to public transport use, therefore, can have a disproportionately beneficial effect.
Public transport use declined markedly too during lockdown, far more than private transport, as the government gave out the message that it should be avoided. This has created a problem going forward.
The Present Position
We are concerned that the arrival of the virus may knock off course the direction of travel the government was pursuing in relation to public transport. In particular, the government’s exhortations not to use public transport have if anything been too successful. Bus passenger numbers dropped to between 10 and 15% of normal levels, although they have now recovered to around 50%. Tube and train numbers even lower at around 5%, and have perhaps now recovered only to about 35%. Cycle use has also now fallen back. On the other hand private vehicle usage has now bounced back to where it was pre-lockdown, more in some cases.
The impression the public has gained is that public transport use is uniquely unsafe, yet the scrupulous cleansing regimes instigated by public transport operators give the lie to this. An independent examination of the tube found no evidence of lurking COVID 19 and we are unaware of any COVID 19 cases being traced back to public transport. Yet we are now in danger of seeing an economic recovery which is car based.
It is now vital to restore confidence in bus and train travel and to aim to return passenger numbers to as close as possible to where they were prior to lockdown. This is an urgent matter, and without speedy and decisive action, we are likely to see bus services withdrawn, or the continuation of subsidy by government of largely empty vehicles at considerable cost to the public purse.
The Way Forward
The government must now give a clear message out that travelling on public transport is safe and ideally be seen to lead by example. As those who use the train and bus generally regard it as much safer than those who do not, the government should launch a campaign to get people back onto public transport
On rail specifically, we welcome the decision of the government to continue supporting the industry for a further 18 months through the Emergency Recovery Management Agreements, but this step on its own is insufficient.
The Williams Review, completed last year, should be published in its pre-lockdown form as a springboard for discussions about the way forward. From what we know of the Review, its recommendations are likely to be even more germane now than they would have been at the turn of the year.
In terms of buses, it is similarly important that emergency revenue support continues until passenger numbers recover adequately, and that the government should press ahead speedily with the promise National Bus Strategy, which can be seen as the bus equivalent of the Williams Review.
We are at a crossroads. We can stagger on with an unchanged landscape and emergency support for bus and train, until such time as the Treasury decides it has to pull the plug, or we can use the breathing space that has been created constructively.
We strongly recommend that the government uses the unprecedented situation that has developed to transform the transport system, simultaneously cutting air pollution and carbon emissions, while facilitating economic growth and helping to tackle social exclusion. We welcome the statement in May from the Transport Secretary when he said: “Our national recovery can also become a green recovery.” We also note the conclusion in a report earlier this year by the World Wild Fund for Nature and Vivid Economics that transitioning to net zero would provide a large economic boost, supporting over 200,000 jobs in 2030 and generating over £90bn of annual benefits to the UK.
In terms of specific measures, the government should take the following actions:
1. Require local authorities to produce plans that permanently reshape local transport networks to encourage the use of public transport and active travel Future central government capital and revenue support should be linked to this overarching objective.
2. We welcome the commitment by government and by industry to ensure all new buses after 2025 are zero emission and believe it would be sensible to go further and set 2035 as the date after which it would illegal to operate a bus that was not zero emission, with the exception of heritage vehicles. The government should mandate this through a Bus Services (Zero Emission Fleet) Bill. There are 33,900 buses on England’s roads, with 29% of these in London. A programme that starts with London and the Combined Authorities would address 56% of the fleet and allow the manufacturing sector to scale and reduce costs for smaller authorities or areas.
3. Zero emission buses are however of little benefit if they are not used, so it is important for central and local government to encourage modal shift away from the private car. One full bus can replace 75 cars on the road. We therefore urge local authorities and bus companies to work together to replan bus provision with better integrated multi-modal networks.
4. Tendered and franchised services are likely to become more important, at least in the short term, as commercial services fall away, so a new funding approach from central government is required. This should include as a key action the recasting of Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) which at present provides support for diesel fuel and so actually disincentivises zero carbon buses. There should instead be paid a basic supplemental payment on a per passenger or per mile basis, with an additional incentive payment on top that only zero emissions buses are eligible for.
5. To improve local bus services, the government should ensure local authorities work collaboratively with commercial operators to re-plan bus provision, with better integrated, multi-modal networks offering high-quality services, with strengthened core services and franchised supporting elements.
6. For the immediate term, the government will need to continue providing bridging funding for bus, light rail and metro operations through the Covid-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) to provide certainty for local transport authorities, combined authorities and bus operators (including municipal operators). Once this funding period expires, HM Treasury should put in place an appropriate interim funding regime that sustains local networks through to beyond the pandemic response and into a new permanent funding landscape.
7. On the railways, the government must reset the ticketing arrangements in recognition of the fact that the traditional Monday-Friday early morning-evening peak travel pattern is now much less relevant, especially with the increased use of home working, something which COVID-19 has accelerated but which is likely to become more of an established feature outwith the virus.
8. The government has rightly said it wants to see flexible season tickets, perhaps providing the same percentage discount as a weekly ticket provides but for say three days’ travel within a period of ten days, but progress has been very sluggish. There is no reason why this sort of change cannot be universally rolled out almost immediately. Changes to ticket pricing can also be used to spread the rush hour, so making train travel more attractive (and less crowded) so encouraging modal shift from car to train.
9. It appears that leisure travel is recovering quicker than commuting traffic, and it may well be, as Sir Peter Hendy at Network Rail has speculated, that this is a trend that will continue. The government is rumoured to be considering a Head Out To Help Out scheme which would offer very cheap off-peak tickets for a limited period. We support that suggestion. Moreover, if leisure travel is to be the primary growth market in the near future, Network Rail needs to reflect on its pattern of engineering works which frequently causes line closures at weekends.
10. In terms of rail infrastructure, we have seen over the last twenty years an unfortunate stop-start approach to electrification which has inhibited investment, pushed up costs, and most unhelpfully in air quality terms led to the purchase of polluting new diesel trains, which inevitably have a long lifespan. The government should now speed up its electrification programme, and commit to the deployment of hydrogen fuel-cell trains where electrification is not cost-effective, with a view to ensuring diesel operation has entirely been removed from the network by 2040 at the latest.
11. Connecting transport deserts through rail and bus services will improve access to jobs and services. The ability to physically get to a rail station is a significant concern to more than a fifth of residents in areas like the East Midlands, South West and West Midlands. Efforts to expand the rail network through new lines and stations are likely to be particularly beneficial in poorly served areas. The government should set aside £4.74 billion to £6.37 billion for delivering the rail reopenings programme. There should be £1.82 billion of this fund invested in the next five years to deliver schemes, with a further £1 billion in the same period for fast tracking development of future schemes. This could deliver at least 33 reopening schemes with 72 new stations and 343 miles of reinstated passenger services miles over 25 years.
12. Many people will base their choice of transport mode through a consideration of price. We believe there should be no rise in rail fares this January.
13. Furthermore, we are concerned that the freezing of fuel duty since 2011 has served to make the use of polluting vehicles cheaper in real terms, while the cost of travelling by public transport has increased. The government is sending out the wrong price signals.
14. We also believe it is now time for the government to look at charging schemes that more accurately reflect use and pollution caused. We commend the Nottingham workplace charging scheme which has not only cut pollution, but raised funds for public transport, and led to an above average economic performance for the city. We also think the Treasury should now look at road user charging, rather than the blunt instrument of an annual VED charge that actually encourages greater use of the car once the annual payment has been made.