top of page
Search

Missing the Bus

  • Writer: Sam Knight
    Sam Knight
  • Jul 1, 2019
  • 6 min read

Debates over public transport have disproportionately focused on the issue of trains, ignoring buses. This is despite 2.8 times more journeys being taken by buses rather than by trains, with 4.85 billion journeys being made on buses, compared to 1.71 billion taken on trains (Department for Transport, 2018a, p14). In 2018 at Prime Minster Questions (PMQs) the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn surprised both the Prime Minster and the media by leading on the issue of bus services. This surprise led to many commentators recognising that although trains receive regular attention in Parliament, the issue of buses is often neglected (Walker, 2018 and Eaton, 2018). The now Chair of the Transport Select Committee, Lilian Greenwood MP, commented in 2017 that ‘it is all too rare to have an afternoon in the Chamber discussing buses, even though they account for many more journeys on public transport than our railways. Buses rarely get the attention they deserve in Parliament’ (HC Deb 01 March 2017).



Although more journeys are taken by bus than by train, the Government spends more money on trains. In the financial year 2017/18, the Government spent £4.277 billion on the railways (excluding Crossrail and HS2 which brings the total to £6.365 billion), this compares to £2.177 billion spent on local bus services (Department for Transport, 2019a and Department for Transport, 2018b). This means that the Government spent 45p per bus passenger, but £2.50 per rail passenger. This appears grossly unfair at first, but when Government support is measured according to distance travelled by passengers then the imbalance disappears. For buses the Government spends 8p per Kilometre travelled by passengers, while for trains the figure is 7p per Kilometre (Department for Transport, 2018c and Department for Transport 2019b).


Figures from the Department for Transport (2018a, p15)

Buses receiving less attention than trains are a problem because buses face a greater threat to their future than trains, as while passenger numbers on the railways have increased since 1985 by 149%, bus passenger numbers have been in decline (Department for Transport, 2018a, p14). So far action has not been taken to tackle this issue; since 2010 cuts in Government support for buses has meant that the number of services and the number of route miles has reduced (Reasons to be Cheerful, 2018). From 2010 to 2014 supported mileage (bus routes that are supplemented by local authorities) has reduced by 22% in metro area and 24% in non-metro areas. Those who live in rural areas or rely on buses outside of peak time have been most affected by these cuts (KPMG, 2016, p5). The Government has also been cutting the support it gives to the railways, with the burden being passed onto passengers, resulting in ever-increasing ticket prices (BBC, 2017). Passenger numbers have continued to increase though, and with the Government committing to large rail infrastructure projects, such as High Speed 2, Government spending on the railways has recently increased (Department for Transport, 2018a, p15). Therefore, although problems do exist with the railways, the problems that buses are facing pose a greater threat to their future, but the focus on trains has limited the attention given to this issue.


Why do we ignore buses?

Buses are more important to more people than trains are, but they do not receive the same attention, some have seen this as an issue of class as it tends to be people who are on lower incomes that use buses (Reasons to be Cheerful, 2018). According to the Department for Transport’s (2017a) statistics 67% of bus passengers have a household income below £25,000, while it is those on the highest incomes who are most likely to use the train (Department for Transport, 2017b). To argue that the civil service has deliberately sought to marginalise the poorest ignores the good intentions that the overwhelming majority of civil servants possess (Kidney, 2012).


Instead the reason why buses have been ignored lies with unconscious biases in the mindsets and structure of Government. According to the Department for Transport’s Investment Strategy, investments in transport must build a stronger economy by boosting productivity. In practice this has meant investing in transport that can help people commute into major cities, as this is seen as boosting productivity through boosting the agglomeration benefits seen in cities (Haughton et al, 2016, p356). 53% of train journeys are for commuting (including education) (Department for Transport, 2017b), compared to 41% for buses (24% for commuting and 17% for education) (Department for Transport, 2017a, p19). Although both buses and trains help boost the economy, trains play a crucial role in bringing commuters into London. This can be seen by the South East and London being the regions where the most frequent rail travellers live (Department for Transport, 2017b). By having Government based in London, civil servants’ and politicians’ understanding of the role that transport can play in boosting the economy is shaped by London. As the commentator Owen Jones (2018) states ‘if you live in London, where politicians and media commentators spend most of their time, you are spoilt for transport choices – trains, an extensive underground network and a regular bus service’. Not only does London see large numbers of commuters travelling in by train, its bus service is also in better shape than the rest of the country (Reasons to be Cheerful, 2018), with passenger numbers having risen from 1998/99 to 2012/13 before declining in recent years (Department for Transport, 2017a, p4). This has meant that for those civil servants and politicians based in London the declining state of buses across the rest of the country is less obvious, while the overcrowded and delayed trains have a greater impact on their daily lives.



It is not just that trains play a greater role in taking people to work, there is also a stigma against buses with them being seen as an inferior type of public transport. Taking the bus is seen as an indicator of someone being a failure, that they are only doing it as they cannot afford to buy a car (Walker, 2012). It may be true that 49% of bus passengers come from a household that has no cars (Department for Transport, 2017, p20) and that 58% of unemployed people rely on the bus (IPPR North), but buses help connect people to jobs and customers to businesses (KPMG, 2016, p7). By discussing the perceived stigma attached to buses and believing that there are deep rooted feelings that need to be tackled it leads to a sense of despair and an unwillingness to invest. This leads to policymakers believing that because they would not personally ride a bus, no one else would and it is a waste of money investing in them (Walker, 2012).


Buses play a crucial role in the functioning of the economy, helping people travel to work and to school, as well as helping those who are unable to drive to go and visit friends and relatives. Buses are in trouble though; bus routes are closing, and passenger numbers are declining. The Transport Select Committee (2019, p3) say that if this trend continues ‘it would reduce economic growth and make congestion and air quality worse as people move from buses to cars and taxis’. While the railways do also face issues that need attention, the disproportionate focus on trains has limited action on buses. Politicians, civil servants and media commentators in London should remember that what happens in London is not necessarily the same everywhere else, and that buses are just as important as trains are.


References:

Comments

bottom of page