The government says it is serious about building back greener, and I believe them, but they need to start joining up the dots

 

 
Police Officer: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Sherlock Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Police Officer: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Sherlock Holmes: That was the curious incident.

On 20 April, the government issued what was in many ways an impressive media release, committing in law to a reduction of 78% in carbon emissions by 2035 from 1990 levels. The release waxed lyrical about renewable energy, about tackling polluting industries, and even pledged to include aviation and international shipping in its carbon calculations for the first time, an overdue but nevertheless very welcome move.

But what of the dog that did not bark? Over six closely-typed pages, there was not one mention of public transport. Yet it is in the transport field that emissions have remained stubbornly high, just 1% down over the last 10 years, while the power sector has been transformed as renewables have replaced coal*. We now need a similar ‘modal shift’ in transport to that which we have had in energy.

The transport secretary sometimes gives the impression that he thinks electric cars are the answer to everything, the Holy Grail. They are not, unless you are prepared to see a big increase in congestion on our roads, and unless you are content to write off the third of the population that does not have a car. Less levelling up, more locking out.

We need not just a return to pre-Covid passenger levels on our trains and our trams, our buses and our coaches, but a government-led movement to persuade people out of their cars and on to public transport

No, we need not just a return to pre-Covid passenger levels on our trains and our trams, our buses and our coaches, but a government-led movement to persuade people out of their cars and on to public transport. The government says it is serious about building back greener, and I believe them, but they need to join up the dots.

To be fair, as I have acknowledged before in this column, they were quick to provide support to the bus and rail industry (though not coaches) to replace lost income, and it is to their credit that they have produced an ambitious National Bus Strategy for England, and are continuing with their programme to enhance the rail network, including opening new stations and reopening old lines. But all that will be in vain unless people can be attracted on to the services provided.

That is where Campaign for Better Transport comes in, and why it is good news that the country’s leading sustainable transport charity is in a matter of weeks launching their biggest campaign for years to boost public transport. (Here I declare an interest in that one of my disparate roles is as advisor to
Paul Tuohy, the chief executive of the charity).

The campaign will hit the streets in mid-May with a suitably decorated bus bearing the campaign message parked close to parliament. MPs and peers will be invited to come along, have their picture taken, and pledge to support public transport. I am delighted that the impressive buses minister, Charlotte Vere, has agreed to join the event. The following day, campaign buses will be prominent in Birmingham and Liverpool.

And it will be impossible for our parliamentarians not the notice the campaign messages which will adorn the ticket gates and other sites as they pass through Westminster tube station. They will also be able to catch up on the campaign in the House magazine, parliament’s in-house journal.

Campaign for Better Transport has a huge supporter base of many thousands and the charity will be asking them to help too, by writing to their local MP and local press. They will also be encouraged to support the campaign on social media by sharing posts and videos with friends and followers.

The charity’s initiative is being strongly backed by the umbrella organisations that represent the public transport world, the Rail Delivery Group and the Confederation of Passenger Transport, as well as by a good many individual operators.

They recognise that Campaign for Better Transport is uniquely placed to make the argument, as a respected independent voice and one whose remit stretches across all sustainable transport options.

So what are the campaign asks?

First, it is to correct the misleading if unintentional impression that has been created by the government’s own messaging that public transport is inherently, perhaps even uniquely unsafe. It isn’t, and they need to say so. Almost everybody on a bus or train feels perfectly safe, according to Transport Focus research, whereas around half of those who are not on board say they would not feel safe. These are the same people who jostle and bump into each other in the supermarket without any apparent concern.

It was a depressing statistic that emerged from the very interesting poll published by Passenger Transport in early March. 61.5% of passenger transport professionals felt the increased perception of public transport as unsafe would be a lasting legacy. That is unfair and needs to be corrected, and it is most effectively challenged by government.

Second, the Cabinet Office review into social distancing must be published, with a recognition that an indefinite continuation of the two-metre rule is incompatible with a return to pre-Covid passenger numbers and incompatible with any sort of financial self-sufficiency for public transport. Some will, I suppose, argue that no health risks whatever should be taken and that the two-metre rule should stay in place for the foreseeable future. That would be to argue for more and more cars on our roads, more damage to health from air pollution, and to be frank, more deaths from accidents. Around 3,000 people a year die on our roads. The number who die in train accidents is (happily) almost zero. It is illogical to argue for perfect safety in buses and trains while letting car travel let rip. And to allow people to be crammed in, sitting next to each other in narrow seats on planes.

Third, the government must provide certainty about the continuation of safety net funding for bus and train services, as a bridge to a financially sustainable future. Support should taper off as passenger numbers grow, rather than ending in some sort of cliff edge over which the industry plunges.

Fourth, as lockdown ends completely in June, the government should coincide this with financial incentives to people to get back on buses and trains. Last year, we had an “eat out to help out” scheme to help cafes and restaurants. A similar scheme providing discounted travel for a period of perhaps a month should be introduced.

No doubt the Treasury, already examining with dismay the cost of subsidising public transport over the last year, will be reluctant to pour yet more money into what they increasingly regard as the bottomless pit that is the Department for Transport. But what they fail it accept is that price is a huge determinant in whether people return to buses and trains or whether they don’t. Doing nothing, or worse putting up rail fares above inflation as the Treasury recently required, can only shrivel the passenger base and end up costing the Treasury more money than if they use reduced fares to persuade people back on board. That is ultimately the best way to limit exchequer funding, as well as helping to meet the government’s wider decarbonisation targets.

Fifth, and linked to above, we need the early introduction of the welcome pledges in the National Bus Strategy relating to universal contactless payment, and to integrated ticketing.

On rail, we need to see without any further delay the introduction of new ticket types that actually reflect when and how people want to travel, rather than trying to force people to live in a ticket box dated 1954. The weekly and monthly season, already on its way out before Covid, is to all intents and purposes dead, and it is useless for the Treasury to try to force people back into this box.

Sixth, the government needs to set out a vision for the future and show how increased use of public transport is essential to a sustainable future, and in particular essential if we are to tackle carbon emissions from the transport sector and achieve the government’s ambitious and stretching target for a 78% reduction in carbon emission levels by 2035.

While the government seems to understand the arguments and seems well intentioned, we at Campaign for Better Transport are not convinced they will actually follow through their own logic. Our campaign is designed to ensure they do

Paul Tuohy, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive says: “We are at a fork in the road as the country emerges from Covid. One arm of the fork leads to car dependency, increasing air pollution and carbon, more congestion and more isolation for those without access to a private car. The other offers the opposite: less carbon, cleaner air, lowered congestion and more social inclusion. Frankly, it’s a no-brainer. Yet while the government seems to understand the arguments and seems well intentioned, we at Campaign for Better Transport are not convinced they will actually follow through their own logic. Our campaign is designed to ensure they do.”

*Incidentally, I should record that when I stood up in the Commons and advocated a big shift from coal to renewables about 15 years ago, I was told I was being an unrealistic woolly Liberal. It doesn’t do to be right too far ahead of others.

 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Norman Baker served as transport minister from May 2010 until October 2013. He was Lib Dem MP for Lewes between 1997 and 2015.

 
This story appears inside the latest issue of Passenger Transport.

DON’T MISS OUT – GET YOUR COPY! – click here to subscribe!