Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, led the way. His project to create an integrated transport system for the city region was central to his pitch to voters – a practical feat of organisation and an emblem of civic identity. Judged by passenger and punctuality figures, it has paid off. In January next year, bus services that have not yet joined the yellow-and-black branded Bee Network will come on board. After that, the plan is to involve commuter rail services too.
A better buses bill was promised in the king’s speech. This is expected to enable councils across England to set up bus companies, and to revise regulations governing public-private partnerships. With Monday’s announcement of a statutory instrument before the bill arrives, the government signalled a sense of urgency around transport reforms. Councils, and not just mayoral authorities with devolution deals, will be enabled to take charge of bus services. They, and not private operators, will be able to decide routes and fares – once they have set out a business case.
This is a demanding process and councils will need funding from the Treasury to deliver improvements. Unless the national bus fare cap is extended, there is a risk of further decline. But other northern mayors have taken heart from Manchester’s success. Liverpool and the South Yorkshire region – which includes the Sheffield constituency of Louise Haigh, the transport secretary – are already making plans.
Manchester could move forward when it did thanks to 2017’s Bus Services Act. But welcome though the changes are, the unfairness of allowing London’s mayor to franchise buses while denying this same power to other cities and towns should have been addressed before. The double standard dates back to the 1980s, when London was exempted from the national policy of deregulation due in part to evidence about the difficulty of administering travelcards in a privatised system. For decades, public transport in the capital has been run by different rules.
For devolution campaigners, this is a pressing point of principle and proof of an unequal, overcentralised state. The huge difference in the public subsidy of transport in the capital, compared with anywhere else, can reasonably be argued to be one cause of the growing gap in educational attainment, property values and jobs. For members of the public, in poorly served areas, the day-to-day experience of deregulation has entailed high prices, inconvenience and a lack of mobility. While the total number of bus routes has fallen, over two decades, from 18,000 to 11,000, half of all bus journeys are now taken in London.
Ms Haigh has described public transport, which includes cycling and walking routes, as a liberating force. She is right. London’s well‑organised buses and trains are not the only reason why, despite all its problems, the city remains a socially mobile and economically dynamic place. But as a recent report commissioned by Labour argued, good transport is a precondition for the kind of growth that the government wants to see. Privatisation of bus services led to fragmentation. Today, the evidence is that integration is what works. Given competing demands for public investment, including in the health service, the necessary increase in transport spending will not come all at once. But empowering councils to take charge of buses, and backing networked transport in principle, is a solid start.
