All change! Why England’s public transport system could look very different very quickly

The UK’s public transport system has been in a state of flux since the arrival of COVID. Lockdowns, social distancing and working from home all made customer demand for buses and trains dramatically different^[1] from pre-pandemic days.

So-called “black swan” events (rare, unpredictable with huge impact) have a way of forcing industries to restructure^[2], and transport is no exception.

For when the way that society functions changes, the way that transport operates has to change too. And despite continued calls for people to return to the office, there remains little appetite^[3] from workers to do so.

In the UK, a labour shortage^[4] has given workers the upper hand, regardless of what businesses or the government may want.

And with millions of former daily commuters now staying at home, some travel companies have clearly suffered from the change. As a result, the government had to intervene, at significant cost^[5].

And more change will be arriving soon.

Over the next six to 18 months, new systems^[6] are expected to be implemented across public transport in England, potentially – hopefully – ushering in an era of stability and integration. But as with any significant change, there will be winners and losers^[7].

The biggest shifts will be driven by the celebrated English devolution bill^[8] giving every area of England the right to some level of devolution. This is the sort of increased autonomy previously granted in Wales, Scotland and some of England’s larger cities.

Four other key pieces of government legislation include one^[9] which will allow rail services to be brought under public control. A second^[10] seeks to establish Great British Railways as a new organising body for the national railway system.

Then there are bills to grant all local transport authorities the power to operate their own^[11] bus services and set minimum service levels^[12] for public transport in rural areas.

Together, these measures aim to empower separate areas of England to elect local officials, such as mayors, who will have the authority to take over control and management of bus systems, and probably local rail services too. This will effectively remove control from private companies and Westminster.

Pros and cons

Good examples of the benefits of this kind of local control include both London and Scotland, where public transport services have flourished under local political leadership compared to previous systems^[13]. This success has been a boon^[14] for jobs, the economy, inclusion and social wellbeing.

Devolving transport responsibilities is also essential to supporting the massive target^[15] of building 1.5 million new homes in five years. Without adequate infrastructure, this goal simply cannot be met. New residents would face significant challenges if transport links were poor^[16].

But if executed effectively, a focus on mayors and local control could deliver greater social value, leading to more jobs^[17] and improved quality of life for transport users. An essential part of this will be access to reasonably priced and reliable train and bus services.

There are risks though. The UK was once a pioneer^[18] in deregulating public transport, which led to the creation of some of the world’s largest and most successful private transport operators.

These included Stagecoach, FirstGroup, Arriva and National Express. Public transport operations are still the lifeblood of these companies – but how they fit into the future remains uncertain.

The erosion of the transport franchise model, where exclusive contracts were awarded to private companies, combined with the impact of COVID^[19], has already caused many of these operators to falter^[20]. Some have even been sold^[21] or put up for sale.

In the new system, the market for privately controlled operations will continue to shrink. But the expertise and experience of those currently running services will still be critical for operating the new systems.

Overdue overhaul

The expected changes suggest that the upcoming transformation could be on a scale comparable to former prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s overhaul of public transport in the 1980s, which involved the promise of lower fares, new services and more passengers.

Those changes led to a huge increase in train travel, but a decline^[22] in local bus usage outside of London. And ultimately that plan resulted in fragmented services, inconsistent quality and higher fares.

The privatisation process also meant^[23] underinvestment in infrastructure, causing delays and safety concerns.

That government’s focus on road transport^[25] also meant that public transport systems, such as buses and trams, were neglected. Overall, the transport revolution of the 1990s failed to deliver the expected improvements in efficiency and quality.

So will the coming changes work? We’re relatively optimistic.

Putting local politicians in charge can lead to better integration and services that meet local communities’ needs, as recently demonstrated by a new system^[26] in Manchester.

It’s also true that since COVID, situations where the state, industry and academic experts work together have become a more regular occurrence^[27].

So perhaps this arrangement which draws on the use of data, knowledge and wisdom, combined with both an appetite for change (from the travelling public) and a desire to be seen to be making the change (by the politicians) – will allow evidence-based initiatives^[28] to be implemented fairly seamlessly.

If that happens, we could finally see the arrival of a British transport infrastructure that is fit for purpose – with happier passengers, less congestion, reduced carbon emissions and a stronger economy.

References

1. ^{^} dramatically different (www.iea.org)
2. ^{^} restructure (www.forbes.com)
3. ^{^} little appetite (www.hrmagazine.co.uk)
4. ^{^} labour shortage (www.personio.com)
5. ^{^} significant cost (lordslibrary.parliament.uk)
6. ^{^} new systems (lordslibrary.parliament.uk)
7. ^{^} winners and losers (www.emerald.com)
8. ^{^} English devolution bill (www.centreforcities.org)
9. ^{^} one (www.legislation.gov.uk)
10. ^{^} second (www.gov.uk)
11. ^{^} operate their own (bills.parliament.uk)
12. ^{^} minimum service levels (bills.parliament.uk)
13. ^{^} compared to previous systems (lordslibrary.parliament.uk)
14. ^{^} been a boon (www.local.gov.uk)
15. ^{^} massive target (www.gov.uk)
16. ^{^} were poor (www.theguardian.com)
17. ^{^} more jobs (www.adruk.org)
18. ^{^} once a pioneer (researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk)
19. ^{^} impact of COVID (www.theitc.org.uk)
20. ^{^} to falter (www.globalvia.com)
21. ^{^} been sold (news.arriva.co.uk)
22. ^{^} decline (publications.parliament.uk)
23. ^{^} meant (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
24. ^{^} Jarek Kilian/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
25. ^{^} focus on road transport (www.jstor.org)
26. ^{^} new system (tfgm.com)
27. ^{^} regular occurrence (www.aacsb.edu)
28. ^{^} evidence-based initiatives (www.taylorfrancis.com)