Memorandum submitted by Transport for
London (ST 5)
INTRODUCTION
1. This note has been prepared by Transport
for London in response to the call for written evidence from the
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee.
2. TfL is an active participant in the home-to-school
transport market in London, in a range of roles, including:
— as a planner and provider of services;
— through its budget for allocation
to Borough spending, for example on "Safe Routes to School"
schemes;
— as the strategic agency responsible
for the implementation of the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy.
3. TfL welcomes the Government's objective
of reducing car use for the school run. The Prospectus published
with the draft Bill suggests reliance on a range of measures to
support walking, cycling, car-sharing and public transport use,
underpinned by travel plans owned by the schools themselves. TfL
supports this.
4. In London, the volume of pupils using
public transport to get to school, or walking or cycling, is large.
However there are significant differences between primary schools
and secondary schools. Public transport, walking and cycling account
for approximately 80% of trips to secondary schools and 60% of
trips to primary schools in London. The remainder are by car.
5. This document briefly describes some
of TfL's research data on the different mode shares, and discusses
TfL's view on the prospects for further modal shift from cars,
in the context of the draft Bill.
TRIP LENGTHS
6. Most trips to school in London are relatively
short. Two-thirds of all trips to primary schools are from homes
within a one kilometre radius of the school. Over 50% of all trips
to secondary schools are within two kilometres. Many of these
short journeys are already taking place on foot (three quarters
of the trips to primary school from within 1 km and two-thirds
of the trips to secondary school from within 2 km).
7. However, there is scope to encourage
some of those currently making short home-to-school trips in cars
to shift to walking or cycling. This is particularly so for primary
schools where over 30% of trips from within two kilometres are
by car. Measures being used include enhanced pedestrian crossings,
support for supervised walking schemes, and so on. In assessing
likely take-up, and therefore likely benefits, account needs to
be taken of the ultimate destination of the car after the child
is dropped off at school.
8. Rail and bus are the main alternatives
to the car for longer trips. For children aged 11-16, these modes
account for two-thirds of trips to school from homes over two
kilometres from the school. Buses are the predominant public transport
mode, though rail can be significant for secondary schools located
near to stations.
BUS SERVICES
9. The organisational arrangements for bus
transport in London, together with sustained investment in quality
have been key factors in securing record expansion in bus services
and patronage over recent years.
10. Use of public transport for access to
secondary schools in London is expanding. Around 150,000 children
use London's buses to travel to and from school every day, the
majority of these are secondary school pupils. Most pupils are
carried on the regular scheduled bus service. Some "dedicated"
school buses are provided which add additional capacity to the
network at school start and finish times and these may even start
or terminate their journey in the school grounds. These dedicated
services cost approximately £6.5 million per annum and carry
approximately 5% of the 150,000 schoolchildren.
11. The benefits of investment in vehicles,
drivers, etc are not confined to pupils travelling to school but
spread across a range of users, for example those going shopping
in the interpeak. The network is available not only at school
start and finish but throughout the day and the week, benefitting
for example those attending after-school activities.
12. Pupil behaviour can be an issue. This,
and wider issues of education and information, are addressed through
liaison programmes between TfL and schools.
13. TfL believes that the priority in the
market for older childrens' travel is to build on this success.
14. At primary schools nearly 40% of pupils
are taken to school in cars. The proportion of parents willing
to allow their younger children to travel unsupervised is low.
TfL's view is that that any significant shift from cars to buses
would require the use of dedicated services. However, many of
these car journeys are very short and there is scope for supporting
a shift from car to walking in the first instance.
15. If additional bus services were provided
at primary schools, a number of cost factors would need to be
taken into account.
16. The experience of existing providers
of dedicated transport is that small buses would be required to
adequately serve this market, due to the nature of the routes
that would be required. The number of pupils that can be carried
per bus run would tend to be in the order of 16-25, though it
might be possible to use larger buses in some instances.
17. Reasonable pay levels are required to
adequately staff services, mirroring wider experience. TfL has
been successful in tackling the shortfall in the number of London
bus drivers in part through a policy of investment in improved
terms and conditions. A significant expansion of driver requirements
for dedicated school buses could be expected to have impacts on
the wider market.
18. Borough provision of schools transport
tends to be concentrated on providing for pupils with special
educational needs. Borough and NHS bus fleets are also allocated
to the transport requirements of the social services and health
sectors. TfL understands that there may be some scope for marginal
cross-sector improvements to the utilisation of these buses. Overall
however there would seem to be limited scope to use these fleets
for a very significant expansion of dedicated home to school transport
services.
CHARGES AND
FUNDING
19. The need for smaller buses, the requirement
to provide adequate staffing and the relatively marginal prospects
for utilising existing capacity tend to mean that significant
service expansion is associated with a significant cost.
20. Providing dedicated buses for all primary
school children currently travelling over 1 mile to school in
a car would cost between £70 million and £100 million
per year. Research indicates that parents are very price-sensitive,
with interest in using such a service reducing markedly as the
potential cost increases from 40p to £1 per trip. It is unlikely
that more than £20 million could be recovered in charges.
21. The 33 London Local Education Authorities
currently pay a relatively small total amount for pupils' season
tickets (approximately £2 million in total in 2003-04). In
particular this is small relative to the total cost of a significant
expansion of dedicated bus operations. Thus, the major part of
any funding redeployment would need to come from current spending
in other areas, such as education or social services transport.
As stated the overall scope for redeploying capacity from Council
or NHS buses is understood to be relatively marginal. Where there
are cost efficiencies available in these sectors it is not clear
whether these could be available for a substantial expansion of
dedicated school transport in London.
22. Another possible source is the money allocated
by TfL for "Safe Routes to School" measures. This amounted
to £6.5 million in 2003-04. Again this is small relative
to the cost of a significant expansion of dedicated buses. It
is also not clear that transferring these budgets would represent
a net gain since some of their value in local safety and in providing
the grounding for measures such as "walking buses" would
be lost.
ORGANISATION
23. The draft Bill requires LEAs to consult
widely before proceeding, including with local transport providers.
24. In common with other urban areas, local
transport issues in London tend to have effects that cross outside
the boundaries of individual LEAs. Unlike the city-wide transport
agencies in other large cities, TfL has an extensive role in the
planning and provision of the local transport network, particularly
in respect of bus, light rail and underground services.
25. As the organisational arrangements for
transport provision differ significantly in London from elsewhere,
TfL believes that the legislation should specifically require
London LEAs to gain the endorsement of TfL before proposing schemes.
CONCLUSION
26. TfL welcomes the objectives of reducing
the use of cars for travel to school. However, TfL believes that
the specific proposal in the draft Bill—to pilot a removal
of the requirement for LEAs to offer free transport—is unlikely
to have more than a marginal effect on mode shares for travel
to school in London. There would be a significant cost associated
with a major expansion of dedicated bus services. It is not clear
how this could be funded by redeployment of existing funding.
| 
