Did free bus travel change how young Londoners got around?

Details

In September 2005, London, UK, introduced free bus and tram travel for residents under 17; in 2006 it extended eligibility to under-18s in education, work or training. The policy was part of a broader environmental strategy to reduce private car use, but its primary aim was to reduce transport exclusion so that transport poverty would not deny young people access to goods, services, education and training. It could also have positive or negative health implications, but a robust evidence base on transport policy effects on health and well-being was lacking.

The researchers evaluated the public-health impact of free bus travel in London as a natural experiment, including effects on young people’s injuries and active travel, health determinants, older citizens and value for money. The study included young people aged 12–17 and older citizens aged 60 and over. Its quasi-experimental design combined secondary analysis of routine data, primary qualitative data and literature reviews.

Quantitative outcomes included journeys to school or work; the frequency and distance of walking and/or cycling, bus travel and car travel; road traffic injuries and assaults; and socioeconomic gradients in travel patterns. Qualitative research examined how free bus travel affected young and older people’s travel and well-being. For travel mode, road traffic injuries and assaults, a change-on-change analysis compared before-and-after changes among 12–17-year-olds with changes in non-exposed groups. Interviews were analysed using deductive and inductive methods, and the economic evaluation used cost–benefit analysis. Sources were the London Area Transport Survey (LATS) and London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) for travel mode, the STATS19 Road Accident data set for road traffic injuries, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for assaults, interviews with young and older citizens, and cost data from providers and literature reviews.

The scheme was associated with increased bus use among adults and young people, especially for short journeys: respectively, 31% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19% to 42%) and 26% (95% CI 13% to 41%). Young people’s car travel distances fell relative to adults’ (relative change 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). Overall active travel did not fall significantly: walking trips decreased, but there was no evidence of a change in distance walked (relative change 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07). Cycling fell significantly relative to adults, although it started from a very low base. Road traffic injuries decreased for car occupants (relative change 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95) and cyclists (0.60, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), but not pedestrians. Journeys to work or school increased modestly overall (relative change 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.14). Evidence on effects on socioeconomic gradients in travel behaviour was equivocal, and there was no evidence of an adverse effect on travel by older people aged over 60. An increase in assaults largely preceded the scheme.

Interviews suggested more opportunities for independent travel, greater social inclusion and a sense of belonging, and that bus travel became ‘normalised’. Monetised benefits substantially outweighed costs, meeting the Department for Transport’s definition of ‘high’ value for money. The researchers concluded that the scheme appeared to encourage more short bus trips without significantly affecting overall active travel. Qualitative evidence also indicated benefits for social determinants of health, including normalised bus travel, social inclusion and independent travel. Where bus service is good, universal free bus travel for young people appeared to be a cost-effective contribution to social inclusion and potentially to more sustainable transport in the long term.

The authors called for further research on how active and other travel modes affect health determinants; what helps changes in travel mode last; travel as a ‘social practice’; how driving licence changes affect injury rates in young adults; and the value of a statistical life for young people. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.