Something is lost on ministers when they anchor better bus services in England to lower fares. Beneficial in the short-term as fare initiatives are, they do not automatically improve services.
Yet each time bus funding is announced, the two sit together. Fare subsidy has already consumed hundreds of millions, and while an appropriate cost of travel is key to the ‘bus mix’, its repeated majoring on at best further complicates and at worst ignores what is still likely to be a need in the future to regain commerciality of some form.
For some users, low fares are the difference between travelling and not. Their relevance to younger people is also significant. But long-term service improvements will largely come via better timetables and – critically – faster journeys.
Fares are a useful tool in the short-term, but more onus on priority measures to cut journey times is needed. That is the magic sprinkle; it improves passenger appeal, and resources saved can be reinvested in service uplifts. The public perception of buses bypassing other traffic also has value.
The conundrum for advocates of lower fares is this: if a bus service is unreliable and slow because of volatile congestion and a lack of priority measures, how significant is the price in attracting new passengers who will stay in the long-term?
A look at London, where the £1.75 ‘hopper’ sits against falling commercial speeds and stagnant patronage, suggests that low fares work best when alongside other measures. That must not be forgotten in a new world of multi-year funding, franchising, and deeper partnerships.
