As we slowly emerge from the COVID-19 lockdown, some freedoms are being gradually restored. These include leisure travel for non-essential purposes, at least within England. However, if you wish to follow the advice of Her Majesty’s Government and do not own a car, your options are limited. Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport has said that people have a “civic duty” to avoid public transport unless making essential journeys to work. That means that those without cars cannot make trips to see family and friends, unless they live within walking or cycling distance. Suddenly, what were once a strongly encouraged methods of transport are now treated as something of a sin.
The rationale is, perhaps, understandable purely from an epidemiological point of view. Travelling by private car means that you will only be passing on your germs to a small number of people who should, by rights, already be members of your household. On the train or bus we come in contact with others, sometimes – as rush hour commuters will be all too aware – in very close proximity. It must therefore be acknowledged that public transport does indeed carry greater risk of transmission of the coronavirus than private cars. Yet, even in normal times, many trains and buses are not consistently busy off-peak. At present, many trains in particular are running largely empty. Furthermore, face coverings are now compulsory and help reduce the risk further. With that and the social distancing measures in place, should we really be thinking of public transport as presenting a uniquely severe risk to public health?
The issue of equitability of outcome needs to be considered alongside the epidemiological risks. People who rely on public transport have as much need to access green spaces, friends and family as car drivers – perhaps even more so, since many will live in flats, or properties with only small gardens. Mental health risks must be considered alongside physical health risks. Moreover, the current Government messaging risks undoing years of good work in encouraging more use of public transport to support a greener and more sustainable future.
Tweets from Network Rail such as the example above state “only take the train if there’s no other way to travel” (taken literally, they must somehow believe the bus to be safer than the train). This negativity towards their own service is disheartening and can hardly be imagined in other sectors of the economy (“don’t come to our newly re-opened coffee shop– it’s safer to make a brew at home!”). Yes, we don’t want hordes of day trippers cramming into the train for a jaunt to Margate, but a more nuanced message might at least allow for local trips to, say, a nearby village for a socially distanced walk in the countryside. I freely confess to having taken a train from Tonbridge to Penshurst for one such trip. The line is hardly crowded outside the rush hour at the best of times and I don’t think I was in a lot of risk sitting in half a carriage on my own!
There is a particular danger that some bus services may not survive in the longer term. Schedules have been cut, and some routes have become “dial a ride” only. We suspect the many of these services will not return. This could leave many older people and non-drivers at a considerable disadvantage. As the threat of the virus starts to diminish, it is important that the public is given reassurance that travel is safe to resume, as long as sensible precautions are taken.
So, my message to the Government and the public transport operators is clear – think about the long term as well as the short term, and show a little more understanding to those who happen not to have a car. After all, one day you might actually want people to travel by train and bus again.