In the absence of direct markers of social inclusion, we analysed data on the frequency of journeys by all modes during the week, and on the socioeconomic gradient in distance travelled by all modes by purpose of journey.
Frequencies of journeys
The frequency of journeys per day to/from work or school on a weekday in the 12- to 17-year-olds age group was slightly higher after the introduction of the free bus travel scheme for young people (relative change 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.14), whereas that in the 25- to 59-year-olds age group declined: ratio of change in the 12- to 17-year-olds age group compared with the 25- to 59-year-olds age group was 1.19 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.25). In contrast, the frequency of all journeys in the 12- to 17-year-olds age group was unchanged in absolute terms and relative to that in the 25- to 59-year-olds age group: ratio of ratios 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.04) (see Appendix 9, Table 34).
Distances travelled by level of deprivation
We also examined whether or not there had been any change in the distances travelled by young people by level of deprivation and purpose of journey before and after the intervention. Figure 16 shows trends in distances travelled by young people for education, entertainment, personal business and shopping pre- and post-intervention by decile of IMD. Thefigures generally show no clear evidence of diminution in socioeconomic gradients following the introduction of the free bus travel scheme for young people. Nevertheless, the patterns were suggestive of aflattening in the gradient for travel for shopping (at an overall slightly lower level post-intervention; p-value for change of slope with IMD was p = 0.024).
Zip and social inclusion
Qualitative evidence suggested that universal free bus travel for young people removes one barrier to social inclusion: that of transport costs. The intervention was reported to have facilitated participation through making some journeysfinancially accessible, at least at the margins. Although most young people were not explicit about the ways in which this happened, there were a few comments on how free bus travel offered opportunities for access to sport and leisure:
F:The local sports centre near me is, we’ve got to get a bus to get to it. So my brothers do that, and my mum takes my sister because they have like that little baby club thing there. So if a bus, the price went up, my mum wouldn’t take my sister to the little clubs where she can meet other little kids. And my brothers probably wouldn’t go to the gym at all.
Sut, 15–16 years
For some, free travel did make a reported difference to family budgets, not only for those in the poorest groups, but also for those whose families nevertheless struggled:
F:My mum’s lost her job and stuff, so it’s difficult for her. [For me to take the bus] doesn’t cost my mum anything, and it just helps her out.
H&F, 12 years F:I don’t think that’s fair because personally in my family, which you guys wont repeat, my dad’s only bringing in one income and my mum’s not working because she’s looking after [siblings] at home. And she’s got me and Callum to look after as well. So because my dad’s bringing in probably, I don’t know, probably about 1000 over the limit that it’s supposed to be, or however much over the limit, I’m not entitled to get EMA, free school meals, and if it was, free travel. But we’re still struggling so it’s not fair how it is.
Isl, 15–16 years
Notably, the instances of increased opportunity of access recounted were often group-based activities, with the intervention enabling families to more easily afford to go on outings:
M:When I was younger because my mum was pregnant at the time . . . me and my dad used to go up London because it was free for me . . . We used to go the Science Museum and things like that . . . so it was quite fun.
Sut, 13–16 years
To some extent our data generation method (with most young people interviewed in small groups) perhaps discouraged disclosures of thefinancial impact of free travel for less well-off young people. The young person above, for instance, prefaced her account of the difficulties their family would have without the fare concession with a plea to other interview participants not to repeat her circumstances outside the group. However, the fundamental impact of free bus travel on social inclusion was evident in the taken-for-granted nature of inclusion implicit in young people’s responses. Across the data set, at every
0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Km
IMD decile (1 = least deprived, 10 = most deprived)
Pre Post (a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Km 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IMD decile (1 = least deprived, 10 = most deprived)
Pre Post (b)
Km
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IMD decile (1 = least deprived, 10 = most deprived) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Pre Post (c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IMD decile (1 = least deprived, 10 = most deprived)
Km 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Pre Post (d)
FIGURE 16 Distances travelled by young people according to journey purpose by decile of IMD, pre- and post-introduction of the free bus travel scheme. (a) Education; (b) entertainment; (c) personal business; and (d) shopping.
local and more distant destinations by bus was an absolutely routine expectation: a normal and unquestioned entitlement.
F: I just get two buses to school, and on the weekends same, I just get the bus anywhere. Like sometimes it can be far like the West End, or not, it could just be like [local high street] or something.
Sut, 15–16 years (emphasis added)
In this respect, transport-related exclusion due tofinancial factors was notably absent as a salient concept for the participants in this research. Indeed the taken-for-granted nature of being able to afford to get anywhere is perhaps indicated by the rather extreme response of one participant (echoed less succinctly by others), who told us that if she could not use the buses for free she‘wouldn’t come to school’ (H&F, 15 years). Across the boroughs, young people emphasised the ease of getting around, and indeed the range of sites that might be visited by bus:
M:I normally go [by bus] just to go to school, go see family.
M:Probably the same thing, [I use the bus to] go to school, see family. Probably get the bus to football match, Regent’s Park, Camden.
M:I get the bus to school and my cousin’s house.
F:I get the bus to school and other activities. I go to music classes . . .
M:I normally get the bus everywhere,
Isl, 12–13 years M:[T]hat’s [fare exemption] really helpful, whenever I really need to go anywhere it’s just, it’s
no hassle
Sut, 14–18 years
The importance of the intervention in facilitating the ability to travel without restriction (‘no hassle’) is perhaps evident in the fact that, for most young people, the only accounts of limitations in mobility came from reports about those who had no zip card to prove their entitlement:
M:[T]he day I was robbed I lost my Oyster. I had a missing [glasses] lens . . . buttons ripped off my shirt and a bruise on my face. And then I tell him [the bus driver] I don’t have my Oyster, I got robbed, and he’s like ‘I’ve heard all these excuses . . .’ and he was actually swearing at me . . . and then he kicked me off
Isl, 15–16 years
Another participant had had his right to free travel rescinded by TfL (as part of the‘Behaviour Code’ penalties introduced in relation to some travel concessions for young people120):
M:[W]hen I didn’t have [free bus travel] I did struggle in terms of not getting everything done because I didn’t have that freedom to get on a bus
H&F,12–17 years
Similarly, one young man noted of four friends who had their passes taken away:‘It puts a strain on their social activities because they can’t go out as much’ (Hav, 15 years).