INTRODUCCION

M1: I think it could be because some people are lazy, tired, if they’re tired they won’t go to school. So then the government try and encourage them to go in, and they’ve got free travel. You don’t have to use your legs that much to get in there, so.

M2: But then wouldn’t that be against the whole, defeat the point of the whole government thing, the government fitness thing? Because if they’re trying to encourage people to get fit, why encourage them to take the bus then?

M1: True. (Isl, 15-16)

Although, as detailed above, these considerations did not generally translate into personal preferences for what were perceived as ‘healthier’ modes of travel, some individuals did report preferences for walking because of the intrinsic pleasure of exercise:

M: [W]hen I didn’t have my Oyster card when I walked to school I felt, because like I was in the air, fresh air, I had fresh air and I could exercise a bit, walk my legs, when I was at school I felt much, much more concentrated and much more alive. When I’m on the bus it’s like, 50% of the time I would slouch on the table, sleeping, even if I’m standing up on the bus, whether I’m sitting down or standing up it just like this musty atmosphere on the bus, it smells a bit and it’s just dull really. So outside, when you’re outside walking it just makes you feel more alive and it does, it makes you feel a bit healthier even though it’s such a short walk. (Hav, 14)

The exceptions, those who did explicitly choose to walk where possible rather than get the bus, attributed this preference to health aims:

51

F: I want to be, like, fit and everything, so exercise wise, I make sure I don’t get the bus too much, so it helps (Hav, 17)

For the majority, though, ‘fitness’ as a health goal did not feature as a factor in decision making around transport decisions, and was not something prioritised in stories of travelling around the city.

Rather, the wellbeing considerations of young people were more closely aligned to social wellbeing:

ensuring a journey that maximised social inclusion (in travelling with peers, as described in Chapter 3) and minimised certain risks (which we turn to in Chapter 6).

4.7 Conclusion

There is credible evidence that although the intervention increased the use of bus travel for short trips, in the context of rising general use of bus travel in the population, that this did not necessarily mean that young people were significantly reducing their amount of active travel overall. The apparently paradoxical finding from travel diary data that although the number of trips by walking as a main mode reduced, that there was no significant difference in the distances walked, was

explained to some extent by the qualitative data, which suggested that the bus pass facilitated more journeys, and given that all bus journeys require some walking, therefore undertaking some active travel as part of a trip served to offset the loss of trips by walking as a main mode that were not undertaken. Although the bus pass may have had only a marginal role in generating exercise as an end in itself (e.g. to access sports facilities), exercise as a by-product of public transport was more common. ‘Bus hopping’, although generating a large number of very short trips which may not be recorded in travel diaries, also generates activity, and simply being on the bus was not necessarily sedentary. The oppositional, and at times explicit (e.g. (102, 103) assumption that urban bus travel is a purely ‘passive’ mode in contrast to the ‘active’ modes of walking and cycling may underestimate activity.

On cycling, levels in young people declined, from a very low base. The use of adults as a comparator group here is perhaps less helpful for attributing change to the intervention, given the rise in adult cycling for other reasons (including a number of schemes to increase cycling levels). Although there is little evidence from the qualitative data that cycling is considered a candidate mode of transport for many young people, we do not know how far this has changed since the introduction of free bus travel. It is clear that young Londoners have not benefited from the increases in cycling seen in adults.

52

What is encouraging from a public health perspective is that health is a consideration for many young people in thinking about their transport behaviour, and one which means that at times

‘active’ modes are preferred. However, the health outcomes that are implicitly prioritised in the majority of young people’s accounts of travel are those of social wellbeing. The scheme may (as young people themselves note) reduce the incentives for ‘healthier’ active travel, but it also provides the conditions for travel that is both sociable and inclusive: travel that is inherently ‘healthier’ from the perspective of young people themselves.

In summary, there was no evidence from the travel diary data that the intervention had reduced, overall, the amount of active travel that young people did. The qualitative data suggested that treating bus travel as a non-active mode of transport may be inappropriate if the aim is to use active travel as a proxy for physical exercise, as bus travel generates both additional trips (particularly discretionary ones) and some activity within the transport system itself.

53