The big school bus bill

DEDICATED school buses should be introduced across Britain to all primary and many secondary schools. That’s the conclusion of the Yellow School Bus Commission, chaired by David Blunkett, who was education secretary between 1997 and 2001. The annual cost of providing the services for primary schools is estimated to be £154million. Including selected secondary schools would add between £50million and £100million to that figure.
The Commission reckons that the services would remove 180 million car journeys from Britain’s roads each year, reducing congestion and cutting emissions.

It blames current policy for the situation in which many parents drive children to school, and says that the current rules setting out entitlement to free school transport are out of date. Over the last two decades the percentage of primary pupils who get to school by car has almost doubled – from 22 to 41 per cent. In the morning peak during term time around 20 per cent of urban car trips are school-related.

To address this issue, the Commission wants to see improvements in the quality and availability of home-to-school transport.

In advocating the use of dedicated school buses for primary children the Commission talks of  “safety fears” about young children travelling on scheduled bus services – which is a sad reflection on the state of our society. Dedicated services would address that fear, at an annual cost of £154million.

The Commission’s report envisages funding of up to £10,000 per school for dedicated buses delivered through School Travel Plans, as an incentive for schools to stagger hours and work together to maximise the use of the new school bus fleet, which Blunkett says could number up to 10,000 buses. Parents would pay a fare of between £1 and £2 per day except for those entitled to free school meals or currently entitled to free school transport.

It also says that Bus Service Operators Grant should be available for dedicated school bus services.

The problem of vehicle utilisation is addressed in part. The report notes: “To deliver real improvements … vehicle utilisation is of key importance and measures that enable schools to share vehicles must be found.” It also says other work should be found for the buses during the school day. But it fails to address the overall poor utilisation of dedicated school buses which only work for around 200 days a year.

However, as one bus industry executive whose company provides school bus services puts it: “As long as they pay, we don’t care how many days the bus works.” And he certainly has a point, although there will surely be many local authorities who will have doubts about paying for a bus which will so obviously be lying idle during school holidays.
Because so few primary school children currently use regular bus services, the Commission argues that transferring them to dedicated yellow buses will have no significant impact on existing operations. It forecasts that across Britain its primary school proposals would see 500,000 children using dedicated school buses, of which 350,000 would be switching from cars. This would save 130 million car journeys a year, bringing road users an annual saving of £88million through reduced congestion.

With high petrol prices, the Commission argues that dedicated school bus services should save parents money. Says Commission member Ros Scott: “Responses of parents are changing as the cost of petrol rises, especially in rural areas where pupils are being transported long distances.” The Commission calculates that the annual saving to parents of primary school children would be a staggering £362million.

There are other benefits too, and another Commission member, Tex Pemberton, adds: “This is a way of introducing a better bus culture.” His views were echoed by John Burch, CPT’s deputy director of operations, who also sat on the Commission: “Quality comes at a cost, but by doing this we can improve the travelling environment for so many more children. If funds can be made available, then the expansion of such schemes will make everyone think positively about public transport options. I have no doubt this will encourage us all to use the car less in the future.”

For secondary school pupils the Commission adopts a different approach, including the development of existing services to provide more capacity for school children. Yet here its arguments are at their weakest. For primary school children there is enthusiastic and wholehearted support for dedicated yellow buses. For secondary school children there is an acknowledgement that many adult bus users are uncomfortable about teenage school children’s behaviour. Says the Commission in comments on adults’ attitudes to school travel: “Many would prefer to avoid bus travel at these times and most perceived pupil behaviour on-board as poor.”

So the Commission talks of “using technology to promote good on-board behaviour”. Technology? Do they mean electric cattle prods? Or just CCTV?

Anyway, they fudge the issue, with talk of “enhanced driver training” but no mention of the need to instil some behavioural standards in those children who don’t know how to behave on a bus. There’s a sense in the report that with older children the Commission was less sure of itself.

In terms of environmental awareness, this report has come at the right time. The current generation of school children has a much greater awareness of environmental issues than any previous generation, and is more likely to be receptive to the green credentials of bus travel.

But in terms of the economic issues – oh, dear, it couldn’t have appeared at a worse time. With financiers running around like headless chickens, and the government telling us not to panic in the face of the worst global financial crisis since the Wall Street crash of 80 years ago, it’s unlikely that the Treasury is going to stump up the money to support new school bus schemes. The Yellow School Bus Commission can argue all it likes about the positive figures in its cost-benefit analysis, but it’s not going to see vast sums of money being directed to support its recommendations.

And, in any case, the debate will rumble on, both in relation to vehicle types and to costs. Are low-floor buses as safe as high-floor ones, with the latter having their impact zone below the floor for accidents involving cars? Are double-deckers suitable for school travel, with the problems of controlling behaviour on the top deck? Are coaches the answer, using the argument that children might treat a more luxurious vehicle with greater respect and that the operator can spread overhead costs between school contracts and other work? Should school buses carry minders, to monitor behaviour?

Whatever the conclusions – and there will be more than one – the Yellow School Bus Commission has re-opened the debate and, generally, examined the whole question of home-to-school transport with commendable thoroughness.
Blunkett concludes: “This is a forward-looking, realistic and highly relevant contribution to the debate not simply about transport, but about energy use, climate change and the sensible use and conservation of resources.

“We are proposing a long-term programme which could revolutionise the way we do the school run. But this is not just about the length of time parents spend getting their children to school; it is also about the impact this has on both society and business and enterprise, as well as key issues of energy conservation and climate change.”

And the report is well worth reading, whatever your views on the pros and cons of yellow buses.

www.ysbcommission.com