Pwyllgor yr Economi, Seilwaith a Sgiliau - Y Bumed Senedd

Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee - Fifth Senedd

30/09/2020

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

Hefin David
Helen Mary Jones
Joyce Watson
Russell George Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor
Committee Chair
Suzy Davies
Vikki Howells

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Christine Boston Cyfarwyddwr Cymru, Cymdeithas Cludiant Cymunedol a Chadeirydd, Transform Cymru
Director for Wales, Community Transport Association and Chair, Transform Cymru
David Beer Uwch-reolwr Cymru, Transport Focus
Senior Manager Wales, Transport Focus
Nick Richardson Cyfarwyddwr Technegol (Trafnidiaeth), Mott Macdonald a Chadeirydd Grŵp Polisi Bysiau a Choetsys y Sefydliad Siartredig Logisteg a Thrafnidiaeth
Technical Director (Transport), Mott Macdonald and Chair of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Bus and Coach Policy Group
Norman Baker Cyngorydd i’r Prif Swyddog Gweithredol, yr Ymgyrch dros Drafnidiaeth Well
Adviser to the Chief Executive Officer, Campaign for Better Transport
Professor Glenn Lyons Athro Symudedd y Dyfodol, Prifysgol Gorllewin Lloegr
Professor of Future Mobility, University of the West of England
Ryland Jones Dirprwy Gyfarwyddwr Dros Dro, Sustrans Cymru
Interim Deputy Director, Sustrans Cymru

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Andrew Minnis Ymchwilydd
Researcher
Lara Date Ail Glerc
Second Clerk
Robert Donovan Clerc
Clerk
Robert Lloyd-Williams Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Cyfarfu'r pwyllgor drwy gynhadledd fideo.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:46.

The committee met by video-conference.

The meeting began at 09:46. 

1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau
1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest

Croeso, bawb, i'r Pwyllgor Economi, Seilwaith a Sgiliau. 

Welcome, everyone, to the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee.

I'd like to welcome Members to committee this morning. If I can move to—. Well, first of all, before I move to the first item, I will just go through a couple of points. Under Standing Order 34.19, I have determined that the public will be excluded from this meeting for public health reasons, but this meeting is broadcast on Senedd.tv. That's in accordance with Standing Order 34.19. We have agreed that Joyce Watson will temporarily stand in as Chair should there be any technical issues with my connection. We haven't had any apologies or substitutions this morning. We've got a full house here this morning. If there are any declarations of interest from Members, please say so now.

2. Llythyr gan y Gweinidog Tai a Llywodraeth Leol: Fframwaith Datblygu Cenedlaethol
2. Letter from Minister for Housing and Local Government re: National Development Framework

We have one paper to note this morning under item 2.1: a letter from the Minister for Housing and Local Government regarding the national development framework. So, if Members are happy to note that for information. Thank you.

3. COVID-19: Adfer Trafnidiaeth—Grwpiau Eiriolaeth a Buddiannau Teithwyr
3. COVID-19: Transport Recovery—Advocacy Groups and Passenger Interests

And then we move to item 3, which is the main subject and the focus of our committee work at the moment in regard to COVID-19. This morning, we're looking particularly at transport recovery and we have two panels. The first panel with us is a number of passenger groups with particular interests. Rather than name each one, I will perhaps ask each of you to introduce yourselves for the public record and just to say a little bit about who you're representing. If I do it in the same order as I asked you to do the sound check at the beginning, so if I start with you, Christine. 

Morning. So, I'm Christine Boston. I'm the director for Wales for the Community Transport Association and I'm the chair of Transform Cymru, who I'm representing today. Transform Cymru is a coalition of organisations campaigning for sustainable and inclusive transport for all.

Thank you very much. Bore da. I'm David Beer. I'm senior manager Wales for Transport Focus. We're the national watchdog acting on behalf of transport users. I also chair the Transport for Wales advisory panel and we're also, as an organisation, working with Christine and other colleagues as part of Transform Cymru.

Good morning, all. I'm Ryland Jones. I'm interim deputy director for Sustrans Cymru. Sustrans is obviously a member of Transform Cymru, so we're here in that capacity this morning. 

Good morning, Chair. I'm from the Campaign for Better Transport, which covers England and Wales, and our objective is to see sustainable public transport, including active travel as well, across England and Wales for economic, environmental and social reasons. My own background is that I'm an advisor to the chief executive and was for three and half years a transport Minister in the UK Government. 

Lovely, thank you. Well, thank you ever so much, all of you, for attending this meeting this morning, and thanks for earlier papers as well to inform our work in this area. So, we're very grateful for your time this morning.

What I would like to start with is for you to perhaps make some brief opening comments, but please keep them brief so that we've got more time for diving into questions. So if I could ask each of you to give perhaps an opening statement, but particularly if you could focus on what changes you've seen in terms of changing passenger behaviour and, ultimately, what you think the changes of behaviour are and what that's potentially going to lead to for Wales's transport systems. So, I'll go in no particular order. Is there anybody who particularly wants to kick off first? There we are. Thank you, David Beer.

09:50

Thank you very much. Yes, Transport Focus has been running weekly research with users across Britain, which I know the committee is familiar with; we've been sharing it quite widely. What we've seen, particularly during the sort of high stages of the coronavirus, is that passenger numbers dropped off very markedly. People are still concerned about going out, even when the infection rate has reduced. Now, as we're seeing the infection rate rising again, we're seeing that drop-off in the numbers of people travelling. But what we are seeing is that people have got a perception gap with public transport particularly. They're seeing that restaurants and pubs and shops and places like that, they're seeing that the cleaning regimes particularly are quite overt, whereas with public transport it's less visible, so people aren't feeling as safe, maybe.

We're also seeing that, particularly in Wales, there's quite high prevalence of people who are feeling that they don't want to do things that they feel are unnecessary, because they're worried about COVID infection. So, particularly, about three quarters of the people in Wales have said that they're avoiding doing things that they feel unnecessary, like taking journeys by public transport. Obviously, the lockdowns have also had an impact on that. But we're also seeing people changing their habits, so, for example, seven in 10 people in Wales are saying that they're going to be working from home far more in future, and so that is going to be changing people's travel habits. So, public transport needs to think again with things like flexible ticketing, with things like promotions to help people to 'head out to help out', maybe, if I could borrow a phrase. But we feel that that promotion, that performance needs to be supported going forwards.

Thank you. I can see Hefin wants to come in. Shall I just go through each of the panel members, then I'll come straight to you, Hefin, if that's all right? Perhaps if I come to Norman Baker next. You're just on mute, Norman. There we are.

I agree with what David's just said. So, I won't repeat that, except to say that the message from the UK Government, in particular, back in March was not simply not to travel, but also to give the impression that public transport was uniquely unsafe, which clearly it isn't, and indeed I pay tribute to the transport companies and organisers, including in Wales, for the efforts they've made to keep our public transport scrupulously clean. It is not unsafe to travel via public transport; quite the reverse: I'm not aware of a single incident of anybody contracting COVID-19 from a public transport vehicle. So, the first steps that have to be made by both the UK Government and the devolved administrations is to give the message that public transport is safe to use and that has not yet been done.

The second priority is to recognise that the method of travel and the way people behave, as David says, has completely changed. There is now far more homeworking. That was a trend that was, in fact, beginning to take shape some years ago, particularly with the London Olympics, and has gathered pace. And virus or no virus, there's no going back to a position whereby people travel nine to five in peak hours, Monday to Friday, so the season ticket arrangements that are in place on the railways are completely out of date and need to be changed. I know that the Welsh Government itself has recognised that homeworking is in many ways desirable; we share that view. You've got, I think, a target of 30 per cent working from home and I particularly welcome the idea of these hubs that you're talking about in communities, which seems to me to be a very sensible idea. So, we're not against homeworking, but we're very much in favour of public transport in terms of making sure people get back on buses and back on trains.

And just to be slightly controversial, we're going to have to at some point, as a society, recognise that social distancing is not sustainable or not compatible, at least, with the idea of public transport that is in any way economically viable. At some point, that's going to have to change.

So, we've set out in our document 'Covid-19 Recovery: Renewing the transport system', which you've got a copy of, I think—if you haven't, we're very happy to e-mail it to you and your members—how this could be used as an opportunity for change. There is a threat to public transport from what's happened, but there's also an opportunity, because the levers of control are now far more in the hands of the Governments, both in Wales and in London, than they have been before. And there's an opportunity to try and change dramatically the way the system works, to get people working from home, to get people using bus and train more, to increase cycling and walking and to discourage unsustainable car use. The real danger, if we're not careful, is we'll have a car-based recovery because we will feel that's safer, and we could actually do significant damage, not just to public transport, but to all the effort that's been made to decarbonise transport and indeed to move towards net zero in terms of carbon emissions.

09:55

Thank you, Norman Baker. Christine Boston and Ryland Jones, if I could ask you to be brief, because I suspect you agree with much of what's been said, but any fresh points, please, do bring forward. Christine.

I very much agree with the points made by David and Norman. I would emphasise the points made about the cleanliness of public transport, and the importance of reassuring people what measures have been taken to ensure services are safe and there's a lot of effort gone into that for transport. And I think, also, I want to make the point that it's not just about the decarbonisation agenda, but also the inclusion agenda. So, the danger is we reach a point where having a car is essential for accessing any kind of opportunity. You know, transport is a public service and we have to remember that. There are lots of people who don't have access to a car, can't drive, can't afford a car, and they shouldn't need to have that to be able to access healthcare, leisure facilities, work, training and also food; transport is essential to go and buy healthy and affordable food. We all need that, and so we have to make sure that sustainable public transport services are available for people.

I'd just add that, I think particularly in terms of walking and cycling levels, it was very interesting to see the change in those, particularly in early lockdown. We saw, typically, a tripling of user numbers on much of the network, both the local active travel network within urban centres, but also the national cycle network. And particularly access to green space was hugely valued by people, particularly when we were asking them to exercise on a limited basis. So, it shows that access to local green space, access to local services is absolutely vital if we are to support healthy activities like walking and cycling going forward. And people will undertake behaviour change when they are in a situation that demands that. So, it's really important that we try and lock that in going forward, so we have a better balance of modal activity within particularly our urban centres.

Thank you, Ryland. Hefin David, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I'm sure the economic and social implications of remote working will be discussed later, but I just wanted to get to the bottom of this idea that there'll be less commuting and more home and community working naturally as a result at the end of the pandemic. I've not seen any data that supports that contention, and it appears, at least from this distance, and certainly not speaking as an expert, that it's actually based an awful lot on wishful thinking, rather than on what is actually likely to happen. So it was David Beer and Norman Baker particularly who raised that. Can you tell us whether you've seen hard evidence that the home working approach is likely to be sustained without legislative intervention?

If I could come in on that first—

I think if you talk to the rail operators, the train operators, they will tell you that for some time there's been a reduction in season ticket demand, which is out of line with—this is pre-COVID actually—with ticket sales. And since COVID arrived, the recovery of rail journeys has been predominantly leisure journeys recovering, rather than commuter journeys. We're also seeing from businesses an attempt to relocate in some cases to smaller premises, or indeed no premises. Indeed, if you take my organisation, we've actually given up the office and there's no intention to reinstate an office. So, I think that's becoming more common, and people who are employers are now understanding that the cost of maintaining a big office, whether it's in Cardiff or Wrexham or anywhere else, when actually it could be much smaller or it could be homeworking, is actually—

10:00

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Norman, but this is anecdotal stuff. This isn't any analysis of trends, and the trends you did refer to were trends that were already happening pre coronavirus. What I'm talking about is whether there is any hard evidence of trends that might happen as a result of this crisis.

Well, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. If you talk to the Rail Delivery Group, for example, and David may have evidence on this as well, you'll see that the commuting levels have not recovered particularly in terms of train use, but they have recovered in terms of leisure use. In the early stages of post lockdown, that's a very clear indication, I think, as to how matters are going to unfold in future. 

Ryland Jones, did you want to come in on this point as well? I think you've highlighted this issue.

I think, generally, in terms of homeworking trends, there may not be—. Certainly, in terms of our own organisation, we've clearly seen a very significant change in agile working, and there's no question—similar to the point that Norman makes—that we would not be returning to a normal office situation. We're looking at flexible working. We're aware of a number of other organisations in a similar sector, in the third sector, that are looking at that, because there are obviously cost implications. But, clearly, it does depend on the demographic of the organisations concerned.

I think probably, in walking and cycling terms, we've really seen that mostly in terms of leisure activity rather than commuting changes. Key workers in the early days were clearly supported by active travel measures and reduction in traffic levels. Whether that trend is sustained now is questionable, but I think the evidence that we have, certainly for the third sector, is that homeworking should stay as a form of change, yes.

Yes. I think we've had to remember that the situation that we had was the roads were heavily congested. Some of the main public transport services, like rail, on the peak time routes were overcrowded, with no room to take additional people out of those cars and onto those vehicles. We have, in Cardiff alone, 40,000 new homes planned—that's homes, not people—and other places are planning similar growth. Air quality was declining. So, I think it's not just about the situation of homeworking now. We needed this to happen anyway. We needed to reduce the need for people to travel just to go somewhere so that their managers could see them, really. They don't need to be there, necessarily, to do the job. They could do that closer to home. We needed to remove that need. This is a good opportunity. We've hit a reset point. We have seen a step change and we need that to continue. So, I think we need to look at the bigger picture and do everything we can to keep some of those positive habits going forward.

Can I say, Chair, that my concern about this—and my audio dipped out in the middle of that and I didn't get all of it—is that there doesn't seem to be any trends that have been analysed to support this argument? Therefore, if you're basing policy on something that is based on anecdotal experience and not long-term trends, then it creates a difficulty.

Okay. I'll tell you what I've got—. Just be brief, because I've got Christine and Ryland who want to come in, but I do want to bring David in as well, because I know David Beer has done some survey work that has been supplied to us where it does indicate that people do want to work from home. So, I'll bring you in, David, but Christine and then Ryland first. Christine.

I think there is evidence that being able to work remotely and flexibly is positive in terms of inclusion, particularly for women. But I wanted to point to a study that was carried out a few years ago by Mott MacDonald in Sydney, and, again, this is really looking at the congestion issue. They were looking at congestion in Sydney and how to reduce that, and they started looking at how they could get people to travel at different times, and what they concluded in the end was, 'Hang on, what if people didn't need to travel?' I think we just have to look at the full range of options, including more people working closer to home.

10:05

I just wanted to make the point that I think it's crucial that we build in effective monitoring and evaluation, particularly of things like the temporary schemes that have gone in with interventions and how the trends and patterns have changed, because, without that, we don't have the empirical evidence to be able to make the case for how that's changing. As we know, anecdotally, there's a lot of change out there, but we do need to have effective monitoring and evaluation, and I think that that's something that's perhaps missing from some of the funding that's been provided to local authorities in recent times in response to COVID; although there are lots of measures for them to implement, we don't have the same monitoring and evaluation framework to be able to assess that at the moment.

The research that we've been doing on a weekly basis is showing that people are currently working from home; they're not travelling because of that mix. The panel of people we're talking to are saying that they've been looking at changing their habits, they're looking at a mix of home and going out to work. But, currently, seven in 10 are saying that they expect to be working from home in future [correction: working from home more in future] and don't know why they haven't actually made that change before. It's been a real catalyst.

From the advisory panel, also the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses are saying that their members are actively looking at more flexible working patterns, handing back office space to reduce costs and overheads, and also working with their IT and technical people to provide better connectivity for people at home. And I think also the telecoms industry has been seeing a real upsurge in demand. I know that the providers of technology like Zoom and Teams and other online facilities have also been upgrading their capabilities to provide better bandwidth so that people can work from home.

Transport for Wales are also looking at repurposing its used [correction: its unused] rail buildings to be able to use them as local hubs, and I know that that's been looked at on a community-wide basis, which we really applaud and welcome. So, that is actually a real, measurable outcome that we're really seeing in the research that we're doing on a weekly basis, and that is growing not just in Wales, but across Britain.

Thank you, David. I'll bring Suzy in in a moment and then, Suzy Davies, if you want to come on to ask any substantive questions as well. But I would just say to witnesses that we've got more questions than I think we've got time for, so if I can just indicate that perhaps one or two of you answer any questions from Members and then only beyond that if you really feel that you've got a pressing point. Suzy Davies.

Thank you, Chair. Just before I ask my question, I think it's worth pointing out that the Department for Transport has done some research of its own on this in Great Britain and, of all the modes of transport, the only one that's completely recovered is the use of the motor vehicle, and, admittedly, cycling has gone up as well. So, regardless of what we're hearing about more people working at home, or using some public transport, actually, bus and rail use hasn't recovered in the same way that the use of a car has. So, I don't—[Inaudible.]—all these points on this is that we shouldn't just go into some fantasy land on the basis that everyone's going to be cycling everywhere when the evidence we have since lockdown was at least relaxed is that people are back in their cars. And because of that, my general question to you all is: how on earth can any Government plan for or come up with a transport strategy, even working with all the partners in the world, when it just seems to be that we're having conflicting experiences here? We know what the aim is, but how practical is it and how agile could it be, bearing in mind Norman's comments on social distancing earlier? Is it an impossible task?

No, it's not. Let me give you three things. First of all, the messaging has to be right from Governments—both devolved administrations and central Government—about travelling by public transport. It is not right at the moment; it suggests that travelling by buses and trains isn't safe, which is wrong. That needs to be corrected. Secondly, we need to have changes to the ticketing arrangements that apply on railways in particular. We've still got these season tickets that are prioritised, which are decades out of date as a matter of fact. We need to have part-time season tickets, carnets like on the French Metro, for example. We need to have single-leg pricing. We need to give people the flexibility to travel by rail, rather than being on an expensive day ticket or a weekly season ticket. Those are out of date. So, the Government can change that now, and it hasn't done so. I don't know why they haven't done so, because everybody's in favour of that, including all the rail companies.

Thirdly, there is an incentive to travel by car, unfortunately, in terms of fuel duty. Fuel duty has not changed since 2011, and that's cost the Treasury in London £50 billion in lost income and has caused modal shift. The estimate is that 5 per cent of traffic has gone from public transport to car as a consequence of failing to raise fuel duty, and there are probably 250 million fewer bus journeys as a consequence of that decision by Government. So, Government can certainly use the levers it's got to try to improve matters and secure that modal shift that we all want to see.

And lastly, I think we need to see—which I think the Welsh Government is doing, actually, to a degree—co-operation being enhanced between bus companies and local councils to try and get planning for local areas in a way that perhaps has not been done to the optimum before.

10:10

I think David Beer wants to come in. Suzy Davies, do you have any other further questions that I can particularly direct to David or Christine?

Yes, just this one, then, just to be fair to everybody else. That sounds very much, though, like, 'If we build it, they will come.' Until there's a difference between the convenience of using public transport and a car, the cost perhaps isn't going to be the main driver of changes in their decisions about what they're going to do. I don't know if any of you can comment on that observation.

People will respond to economic signals. If you send the right signals, that's how people will behave, or, if you want a transport metaphor, if you put down the track, that's where the train goes.

Thank you. I think cost and convenience have been the real key elements, particularly on rail travel, for some time. But Wales is to be applauded, I think, because they already have the multiflex ticket, which gives a flexible carnet, and we've certainly cited that as an example to roll out.

But I think one of the key things is to understand the journeys that people want to make. The choice is easy to get into a car, because that takes you where you want to go. Are the networks that are out there actually fit for purpose, fit for the new uses, the new journeys that people want to make, the new habit? So, there's a really key opportunity here to understand people's travel needs and then to actually create the networks and the connections that people can make so that when they go out to make a journey, the information is there, where people want to look, so they can make an informed choice, and when they go and use that journey, the performance is actually at the level that people get a good experience from. So, again, measuring that service delivery, measuring that experience is really useful. We're here to help, we stand ready to help with that measurement. But I think the key is to provide the network, to understand people's journeys and to provide the positive experience that people will then want to make journeys on public transport, and word of mouth is really important for that positive experience to spread and people to say, 'Give it a go.'

If I bring Joyce Watson in, perhaps Christine Boston, I hope, will be able to address Joyce's question and anything else she wants to raise. Joyce Watson.

I'm just going to put another spanner in the works, so to speak. People have talked about fuel duty, they've talked about decarbonisation, and we're talking about cars, but, of course, there's another growth in car manufacture and that's electric cars. So, if it was the case that everybody moved to an electric mode of transport, then we've got another player on the table, so to speak, that actually hasn't been discussed, so I thought I'd just throw it in there. And in manufacturing, as you said, opportunity drives change, and it is very clear that the big manufacturers of cars are actually moving into producing electric cars. So, my question, therefore, to you—all of you, I suppose—is if people are so in love with their cars, what makes you think that, whilst they might care about the environment, they won't just change from diesel and petrol engines to electric?

10:15

That's probably a question to everyone. We haven't got time to go to everyone, but maybe you could incorporate any views on that as we come to you. Christine, though, I did say I'd come to you.

Okay. I think the first point is that we have to be very careful on the messaging around electric cars, because, anecdotally, I hear people who believe that, if they have an electric car, they have no environmental impact and therefore they've done their bit, and that is not the truth of it. With electric cars, it still has a negative impact on air quality to an extent, and it certainly has an impact on congestion, which is another problem that needs to be addressed. They are going to be prohibitive for some people to buy, and we have to be very careful right now that we don't create greater exclusion. As I've said already, there are people who don't drive, don't have access to a car, who already face barriers to accessible and inclusive transport, and we need to remove those barriers, not create them for more people. I think that the answer is around transport innovation, and that's what we should be pushing for right now—so, that is things like demand-responsive buses, building our community transport services, helping them to grow, bringing in more e-bikes, e-scooters and using every opportunity available for sustainable transport.

Thank you, Christine. I know—. Perhaps it's an appropriate time to bring Helen Mary Jones in, because I think she perhaps wants to pick up on some of those points in her line of questioning. Helen Mary Jones.

Yes, thank you, and thank you all for your evidence so far. I wonder if you can briefly talk about the—. You've all published or given us evidence of what you think the Governments need to be doing to respond to the post-COVID public transport situation, so can you just all tell us a little bit about what you see as the benefits of the specific proposals you've put forward? You don't need to go through them at length, because we've obviously got those in your written evidence, but what do you see as the benefits of those? I don't know where you want to start, Russ—with David, maybe?

Thank you. Yes, I think the proposition of public transport has to be attractive, and the key things that we see there are—based on passengers' priorities, which again comes from the research that we've done directly with people as to what they want, and with non-users as well, to address the barriers that they see in using public transport—cost, the performance, the frequency, and the confidence to actually use that. So, we see—. The things that Norman was talking about earlier, about fares reform, we did an awful lot of work as part of the Williams rail review, and we think that the fares reform section of that should be brought out and accelerated. There's a real opportunity now to change things.

Performance during lockdown—punctuality has been at around 95 per cent. Okay, there have been far fewer people travelling, but we think again there's a real opportunity to look at the pinchpoints that there are in timetables and to iron those out, to fix the problems in timetables, before bringing in enhancements so that, when the timetable is ramped up again, the performance is actually maintained to give that an attractive proposition. And, again, building confidence for the future, we think digital information gives people the ability to personalise, it also gives operators better information in terms of what peak flows are and things like that— and Wi-Fi to support people's journeys.

But we think that the continuing perception gap really needs to be addressed, so that people see that public transport is a viable option. Bus has been doing a huge amount as an industry—rail less so—but it doesn't help, for example, when you've got tired old trains turning out, and people see the paint flaking off them and things like that. There's no excuse for turning out that sort of a train for people to travel on. So, we think that the cleanliness, the visibility of that message, the promotion of better fares and the performance will really underpin people's journey experiences.

Just before Christine comes in, Russ, can I just ask David—and perhaps others can comment on this when they come in—in terms of that promotion and in terms of that messaging, whose job is that? Is that something that Governments should be doing; is that the industry itself?

10:20

I think there's a job to work together. Certainly, on fares reform, Government certainly has the ability to act on that. We realise that the Wales transport strategy is being written at the moment, and we see a really big opportunity for that to underpin the provision of transport. Networks need to be supported. There's a role for Government potentially continuing to provide some level of funding. We know that it had been the Government's intention to introduce a bus services White Paper, and that, potentially, is for the next session. So, there is a real role for Government in providing that support and that regulation around what transport services can do. But I think we need to work together as a group of organisations and service providers—

Thank you, David; I'm conscious of time. Christine, you wanted to come in on that—what are the benefits of your proposals?

So, I have a really concise response to that. The benefits of our proposals are clean air, good health and well-being, affordable travel and access for all. 

That's the sort of concise answer we like, isn't it? [Laughter.]

Yes, could I try a concise answer as well? First of all, economic benefits: the evidence from the TUC analysis recently is that investment in public transport and in walking and cycling has a far better cost-benefit ratio than investment in road building. Secondly, health benefits, not least of all for the reasons Christine's given, in terms of better air pollution [correction: air quality], and people walking and cycling is obviously good for their health. Thirdly, social mobility, which comes from public transport, which is not available for the private car necessarily, those who don't have it. And fourthly, environmental benefits in terms of moving towards zero emissions for not just cars but also for rail and bus as well.  

Thank you. Ryland, I think you wanted to come in as well, there. 

Yes, thank you. Just briefly to say, obviously, we've had many years of designing around the car, particularly for our urban centres, so it's no wonder that people would return to that mode, given that that's the most incentivised. But I think what we've shown is, where we get a better balance, particularly in our urban centres, from things like low-traffic neighbourhoods, access into local services, we really can incentivise people to change, but we also have to lock in those requirements in a way that makes people think about the behaviour change. And these kinds of situations like we get in a pandemic, when people are stressed, they are break points in behaviour change, and we've seen that people will change quite rapidly in their behaviours, if we give them the right opportunities. But it means we have to build in designing those things into the way that we go forward, and we need a more equitable balance of access to our cities and urban centres. This is why, for the reasons that we've said, about environmental benefits and health benefits, things like walking and cycling and access to active travel, along with public transport, are crucial to get a better balance, and we don't have that balance at the moment, which is why we're seeing the dependencies on the car at the moment. 

If there are no more questions, Helen Mary, Joyce Watson. 

Here's a nice easy question: do you think that the Welsh Government's approach so far during the pandemic is going to drive any change? Is it going to be effective in mitigating the future risks, but, at the same time, in terms of maximising the opportunities?

I can start on that. Well, I think certainly the funding that's been made available for temporary measures under COVID is welcome. But I think that the more innovative authorities are thinking of locking those in as a permanent benefit. We need to support that; we need to show that with evidence to show that that works. In some cases, that is directly addressing what might be potential litigation for local authorities against air quality. So, it's really helping them hugely to bring forward their agendas in terms of some of the work they had planned anyway. What they do need, though, is they need security of funding going forward. We don't yet know what, for example, active travel funding is looking like in the next budget. And multi-year funding is really crucial within that so we give local authorities confidence to invest in these areas and make sure that they promote the benefits that they're seeing from the immediate response. 

We also need to give them the tools to respond effectively to those genuine concerns that the public have about change. Some authorities have been very ready to take facilities out very quickly when they get a small amount of feedback, particularly on things like on-street parking and so on. We need to give authorities the tools to have some degree of resilience against that with funding going forward.

And finally, I would say the other key area is revenue funding. We really lack the opportunity to fund behaviour change as effectively as we would like, and I think one of your Members made the point earlier about 'build it and they will come.' It's true. It's not necessarily enough to provide just infrastructure; you need to incentivise behaviour change as well, which is why we need revenue funding streams to be able to do that, alongside capital infrastructure. 

10:25

Thank you. Yes, and I think it's—. I'd certainly endorse all of those points that Ryland's just made, and I'd add to them. It's less about concrete options, more about flexibility—the ability to respond to changing demands. I think that investment is absolutely crucial. The returns will come next year and following years, when people return to using transport, but I think it's about laying down that network. We know that Transport for Wales, for example, are experimenting with integrated responsive transport as a base level of the network. That connectivity is really important and, again, it's about giving local authorities the tools, as Ryland said, to ensure that that connectivity is there to encourage people, to give them the choices, and to provide them with options.

And, as Christine said earlier, there are people out there who don't have access to any other form of transport and, for them, they've got to have the ability to make the journeys that they want. And journeys might be different in future—so, again, understand what people's journey intentions are and then measure the service delivery to make sure that that investment is gaining value for money. And again, we can help with that. 

Christine Boston, and then I'll bring in—. I know Suzy wants to come in as well. Christine Boston. 

I think, to add to what David's just said, it's not just the journeys that they want to make—it's the journeys that they need to make, because we're building services that people can't get to. We're building hospitals that are away from our communities and that people struggle to access. And then I think, in terms of Welsh Government, they need a long-term strategy for modal shift, and that has been necessary for quite a while. We really need to see that now because we need to lock in the positive behaviours that we have seen so far, and make sure that we retain as many of the positive benefits into the future. 

Do you have any further questions, Joyce, or are you happy for me to bring in Suzy? Suzy Davies. 

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate this will probably need a longer answer than you can give me today, but I just want to ask David Beer about what he said about responsive transport. This has been a responsibility of community transport for as long as I can remember—operating on a shoestring and actually being not financially viable in many cases. Why do you think it would be different if it were run either by the state or by bigger private companies? They're not viable for charities. 

That's a good question because, yes, the experience has been somewhat patchy, but I think what the key is is to provide the network connections, particularly the door to door. As Christine says, there are services that are away from where people travel to. So, providing people with a local service that can connect into the main networks, and something that's agile and responsive and flexible for people, is more of a key response to people's needs than providing maybe a fixed route double-deck service that maybe can't get round some of the little local places. People who are older or have mobility needs can't necessarily walk to the local bus stop—so, something that's more responsive that can come out to them. 

And I think the experiments at the moment, the pilots, are looking at services. They've got some around Newport, for example, that they're looking at, and we're potentially helping them with addressing people's needs. Again, it's about understanding people's needs; it's not just 'provide it and people will come'—it's about asking people what their needs and what their journey requirements are, and then building the services that meet those needs so that the choices that people have are actually viable ones that people will actually use. 

Thank you, Chair. We've already talked, haven't we, about the positive benefits that could arise from the Welsh Government's approach to embedding remote working. But, if we look at the flip side of that, what do you see as the potential negative impacts from what would be reduced demand and footfall in our city and town centres, and the knock-on effect of that on public transport itself? And how would you see any transition there needing to be managed?

10:30

I've mentioned the number of new homes that are being built, and that's going to mean more people to move around. I also said previously that many of the routes were already at full capacity—people were squeezing to get on, there's no room to take more people. The proposal by Welsh Government is for 30 per cent of people, each day, not to need to travel to a place of work, and I think that the impact of that will be negligible. I think that what we see now, and why we are concerned now, is because we've seen an extreme example of everyone who can work from home to work from home, every day, for the foreseeable future. That is not what is proposed for the future, and I don't think any of us hope that we're all going to be working from home, every day, forever. So, I don't think it will have as negative an impact as people are concerned about. I think the issue is that we need to get people moving again now, as soon as possible—for leisure, for work, for any purpose they need to travel for—in order to get that money circling back into the economy.

Norman Baker wanted to come in. You're just on mute.

It's a very good question, because there are downsides to homeworking. We support homeworking, for the reasons I've given earlier on, but there are downsides. One of them is potential isolation, which is why I think that the Government is right, in Wales, to be looking at a network of community-based remote working hubs, where people could interact with other people. I think it's a very sensible way of looking at it.

There's also potential lost income for transport operators, and that makes buses and trains potentially less viable, which is why it's important to secure a modal shift from the car, to make up for that, I think. I'd like to see fewer car journeys, and if we have car journeys transferring to bus and train, then that can keep the stability economically of the bus and the train.

Thirdly, you will have more disposable income from people who are working from home more, particularly if you've got flexible ticketing, which means potentially we'll all spend more on leisure and going out, which is why I mentioned earlier on that I think the change will be from commuting travel to leisure travel, perhaps. But there is a downside for town centres if councils and the Welsh Government aren't careful—and it's the same in England and Scotland—in the sense that people are now shopping more online. There's a lot more people buying material from Amazon, and so on, which is not good for our town centres. So, they need to be hand in hand, in my view—this is beyond the transport brief—with action to make sure our town centres are properly maintained and people are given an incentive to go into those.

Because we've seen so much centralisation of services, there's no doubt it will have a significant impact in terms of how those services that are supporting large offices, and so on, will work. But I think, as has been mentioned, there is an ability for flexibility here. We could see more localised services supporting homeworking, and localised hubs. That gives us an opportunity to create the idea or this concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods—having lots of services within a relatively small area of where people live. That can give us a lot more equality in terms of how people access services, and reduce the demand that we've seen on, particularly, the roads network. So, there are opportunities from this, as well as downsides, to the way that town centres operate. So, I think we should try and see if we can lock in the benefits of it, rather than just purely seeing the negatives.

Can I perhaps just ask, remaining on this issue of homeworking—? It's going to dominate perhaps a large part of our committee work, so I'm just wondering if there's anything else you could—. The Government's got a battle in terms of planning for the future without knowing what that future is. I wonder if you've got any specific advice to the Government in terms of how they go about planning with this uncertainty in terms of homeworking. Is there anything explicit that you can point out that you think Government needs to consider? I'm looking at Norman Baker—I thought you might like to answer that one. 

10:35

Okay. Well, I'll do my best. I think Government has to go with the flow. There's no point trying to persuade people to do things they don't want to do. You can nudge people in the right direction, but you can't necessarily force them in the right direction. So, I think there is a tendency to have homeworking increase, and that's going to have to be recognised by Government, both the UK Government and the devolved administrations.

Under those circumstances, the issue is how you then move the people who are not homeworking and that's why I think you need a series of actions to secure modal shift to bus and train, and indeed to cycling and walking locally, and that then brings in a whole range of investment opportunities and decisions. Evidence on this is quite well founded—that small interventions that don't cost very much money actually have a much better payback and have more immediate impact than grandiose schemes that maybe take 10 or 20 years to deliver. This can be a cycle lane, it can be a bus lane, it can be sorting out a congested junction.

Those sorts of things are very good value for money and they can actually be encouraging people to take the right decisions and also encourage the authorities to look at, for example, the Nottingham workplace charging scheme. This is a scheme whereby—I think it's the only one in England anyway—employers are required to pay a levy if they have 10 or more parking spaces for their employees. Now, when that was introduced, Boots the chemist, and others in Nottingham, all threw up their hands and said, 'This is terrible; it'll destroy the economy'. Actually, the economy in Nottingham has done very well since that scheme has been brought in, and the money's been used to invest in public transport. So, it's possible to have those sorts of schemes, which are actually quite good.

The last thing I'd say is that, sometimes, you have quite a long lead-in period. Look at Amsterdam, look at Leiden, look at the Holland example: Leiden has got 13,000 bike parking spaces at its railway station—I saw them, it was incredible. It's got about five disabled parking bays for motorists. You look at Germany, and some of the towns in Bavaria. You go down there and you see not a car in sight in these walled cities and you see every single shop open and they're heaving with pedestrians who are busy spending money. So, I think we have to learn from examples elsewhere in Europe, and indeed elsewhere in the UK, where we've done the right things, and take those examples forward. You can actually change people's behaviour by your investment decisions and what you do as public authorities, and that's what we encourage people in Wales to see from their councils and from Welsh Government itself.

That's very useful. Thank you, Norman. Helen Mary Jones.

Thank you. I just wanted to come in briefly in response to something that Norman Baker just said. Because, Norman, you were talking about the merits of doing relatively small things, like making sure that your bus stops have got bus shelters so that people don't get wet—that sort of thing. We've got these quite grandiose concepts in Welsh public transport planning of these metros, and I'd just be interested to hear from witnesses about whether they think we may be past that now. Because the concept of the metro is basically about moving large numbers of people into metropolitan centres—the clue is in the title. If we are moving to this new way of working—more people working from home, more people working from local hubs, and whatever the merits of that are, and we've talked quite a lot about that already—should we be recommending to Welsh Government that they look again at those big concepts? Not at the principle of connectivity, because I think we'd all support that and that's going to be very important, but it might be that now it's more important for people to be able to get from Aberdare to Pontypridd than it is to get from Ystrad Mynach to Cardiff. So, I just wonder whether we need to perhaps have a rethink of the metro system. Chair, if that's completely left field for people, I'd appreciate some thoughts on that in writing. But I think David wanted to come in on that.

I think the key to it is connectivity. The basis of the metro concept was to connect not only rail, but local bus services, community transport and provision to actually provide that network of opportunity. The key thing we see in terms of what non-users tell us is their key barrier to transport is not being able to get to where they want to by public transport. So, if you're going to encourage modal shift, the key thing is to be able to provide that network connectivity.

I think the second thing is the digital transformation. There are real benefits from some of the work that's currently being done in terms of, 'How crowded is my bus or train?', and that's really useful to be able to provide people with information. And that can then grow into things like push notifications of when things go wrong, potentially providing information that's extremely valuable during the journey. And, again, people want their hand to be held through the journey to make sure their confidence is supported in making those journeys and they have a positive experience. 

I think the metro concept can always be looked at again to make sure that it is fit for purpose, fit for the intended purpose of encouraging modal shift, providing the connections that encourage people to travel and providing the positivity in terms of performance, and that goes along with asking people whether they've had a good journey. And, again, we're here to help and we can provide some support in that way. But I think, yes, have another look at it, but make sure it's fit for purpose, because it will need to be flexible in terms of providing those needs.  

10:40

Does anybody else want to come in on this point, before I bring Suzy Davies in? No. I'll bring Suzy in, then, on this. Suzy. 

Thank you. I think that's an important question, actually, because it doesn't just apply in the Cardiff area; there are plans elsewhere. Now, what I wanted to ask you is, obviously I appreciate that all of you would like to see movement away from the use of the car to public transport, but are there any early indications about the effect of active travel on public transport, as well, for those people who don't have cars and are currently using buses in particular? If they're displaced to active travel, what does that say about the viability of particular routes, or particular companies even, in those very urban areas that Ryland was talking about earlier, where actually we might see quite a significant shift to active travel? We're still going to need buses for people who can't take advantage of active travel, but will those companies still be viable if cyclists aren't using them? It oversimplifies the question, I appreciate that. 

May I give you an English answer to that?

I'm more familiar with a couple of examples in England. If you looked at London and you look at Brighton, they've both invested heavily in both active travel and public transport, and they don't see them as competitors; they see them actually as options that go hand in hand. Because if you have a road, where the car is restricted, that both helps the bus, by getting the bus speeding up and down the bus lane, but it's also used then to get cycles down there, so people feel safer on the bike if there are fewer cars and they feel more encouraged to use public transport if there are fewer cars. So, I don't see those two things in competition. Clearly there's some displacement if the cycle lanes are very good, as they are in London. There will be some people who cycle who would otherwise use the bus. But actually it's a cascading thing: you get people who move from car to bus and bus to cycles. That tends to be what happens. So, I don't see those two things as opposites.  

Before Ryland comes in, can I just ask—? I appreciate that London—. Most of Wales isn't like London; not even our cities are like London. If there are some examples from other English cities, maybe, that would be helpful for the committee. Perhaps you could drop a note in. 

Well, I'm certainly happy to do that. I think Brighton and Oxford are two places that I would draw your attention to as being perhaps ones you'd want to look at, which are more comparable to perhaps cities in Wales. 

Okay. And somewhere with hills would be great. Seriously. It's the reason why people don't cycle. 

I entirely agree with that, and electric bikes are part of the answer to that, as a matter of fact. People feel more comfortable with electric bikes. I come from Lewes in East Sussex, and Lewes is an Anglo-Saxon word for hill, so I'm very familiar with that particular argument. 

I'd add to the point that I don't think they necessarily have to be in competition. People often feel that if we say to people, 'Well, you have to basically cycle five days a week if you're commuting to the office', a lot of people will not want to do that; they'll want to mix their journeys and have flexibility, so they may want to take the train on some days, particularly if it's wet or whatever, and it's usually that mixing. But I think it's important that that kind of mix can work in an urban environment, because if we have enough space to facilitate public transport modes, alongside walking and cycling, we know that the density of network needed for that is considerably greater than if you have cars, which obviously take up a relatively large amount of space, particularly for single occupancy journeys. So, the amount of space that becomes available for that multi-mode working is much greater. And that's why I've said I think it's about trying to get more of an equitable balance. If we continue to design principally around the car, we lock out the opportunities for that mix of walking and cycling with public transport options, which people are very ready to do. So, if we shift things in that direction, I think we create a more equitable balance in that and a better balance of modes for our cities.

10:45

Okay. Thank you, Ryland. We're coming to the end of the meeting now, but perhaps if I ask Helen Mary Jones if you've got any final questions, and it gives you all the opportunity to make any final comments as well. Helen Mary Jones.

Obviously, we have this saying in Welsh, 'Diwedd y gân yw'r geiniog', at the end of the song there's always the penny to pay, and I just wondered if you could give us—obviously, it's our job as a committee to make recommendations specifically to the Welsh Government—if you could give us any ideas about how you would like to see the Welsh Government prioritise its budget to support the agendas that we've been talking about this morning, so that we can maybe build some of those ideas into our recommendations if we concur.

That's okay. It think, obviously, over the last three years we've seen increasing investment in active travel, which is great to see, but at the moment we don't have any commitment to how that goes forward, particularly in terms of multi-year funding. Local authorities really need to be able to have confidence that they know that schemes that will take two, three or four years to develop, particularly for the more ambitious projects, have funding at least indicatively given. If we can move away from annual budgeting, that would be fantastic—to look at multi-year funding—but certainly having year-on-year indications of that growing.

I think it needs to be a more equitable balance of the transport budget. We still see considerable investment in things like new road build. I think we need to think more about resilience of both the road network, the public transport network and active travel networks. We're seeing increasingly extreme weather events impacting on the network. We're seeing, obviously, things like the current pandemic having a big effect on people's behaviours and how they integrate with it. So, we need to build confidence, with funding going forward, that local authorities and Welsh Government can invest in the right type of infrastructure to give us that resilience going forward.

Thank you. I think we've made recommendations, actually, about multi-year funding for local authorities in terms of planning transport previously, from memory. David Beer, you want to come in.

Thank you, yes. I'd certainly endorse what Ryland was saying, and it's important that that investment is built on the priorities and needs that people actually have. So, investing in understanding those needs is really important. Wales doesn't actually have the same level of understanding of people's travel needs and experiences as their neighbours across the border in England. We think that needs to change. There's real opportunity to be able to invest in that understanding and that research. We can help, and there are others who stand together who can help with that. But we'd really like to see that being recommended, that people's views and experiences, the barriers that people feel or perceive to travel need to be understood, and then delve behind to find out what change in behaviour would be needed to support the investment plans that Welsh Government might have.

And I think Christine wanted to come in as well, Russ, if that's all right.

I've got Norman Baker—. Norman and Christine, actually, if you both want to make any final comments before we finish.

Okay. Thank you. I'd just like to come back to the point I made about investment in small projects, and I would draw your attention to the local sustainable transport fund that operated in England for about five years, which had a huge beneficial impact on the sorts of things we've been talking about, with relatively low levels of investment over that five-year period through small schemes, and to emphasise that it's very important, I think, that these matters are economically hard headed. The TUC analysis that I referred to earlier on demonstrates that investment in cycling, walking and public transport is a much better return on investment economically than is investment in roads.

The last thing I would say, if I may, Chair, is to give you an example of a bit of lateral thinking from my own area, because there were proposals to improve, upgrade—the language is very important—to increase the size of a local road, and I actually persuaded the railway company to reduce its season ticket fares along the parallel railway line. They did so, and they found out that by reducing the season ticket first by a third, they actually made a profit from that particular move, because of the modal shift from road to rail. And we also found out, as a consequence, there were fewer people making car journeys along the road, and therefore the case for upgrading the roads had diminished. And that cost the taxpayer nothing, it cost Southern Railway nothing, and there were benefits for the local people, the environment and everybody's health. So, some of these things can be done without any cost at all.

10:50

That's what Government likes to hear. Christine Boston.

I support the points that colleagues have made, so I won't repeat those. I do think that when the Welsh Government is planning the budget they need to focus on achieving modal shift and moving people out of cars and onto other modes, whatever they might be. They need to continue to support innovative models such as the IRT and progress that further.

And I wanted to make a point on the multi-year funding for local authorities. Where that happens, it then needs to be passed on to those they are funding as well. So, for example, community transport: whilst local authorities for a while have been having at least two-year funding arrangements, that's not been passed on to community transport operators and they need a little bit more stability in their funding as well in order that they can deliver their core services and concentrate on how they can build in sustainability and growth.

Thank you. Thank you, Christine. Thank you to all our witnesses. This has been a really incredibly useful session for us as a committee and I think it's worked well just to have this free-flowing discussion. So, I appreciate your time very much. Our committee team will send a transcript of proceedings over the next few days, so by all means review those and if you have any other thoughts you would like to make that you think could be useful for our work, then please do pass them on to us. I think there was also—. I think, Norman, you did offer to send some other examples as well, so I appreciate that.

Yes. I've made a note of that and I'll drop you a line about where public transport and cycling have been both invested in.

That would be very useful. Thank you, Norman. Thanks ever so much. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much. We'll take a short eight-minute break. We'll be back at 11 o'clock.

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:52 ac 11:05.

The meeting adjourned between 10:52 and 11:05.

11:05
4. COVID-19: Adfer Trafnidiaeth—Safbwyntiau Academaidd a Diwydiannol
4. COVID-19: Transport Recovery—Academic and Industry Perspectives

I'd like to welcome Members, and any members of the public watching, back to committee and I move to item 4. This is in regard to COVID-19, transport recovery. We do have two witnesses for our next session. This is our sixth session in total for our inquiry in regard to COVID recovery, and if I could ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the public record.

Hello. My name's Glenn Lyons. I'm the Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility at the University of the West of England in Bristol.

Good morning. I'm Nick Richardson. I work for a consultancy, Mott MacDonald, and I also chair the bus and coach policy group for the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

Okay. Thank you, both, for being with us; we really appreciate your time. Perhaps you could make some opening comments, but I think as a committee we're particularly interested in your views on how you think the pandemic has shifted public behaviour and the consequences, therefore, for Government. So, if you could perhaps just give some opening thoughts on that, that would be helpful. Shall I come to you, Glenn Lyons, first?

Yes, I'm happy to. Well, I think, in effect, the pandemic, for better or worse, has placed us all in a six-month global experiment of what happens and how we reappraise our mobility needs when our circumstances are significantly changed, and that becomes very important when we're trying to understand this notion of a new normal and perhaps a fundamental shift in society and how we rely upon mobility, and particularly of course with the climate crisis looming even more largely beyond whatever the pandemic remains to provide us with. And what it has highlighted in particular is that we are more adaptive than we realised, and in fact we have other means of accessing the people we need to connect with, our employment, goods and services, beyond only relying on motorised transport, and of course this session today is a prime example of the importance now of digital connectivity in supporting both economic activity and indeed social well-being.

The pandemic has had a profound effect on bus use, something we've never seen before, in that most of the market almost instantly disappeared. But if you think about how useful buses are to many, many people and the number of journeys that are normally made and why those journeys are being made—. Journeys to work: well, we know those will change and some have already, with changes in employment numbers and the location of where people work. Indeed, working from home has made a significant difference. People going shopping: again, huge disruption there; a great increase in the number of people doing online shopping, so they don't need to get on the bus to go down the high street in the way that they used to. Education trips: we've had an extraordinary situation where we haven't had school buses because we haven't had schools open. So, those are major influences on how and when people travel. You add in other things such as travel to healthcare facilities; well, those haven't been available in the same way either. So, it looks as though the whole purpose of a lot of bus services will need to be redefined and it's going to be quite an uphill struggle, and I think certainly medium to longer term rather than short term.

Thank you. I'm aware, and just to make anyone watching aware as well, that Hefin David, one of our Members, is in committee, but because he's having technical issues, he sometimes might be voice only rather than video. So, I will come to Hefin David next, but you might not see him. Hefin David.

It just seems to work better this way, and it's probably better for everyone that they don't see me.

Regarding influencing people to change their travel behaviour, we talk about the kind of push factor, the positive factors of encouragement. To what extent must there be a balance between that and also introducing stricter legislative requirements for people to change their travel behaviour, from relatively small things like congestion charges for example, maybe to bigger examples. Can you talk us through—can the panel talk us through—what options there are available to encourage these positive modal shifts?

11:10

I think you're primarily touching there upon the need to internalise the external costs of transport and mobility. We're recognising, of course, that there are environmental consequences, there are social consequences, even though we may be fulfilling an individual drive for convenience in our use of the mobility system. So, you're right, of course, that fiscal measures have their place. Congestion charging, of course, is always a very provocative topic, tending to be 10 years away, but, in actual fact, for other reasons besides—not least the decarbonisation of direct emissions from vehicles. Pushing towards an electrification of the light-vehicle fleet means there are problems for revenue coming into the public purse in order to make the investments that are needed in other respects.

I tend to think of bus services, not so much as encouraging people to use them, but enabling people to use them. They have to make that choice that they want to use a bus, and some of those people will be car owners and users. We have the difficulty that, pre-pandemic, the number of people using buses, not just in Wales, but across the UK, has been in decline for some years. So, my first question would be: do we want to return to that situation? I don't think we do, and I think the pandemic provides lots of opportunities to explore how that can be reversed. But the whole bus offer depends hugely on external factors, such as car use. So, for example, if you have a free parking space at work, you might well drive there; if you haven't got a free parking space at work, you might not entertain that idea at all. And so comparing, for example, bus and car journey times, the bus is invariably slower because it stops all the time and it gets held up in the traffic that is caused by cars. And that's the fundamental problem that we keep returning to, that if you actually want to improve the bus service, yes, you can do so much and there are lots of ways of doing that, but ultimately, you have to make it more comparable or better than a car journey. 

So, isn't what you're suggesting that we make car use less convenient and worse in order to be as bad as getting a bus, and therefore people are more likely to get a bus? [Laughter.]

I would say it's about relative attractiveness of the different ways that we have available to us in order to fulfil our daily needs, and so this is really about looking at the supply side of the transport equation. And, unfortunately, the way we've done transport planning for years, and indeed decades globally, is based on demand-led supply; we try and work out how much demand for particular measures there'll be, and then we supply for it. And we're then not particularly surprised when it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, I think this is about some rebalancing in where the investment comes into the different options. It's not demonising the car as such that we're actively trying to make car use intolerable, but it is about changing that relative offer of options that people have.

Indeed, there are choices to be made and we want people to choose to use the bus. There are examples from around the country, around the UK, where a significant proportion, a quarter or more of bus users, have a car available for that journey. So, if you make the product right, people will use it. And there are clearly advantages: you don't have to find a parking space, you don't have to pay for a parking space, you can go to where you want to go and it's very convenient, and it might be that the bus can get you nearer your destination than the car in many cases, but that clearly isn't always the case. And as Glenn says, we need to balance up those options such that people will naturally choose the bus. 

Can I have one more question, Chair? Just something that Glenn Lyons said made me think of an experience in my constituency. There was a lot of talk about electric buses and a fleet of electric buses being used and a charging point hub being focused in the centre of the borough, but the bus company are saying, 'Well, given the current crisis, we can't afford to renew our fleet, and we're sticking with the old diesel stuff while we get our way out of the crisis.' And they can't see a way forward whereby those electric zero-emissions buses will be introduced any time soon. Is it not the case, then, that, if that's going to happen, it's going to need significant public investment in private infrastructure in order to deliver that?

11:15

I think, unavoidably, there will need to be public investment. What we're facing at the moment is a chicken and egg dilemma where, notwithstanding what you've mentioned about the current precarious commercial nature of the bus industry, both bus operators as well as hauliers are looking at their fleet renewal plans, but they need to have confidence that the infrastructure will be there in terms of recharging, or refuelling if it's hydrogen as opposed to battery electric. So, there's an element of logjam at the moment where, until that confidence is there, the investment in fleet turnover in the right direction is less likely to happen at the pace we need to decarbonise over the next 30 years.

If I can comment on that too, certainly in England, and parts of Scotland and in Newport in south Wales, there are far more electric vehicles coming on stream than there were a couple of years ago. They've been helped significantly by Government funding for the purchase costs, but the operating cost is significantly less than the standard diesel. Having said that, the most modern diesel buses—that's Euro VI standard—the emissions are remarkably low, to the point where you now have buses that throw out less harmful emissions than a diesel car. So, great strides have been made on that front. So, diesel isn't necessarily a bad thing, certainly in the shorter term.

Okay. And is there a moral issue that the public sector ends up subsidising the private sector to deliver improved transport? Is that not an issue?

Well, there's an interesting parallel with the railway, of course, where a vast amount of public money goes into it, and pales into insignificance compared with bus [correction: and bus pales into insignificance in comparison], which gets remarkably little.

I just want to put a spanner in the works here. I might not. Somebody, I think it was Nick, mentioned shopping as one of those where we'd take buses, and also the fact that, undeniably, more people are shopping online. So, my question is this, because part of our investigation is also looking at the effects of transport in terms of emissions: has anybody done any research whatsoever on the comparison between online shopping and how it gets delivered—that's mostly in small vehicles to people's houses and the polluting effects of that—compared to people actually going to a shop, albeit maybe by public transport, on foot or bike? I think, if we're going to say online shopping is better because people feel safer, have we looked at the other side? Maybe it's actually a bigger polluter from those things I've just said.

I'm not aware of any research into that, but it does seem to be a fast-moving scene at the moment. Glenn, have you got any views on that?

Yes. I won't come back to you with figures, Joyce, but you're absolutely right to highlight the, in effect, unintended consequence of what appears to be a good-news story in terms of the opportunity that online shopping has given people, perhaps particularly in remote areas. I am aware of research that is trying to understand, for example, the multiple attempts to deliver goods that many of us now experience, and people choosing goods that they know they're going to return, 'Which pair of jeans is going to fit me? Which dress suits me best?' So, I think that's reflected in the remarkable growth on the strategic road network—I'm particularly talking about England for a moment, so apologies there—the remarkable growth in light-goods vehicles, which isn't entirely attributable to online shopping, but that's certainly a key facet. So, it does come back to the importance, of course, of regulation and governance in terms of—. Amazon is now a major player globally, for very obvious reasons, and we have to make sure that there is a framework that that's operating within to avoid those externalities reappearing.

11:20

Thank you, everyone. This has been interesting listening and many of you—well, both of you, sorry—have mentioned already flexibility, opportunities and differences of approaches. How difficult—I mean, are we talking impossibility—is it for any Government to try and put together a transport strategy when all the assumptions are up in the air? Even to the extent that, yes, we'd have thought that maybe this working at home and lockdown would've helped reduce the interest in cars, but we know from the Department for Transport that as soon as lockdown was relaxed, everyone jumped back in their cars in a way that they didn't, actually, with buses and trains. How realistic is it for us to have an agile transport strategy for Wales?

I would say, first of all, it's essential that you have an agile strategy, and I think the term 'agile' goes hand in hand with 'resilient'. But you're absolutely right to highlight that what we've been through over several decades is a rather comfortable paradigm where it's forecast-led in our planning approach. We're told how much traffic we're to expect and then we decide whether we want to provide the infrastructure for that, whereas now we're facing deep uncertainty. So, the answers aren't there to tell us what the future will look like and neither can we fully shape it ourselves, so the opportunity within that, of course, is that it's quite legitimate for a Government, nationally or locally, to take more ownership over a vision-led approach, and the challenge then is to explore that uncertainty rather than to ignore it or sidestep it. And that can be done and is being done increasingly through the use of scenario planning, where you allow different combinations of factors and drivers of change to play out and you then start to see, 'Well, Wales may face a series of very different futures. How can we ensure the types of policies and investments we make are resilient to those different futures so that we avoid stranded assets and create the right opportunity for future generations?'

Can I ask quickly before Nick comes in: how complicated is it to put a price tag on something that has got so many potential outcomes?

Well, dare I say, there's an element of false precision in the way we do our assessments at the moment. We tend to produce benefit-cost ratios to perhaps two decimal places, looking at 30 to 60 years, and have been quite comfortable taking that as a yardstick for confidence in our investment decisions. 

In very simple terms, what one is at least now doing is saying, 'Let's look at that return-on-investment prospect across a number of different scenarios and see whether the value-for-money category changes as we look at different futures.' And that at least gives you more confidence that that investment that's being made is likely to be more effective and longer lasting in terms of its positive effects.

I'm very pleased to hear you say 'value for money' there. Nick Richardson, do you have anything to add to that?

I do. The pandemic has provided an enormous opportunity to try things out. We know that the travel patterns of virtually everyone are changing pretty rapidly, sometimes week on week. But bus is a very flexible mode—it goes wherever you've got a road, essentially—so it does present opportunities about, 'Can we catch up with some of those changes in travel patterns, which certainly aren't the same as they were five, 10 or 20 years ago?'

Thank you. What I'd like to ask follows on closely, really, from what you've been discussing in response to Suzy's question. Can you give us an idea of what you think an effective transport policy, after the pandemic, ought to look like? And how far does this need to go in addressing those long-standing issues like improving transport mode integration and better land planning and how far does it require new thinking? So, is it about effectively addressing the old issues that we've always known about but failed to do anything about, or are there some new things, some innovative things that we need to be thinking about as well?

A very good question that cuts right to the heart of it. I think the first thing I would say is a cautionary point about what we should be cautious of not doing, which is being seduced by a technological fix. It's really important to understand that innovation is not the same thing as invention, and there are some exciting new developments coming from Silicon Valley that might suggest that they have all the answers to those old problems. And in some cases, that may be true, but I think the reality is we're looking for innovation in terms of changes in social practices and opportunities. Stating the obvious, I think, but the precautionary principle is facing us very starkly in terms of the climate change agenda, but we also have the modal hierarchy that many Governments subscribe to, which places walking and wheeling at the top, and then down through cycling and public transport, and I think that has to be there, front and centre, in terms of framing a policy. And, like most policy, my own view is that it's really important there's consistency over the medium to longer terms in that policy document, and coherence across it. And, of course, integration, I know, is the holy grail that is always elusive, but we do need to think across all these issues rather than, as we've tended to be more recently, operating in more silos again.

11:25

It's interesting that most transport policies have been saying broadly the same things for many years. It's just that they're not enacted, which points, rather, towards whether we are identifying the right objectives and how we get there, and there are lots of procedural issues within that. But thinking about, for example, the sustainability agenda that everyone talks about and then fails to deal with car traffic, for example, and the well-being agenda and active travel, Wales has been very much at the forefront of that. So, if it's at the forefront of policy, should it be at the forefront of action? So, there's a lot of confused thinking in terms of policy, with different things working in opposition to each other, such as the policy towards congestion and road traffic and air quality, and all those issues, as opposed to what's going on in the world of passenger transport. So, I think probably the most useful form of innovation is probably regulatory change and a different way of thinking about how we deal with the problems that have been well rehearsed for many years.

If I may just briefly add, I think what we have repeated, in terms of what you might suggest are mistakes, is that we've seen transport problems and assumed that we need to look for transport solutions. And, of course, there's a land-use dimension to this, and there's now, even of more importance, the telecommunications dimension to this. So, the approach to the future, I think, is not necessarily a transport strategy, but I would call it a triple-access strategy where you're really understanding the value of land-use planning and digital connectivity in helping alleviate the pressures on the transport system.

Thank you. Nick Richardson, you said we needed regulatory reform. Chair, have we got time for Nick just to tell us a bit more about what he means by that?

Okay. For the past 30 years it is now, nearly, we've been dealing with a competitive situation in the bus market, where it's the bus operators alone who make the decisions about where and when they run. Local authorities have a limited involvement but, largely, with services that have traditionally been funded as being socially necessary but haven't been viable commercially, and that model has raised all sorts of concerns over those years. There have been benefits, but there have been a lot of downsides as well. One of the difficulties that everyone tries to overcome is to get bus operators working together and working together with other stakeholders, such as highway authorities and large employers and schools, and all those people who need transport. It comes together in a very confused way at the moment. It doesn't necessarily hit the button the consumers want, for all sorts of reasons—buses don't go where and when they want, it may be an issue of affordability, as well, on some buses. So, it's a confused situation with too many players, even though, essentially, everyone has the same objective, which is more people on buses, but to actually get to that has proved extremely difficult.

Thank you, Chair. Just checking you can hear me okay, because I'm having trouble with my connection. Thanks. So, looking at the socioeconomic implications of the Welsh Government's approach to embedding remote working, I'm just wondering what your views are on that—it's something that we've touched on already—in terms of both the positives and also the negatives from unintended consequences that could arise from that in terms of reduced demand and footfall in our towns and city centres and how that could affect the viability of our public transport as well.

11:30

And a very nicely articulated wicked problem, I think, there, Vikki. I would say, to some extent, beyond the control or influence of Government, is that there is an ongoing redistribution of people, their behaviours, their consumption, locations and times, and of jobs. To some extent, we have to seize that dynamic and ensure we understand it and get the best from it. Yes, that might result, in terms of flexible working, in some people, many people even, not coming into our cities, but, of course, the question then is it doesn't exclude people already living in cities who are living and working in cities, and a turnover in terms of the people moving into cities to live, perhaps replacing the use of buildings for office space, but also, of course, we're potentially regenerating local economies in more rural areas if you've got a redistribution of where people are working and when.

I think it raises a question, of course, about affordability of housing in cities, but in terms of public transport, and we've touched upon it already, there's a question over the business model for public transport, I think, fundamentally and to what extent we're prepared to consider it as a public good to ensure that there aren't social inequalities exacerbated by this redistribution.

It's interesting, with the huge uptake in working from home, which, of course, doesn't include everyone, that it tends to be a lot of people who don't work from home are bus users, so any disruption to that service can be very disruptive to their lives. This is particularly the case in peripheral areas and rural areas, because when the village bus goes, you have no option but to move, and that has some pretty profound implications in terms of demographic structure, the viability of other local services and so on, because what choice do you have? So, you tend to find younger elements who need to be mobile for work move out of those sorts of settlements and move into the cities, whether they like it or not. So, actually, those bus services are pretty fundamental to them, and getting in the bus habit as a teenager or an early-stage professional is actually really important to developing a lifetime habit for it.

I'm going to pick up where you've just left off, Nick, simply because there's another demographic move that's currently going on. There's a housing boom apparently going on now in the rural areas or suburbia, depending where you are, in that people have suddenly realised they can work from home, they don't need to live in a city, in a congested area. So, it's reversing in some ways, and, of course, there are other impacts as a consequence, because if you're moving from a city to a rural area, the chances are your exchange rate for your house is pretty good, actually. So, those changes are happening, and you're right, therefore, I think, to say that it's a triple-access problem, and looking at the access to telecommunications has to be in this mix, because it's driving change. Because I've been following that particular avenue of change, I just wanted to say that it's clearly being demonstrated that that is happening. Now, whether that makes those areas more viable if families are moving into them, rather than what preceded it, which was people retiring to them, I think is a space worth watching, because if that is the case, it makes the schools more viable, the local shops more viable and perhaps the transport system more viable as well.

So, that wasn't my question; I suppose it's an observation more than anything. What I'm supposed to be asking you about are the budget priorities for Government, particularly in light of the next Wales transport strategy that is currently being put together, and whether you have any views on the short-term impact or the long-term impact, and how the Government should put those budgets together.

11:35

In terms of pre-pandemic services, the bus industry wasn't in a brilliant place. Many services were teetering on the unviable. It's ostensibly the case that there are some services that do very well, but the rest do very badly, in some instances, and they are only kept going through the good nature of the bus operator. That situation has been exacerbated hugely, and it's certainly not been helped over many years of austerity, where the money available to local authorities for revenue support has been limited and, in some cases, completely written off. So, it's made a bad situation worse, and it's pretty clear that, in the short-term recovery stage from the pandemic, buses will need significant funding or they will simply disappear.

I would say that, first of all, the current pandemic is highly unlikely to be the last shock we will be trying to cope with over the next 10 years, and certainly the next 30 years. So, in terms of strategic planning, we really need to make sure we've got resilience and adaptability being built in. Just to give a couple of figures quickly—and apologies, this first one is from England—a reminder that nearly 70 per cent of journeys are under five miles, so proximity is already on our side; the question is how we make those short trips. An AA survey during the pandemic revealed that nearly half of people who were still working were working five days or more from home, compared to 8 per cent before lockdown. Now, the key thing there is they didn't necessarily want to be working from home, so we have to understand choice, going forward. But I really would come back to moving from demand-led supply. Don't be drawn by notions of forecast-led thinking and look at supply-led demand, and investing in this triple-access approach. We've seen it happen during the pandemic, with low-traffic neighbourhoods and what's known as tactical urbanism, where we're temporarily reallocating road space, and you can see when you change the supply that the demand does respond. People are looking for change. There's a high proportion of European citizens who are concerned about climate change, but of course they're stuck somewhat in terms of the relative choices that their day-to-day lives offer, and I think that investment in a rebalancing, dare I say, of the supply side around that triple-access approach should be key to strategy and investment going forward.

On this point of the triple-access model you've set out, can you give us any more examples about where that's been used previously? I think that would be helpful for us to understand.

I think it's only coming to the fore now in a very tangible way, but, for example, the National Infrastructure Commission, which is responsible for our critical assets overall, is not just looking at transport; it's looking at telecommunications, it's looking at cities. So, there's that high-level recognition that all three of those sub-systems matter, and of course we've had, perhaps more so, examples of frustration with not dealing with that triple-access system. You will recall stories last year of London, peculiarly, being one of the locations that can have the poorest high-speed broadband access for key businesses in the knowledge economy. So, it's about looking not just at cities in Wales, but looking across the country at where investment in high-quality broadband really does start to change people's recognition of choice. I wouldn't have been comfortable sat here today participating in this session if I had a 56k modem that was likely to drop out in the next 30 seconds. So, it's building a different type of confidence in the same way as building the confidence for active travel. We all know that walking is really intelligent mobility writ large, but it's just not very exciting compared to some of the big tech offers that are in place.

Can I ask—because I was asking budget questions, so it's an obvious budget question—? The Welsh Government has invested massive amounts of money, and in partnership with BT, to deliver broadband in Wales, and the use is much greater than what you've just said. There are things like education; if you have to close a school, it's an absolute necessity. So, in terms of budgeting for it, and bearing in mind who is going to get the end product, which is profit at the moment, should that be—who should be investing in it? We took a partnership approach, but the partners are somewhat limited to delivering, and that's a whole other area that we could go into. So, where should that investment come from?

11:40

I suppose there are strong parallels—I won't pretend to be an expert in telecommunications infrastructure investment, but I think there are strong parallels with public transport and the bus industry, where there are some services that wash their face commercially, and yet there are other routes and services that are socially necessary and therefore need subsidy, or at least a redistribution across the overall business model. I think the same is true of telecommunications. There are hotspots, where there's a clear return on investment in the infrastructure, and we see that also with mobile telecommunications, where, remarkably—you know, I'm in central southern England and still have an appalling telephone signal, presumably because there isn't the right profit incentive there. So, it comes back, then, of course, to regulation. So, I don't have the firm answer to your question, but I do think there's a public policy role here to ensure that the right type of private sector behaviour comes forward.  

And in terms of shaping demand, which we were just talking about in my earlier question, do you think that's going to be controversial in any way?

Well, ironically, every time we create policy and make investment in infrastructure and services, we are shaping demand. I know it's uncomfortable to talk about—we would never say 'social engineering', but, of course, when we change people's circumstances, they change their behaviours in response. And, incidentally, circumstances include their values and attitudes, so those are also changing, I think. And when we look to future generations, the changing expectations of young people and the much lower levels of licence holding, for example, those are all things that are already shaping demand. And I think it's about preserving choice, but, as I mentioned earlier, some rebalancing of that investment in this triple-access lens that is in front of us. 

Okay. Have any other Members got any further questions they would like to ask, or, any of our panel members—is there anything you want to present to us that has perhaps not been drawn out in questions? I'll come to you in a moment, Suzy, if Nick or Glenn haven't got anything further to add themselves. Suzy Davies, then. 

Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question I asked the previous witnesses, about the possibility of displacement to active travel from buses in particular, and what that potentially could do to the viability of individual bus companies and bus routes. I appreciate that we're all looking for modal shift into buses from cars, but I don't get any genuine sense of whether what might be lost to active travel would be backfilled by car users. 

That's an interesting question, because any erosion of bus demand is a problem, however small it may appear. But there are ways of overcoming that and making the whole system more attractive. So, for example, one of the English operators now takes bikes on board the bus. There's a special place to put them and so on. Uptake has been very small so far, but it's shown how, if you think about the whole journey, rather than the bus journey, you can take advantage of it. Most bus users are walking, either to or from the start or finish of their bus journey, so that whole atmosphere of walking—is it safe to cross the road and those sorts of issues—is really important. 

The difficulty has been that, in the COVID activities to promote walking and cycling, some of them have been to the detriment of buses. So, for example, closing off the street outside Cardiff castle has meant that every bus has had to be diverted, to the detriment of the people who use them. And that's happened elsewhere as well, where buses have been effectively banned from the main shopping street in favour of social distancing and walking, which is clearly important, but it undermines the utility value of the bus if they then have to go on a big detour. So, a lot of this is about thinking about the whole journey. When we talk about buses, it's often helpful to think that they are providers of travel rather than just a bus. Given the other choices and potential integration not only with active travel, but with train as well, there's a lot of potential there. 

11:45

You touch upon a real concern and challenge. Of course, there are movements between modes happening all the time—what we call behavioural churn—but I think one has to look at that modal hierarchy again. So, it should be seen as positive if people are finding journeys that were by public transport that are walkable and able to be made by bike, but, at the same time, of course, we have to understand that 61 per cent of trips are by car as driver or passenger or van, and a proportion of those quite clearly would lend themselves either to walking and cycling or to public transport use. There are signs of encouragement; we know, as I mentioned earlier, young people's attitudes and their behaviours are changing. They're not as car dependent by virtue of not holding licences, so that pushes them towards public transport, and it's rather good that they can stay digitally connected for the whole journey on many buses now. Until such time as level 5 driverless cars are gracing our streets, the bus is actually a rather attractive mode if you're in that lifestyle and life stage. 

Can I just briefly ask, Russell, if you don't mind, whether there's a significant difference in young people using public transport in rural and urban areas? Obviously, there are more buses in urban areas—I get that—but does that disparity mean that, actually, younger people in rural areas are looking for cars even if they can't really afford them? 

Recent work has been done my colleague, actually, at the university for the Department for Transport looking at young people's behaviour and why it's changing, and it won't surprise you to know that there's a complex set of factors. One is precarious employment. So, it's not about average income—it's about knowing whether on a zero-hours contract I'll have income to buy a car that I can afford, or to lease a car that I can afford to pay month after month. Analysis done by other academics of the national travel survey—again, apologies, for England, but that has highlighted that, in very simple terms, young male urban dwellers are moving in a direction of less car dependence, and older female rural dwellers are still on, you might say, the old trend of looking to cars. So, again, this is about a mixed economy of solutions; I don't think Nick or I would be in any sense advocating that cars should be off the agenda, but it will be about horses for courses, if I'm not mixing metaphors. 

Let's see if horses make our recommendations, shall we, in our recommendations to Government? [Laughter.] Can I thank ever so much Professor Glenn Lyons and Nick Richardson for your expert input into our work? We greatly appreciate your time, being with us this morning. So, diolch yn fawr—thank you very much. 

Thank you. 

Thank you. 

And that brings us to the end of that particular item.

5. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42(ix) i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod
5. Motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(ix).

Motion:

that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix).

Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.

And I move to item 5 and, under Standing Order 17.42, exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting, if Members are content. Thank you. 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11:49.

Motion agreed.

The public part of the meeting ended at 11:49.