Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Health & Place

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Rethinking passive transport: Bus fare exemptions and young

people’s wellbeing
Alasdair Jones a, Rebecca Steinbach b, Helen Roberts 1,c, Anna Goodman 2,d, Judith Green a,n
a
Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
b
Departmental of Social & Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
c
General and Adolescent Paediatrics Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK
d
Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Much recent public health research has emphasised the health impacts for young people of ‘active
Received 6 October 2011 travel’ modes, typically defined as walking and cycling. Less research has focused on public transport
Received in revised form modes. Drawing on qualitative data, we examine the links between bus travel and wellbeing in London,
6 January 2012
where young people currently have free bus travel. Our findings indicate that bus travel can be both a
Accepted 13 January 2012
Available online 25 January 2012
physically and socially active experience for young people. We suggest a more nuanced understanding
of ‘active travel’ is now needed, alongside greater attention to urban public transport networks as key
Keywords: sites that impact on important determinants of wellbeing such as independent mobility and social
Active transport inclusion.
Young people
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Public transport
Qualitative research
Public health

1. Introduction environments and transport infrastructures might characterise the

neighbourhoods in which young people live as either ‘obesogenic’
A growing body of literature addresses the relationship between (e.g. Townshend and Lake, 2009) or ‘salutogenic’ (health promoting)
travel modes, health and wellbeing more generally. First, in the (e.g. Frohlich and Potvin, 1999) environments. Thus, the ways in
context of increasingly sedentary lifestyles in high income cities, which aspects of the built environment such as street connectivity,
research has focused on the environmental and social conditions housing density, distance to schools or other destinations interact
which hinder or encourage ‘active’ modes of travel, particularly for with transport infrastructure (e.g. availability of public transport) and
young people (de Vries et al., 2010; Frank et al., 2005; Kerr et al., social factors are key to understanding one important element of how
2007; Panter et al., 2008; Timperio et al., 2004). ‘Active’ travel is ‘place’ (broadly conceived) affects wellbeing: that of how far it shapes
typically treated as shorthand for modes such as walking and cycling, young people’s propensity to be ‘active’ and independent in their
which are assumed to be highly physically active, and contrasted travel behaviour (Carver et al., 2010; Giles-Corti et al., 2009).
with ‘passive’ modes such as car use, which are assumed to be fairly In contrasting physically ‘active’ modes of transport with
sedentary. Second, there has been interest in the ways in which such passive ones such as car travel, the role of public transport has
‘active’ modes may be more likely to encourage the independent been relatively neglected. Further, in focusing on transport modes
mobility of young people, enabling them to develop autonomy, as more or less healthy ways of moving through place, the role of
confidence and social skills (Hillman et al., 1990; Mikkelsen and transport itself as a place, and a place which may have intrinsic
Christensen, 2009; O’Brien et al., 2000). The role of place has become health benefits or costs, has also received rather less attention.
prominent in this body of work, as greater consideration is given to In this paper, we focus on bus use in the context of a local policy
the ways in which the interactions of local built environments, social which removes financial disincentives to travel by bus. We
address the relationships between transport mode and wellbeing
in terms of both the potential ways in which transport accessi-
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 020 7927 2024. bility might affect the determinants of health and the broader role
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Jones), of the transport mode itself on wellbeing.
[email protected] (R. Steinbach), [email protected] (H. Roberts),
[email protected] (A. Goodman), [email protected] (J. Green).
Our case study is London, where young people have been able
1
Tel.: þ44 020 7927 2445. to travel on the buses with no charge since 2005/6. In September
2
Tel.: þ44 020 7958 8382. 2005, the Greater London Authority (GLA) introduced free bus

1353-8292/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.01.003
606 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612

travel for 12–16-year olds (TfL, 2007). This fare exemption was
extended a year later to include 17-year olds in full-time educa-
tion (TfL, 2006) and now also includes all 18- (and some 19) year
olds in full-time education or on a work-based learning
scheme (TfL, 2010a). The stated aims of the scheme were ‘‘to
help young people to continue studying, improve employment
prospects and promote the use of public transport’’ (TfL, 2006, p.
7) and to ‘‘embed more environmentally sound travel habits from
an early age’’ (TfL, 2007). Any social policy has direct and indirect
consequences and sometimes unforeseen benefits and harms that
go beyond those envisioned by policy-makers. Although the
scheme was not introduced explicitly to address young people’s
health, the aims above clearly have some beneficial implications
for determinants of health at both the individual level (through
improving social inclusion and access to, for instance, education)
and the population level (if they do succeed in decreasing future
dependence on car travel). However, as politicians and policy-
makers look to rein-in public spending, other postulated health
consequences of free public transport become legitimate grounds
for challenging such policies. For example, a Transport for London Fig. 1. Location and bus density of four London boroughs.
(TfL) Board member and former Minister for Transport in London
has explicitly queried ‘‘the value of providing free bus travel for
children when there was a nationwide push to combat childhood 2. Methods
obesity’’ (GLA, 2010, p. 12), a view echoed by this local practi-
tioner (a School Travel Adviser): We analysed young people’s accounts of bus travel generated
in interviews and focus groups, and notes of observations on
London’s buses. We included 118 12–18-year olds living in
I would urge TfL to scrap concessionary bus fares for children London in either interviews (N ¼25) with one, two, or three
in Londony. They should be walking or cycling these trips for young people or larger focus groups (N ¼ 10). Our aim was to
the sake of their own health and fitness. Yet many of them are elucidate tacit, or everyday, influences on and effects of young
taking the bus for just a stop or two - and getting fatter and people’s transport mode choices, and to link these both to the
fatter y It is almost impossible to get secondary school kids direct health consequences of travel practices articulated by the
on their feet or on their bikes in the face of the free [bus research participants themselves and to the potential health
travel]. It’s high time it was abolished (Evans, 2011). effects that can be deduced from the behaviours they describe.
The topic guides therefore focussed on generating stories by
asking about: modes of travel to and from main daytime destina-
Such views reflect wider ‘‘alarm about the threat of an ‘obesity
tion, and in the evenings and at weekends; experiences, benefits
epidemic,’ resulting in part from increasingly sedentary lifestyles
and disadvantages of different transport modes; experiences of
in urban settings in high-income countries, [that] has focused
interactions with others when travelling. Towards the end of the
attention on the potential of ‘active transport’ as one method for
interviews we directly asked participants about the perceived
improving the physical and mental health of the population’’
health impacts of bus travel and their ideas about free bus travel.
(Steinbach et al., 2011, p. 1123). Although these impacts of fare
Participants were recruited from four London boroughs and from
concessions on physical activity have been the focus of recent
young people engaged in the ‘Young Scientists’ programme at
concern, a range of hypothetical positive and negative effects on
LSHTM.3 The four boroughs were chosen to represent two outer
health and the determinants of health potentially accrue from
London boroughs: Havering [Hav] and Sutton [Sut], and two inner
providing free bus use for young people. Plausible impacts
London, Islington [Isl] and Hammersmith and Fulham [H&F]
include: changes in levels of active transport, depending on across Greater London which had a range of transport availability
whether bus trips replaced walking or car use; changes in road (see Fig. 1).
injury, as young people are more or less exposed to road danger Within each borough participants were recruited purposively
as pedestrians; changes in assaults, as young people’s exposure to to include a range of participants (by age, gender, ethnicity,
risk changes; increases in access to education, training or work; socio-economic status and typical mode of transport) (see
decreases in social exclusion; decreasing dependence on future Table 1) from institutions including schools, academies, youth
car travel; changes in access to bus travel for other users clubs and a pupil referral unit. In addition, we drew on observa-
displaced by increased numbers of young people (Wilkinson tional data compiled by the research team over the course
et al., 2011). Measuring the impact of free bus travel on these of the fieldwork. Given the different patterns of travel across
outcomes requires quantitative assessment. However, we argue the year (both by season and in school/term time), fieldwork took
here that it is also necessary to explore, from the perspective of place in several batches between February 2010 and August 2011,
young people themselves, a broader view of how travel practices some 5 or 6 years after free bus travel had been introduced.
might relate to wellbeing, and to ensure that the pathways Transcripts and notes were analysed qualitatively, drawing on
identified do not marginalise the less visible determinants of techniques from the constant comparative method (Strauss,
health, or the broader areas of wellbeing that might be important 1987), including detailed open coding of early segments of data,
to young people. Drawing on qualitative data, this paper therefore
aims to elucidate the various pathways that link travel behaviour 3
The LSHTM ‘Young Scientists’ programme offers work experience in an
(as mediated by free bus travel eligibility), the determinants of
academic setting to young people aged 14–18 from schools in London. For further
physical and mental health for young people, and the possible information see: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/introducing/volunteering/ysp/
mechanisms by which travel mode choice affects wellbeing. index.html.
 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612 607

Table 1 If I’m walkingypast aybus stop and the bus is making its way
Characteristics of study participants (N¼ 118). up I just jump on. But if not, I just keep walking, I can’t be
bothered to wait (Isl, F, 16).
N (%)

London borough of residence That bus travel was the automatic choice, despite potential
Hammersmith & Fulham 23 (19) disadvantages, was suggested by reflections that on occasion by
Havering 28 (24) the time they got to their destination ‘‘it would have been much
Islington 20 (17) quicker if we just walked there’’ (Sut, M, 14–18). The removal of
Sutton 22 (19)
Other 25 (21)
any economic disincentive was acknowledged as the reason for
‘jumping on’ for a couple of stops now being the normal choice for
Gender
what would otherwise largely be walking trips:
Female 65 (55)
Male 53 (45)
I think that the fact that knowing the bus is free helps me want
Age to get on the busy if I had to pay I would not get on the bus
12–13 years 26 (22)
14–15 years 70 (59)
(Isl, F, 16).
16–18 years 22 (19)
[I]f you didn’t have the free bus travel, how would you get to
Ethnicity
school do you think?
White British 52 (44)
White other 8 (7)
Black 26 (22) I’d have to walk, I’d probably walky.[B]ut I’d have to leave
Asian 8 (7) much earlier because it’s about a half an hour walk, five
Mixed 18 (15) minute bus journey. I’ll take the bus any day (Hav, M, 16).
Other 6 (5)

Area deprivation of home postcodea Walking was, however, generally only considered to be a
Fifth 1 (most deprived) 34 (31) candidate mode for short journeys. For longer trips, walking
Fifth 2 24 (22) was rarely considered a viable option even if there were costs
Fifth 3 13 (12)
or other disincentives to alternatives and, in the absence of free
Fifth 4 20 (18)
Fifth 5 (least deprived) 18 (17)
bus travel, hypothetically, young people thought they would
typically either forgo the journey, pay, or persuade parents to
a
Fifths defined with reference to Greater Lon- provide lifts, depending on the need. As one respondent noted in
don as a whole. Numbers do not add up to 118 for relation to asking for lifts, ‘‘parents always seem to be conveni-
area deprivation because of missing postcode data
ently free’’ (Sut, M, 14–18).
on 9 participants.
This is not to say that the fare exemption has universally
eliminated all walking trips: in some instances, despite bus travel
close attention to comparisons within the data (for instance in being free, young people would opt to walk rather than take the
comparing young people’s accounts in stories and in addressing bus:
direct questions) and context (e.g. in comparing accounts in focus
groups and interviews). All authors were involved in analysis: [Q]uite often, during the summer I’d walk home from school.
identifying key themes from early transcripts, discussing coding Even though it is a good 50 min, hour long walk, but some-
frameworks and coding data for analysis. In direct quotes from times it’s just easier than waiting for the bus and then getting
the data, all names and other potential identifiers have been all crammed on it (Sut, F, 15–16).
anonymised. Extracts are tagged with an identifier for borough or
[I] walk [to school], because I live nearby soyI’d feel a bit
‘Young Scientists’ [YS] programme, gender and age or age range
stupid getting the bus (Sut, M, 14–18).
(for focus groups).
Nevertheless, as these instances demonstrate, opting to walk
would usually be in response to perceived conditions (having to
3. Findings wait for a bus, the crowdedness of the bus or the ‘stupidity’ of
getting a bus short distance) rather than a proactive decision in
3.1. Bus use replaces walking for short trips:‘because it’s there, light of the health (or other) benefits of travelling by foot. In this
and it’s free’ respect, it would appear that for the most part secondary school
children are inclined to persevere with trying conditions before
For short journeys, when there is no cost to the user, and buses opting to walk:
are available and accessible, many young people talked about
[M]y friend who lives in between [Springfield] and [Newville]
using the bus to go ‘‘short distances, literally three stops’’ (Sut 14–
said it got to a point where for two weeks, every day, the
18, M). Indeed, distances travelled by bus could be extremely
busywas too full to just stop for her. So in the end she just
short:
had to leave her house half an hour earlier and walk (Sut, F,
14–18).
[M]y dad takes me a couple of metres down the road, it’s only
about 200 m down the road. And then from then I go and get When specifically asked, many young people enjoyed cycling,
the bus to school. And then there’s only a few metres from and would even like (in theory) to cycle to school. However,
where I get off the bus to go to school. [y] I’m on the bus for cycling was rarely mentioned as a candidate mode of routine
roughly about less than a minute (Hav, M, 14). transport for getting to school or other locations, and rarely
mentioned spontaneously as a possible alternative to a walking
Bus travel was widely described as the default option for short or bus journey. Rather, cycling was largely discussed as a leisure
trips, for which the only major constraint on bus use was lack of activity, particularly for boys who reported, for instance, that
immediate accessibility: sometimes: ‘‘we just ride our bikes and cruise’’ (H&F, M, 15).
608 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612

3.2. Physical activity in the transport system involve walking, or even running, between buses and bus stops.
While strategies to avoid unnecessary walking as the main mode
The widespread use of buses to travel short distances would to a destination pervaded the accounts, this preference for less
appear to suggest that removing any economic disincentive to active ways of travelling did not necessarily extend to within the
walk has indeed reduced levels of walking, and thus physical transport system itself. For example, respondents would report
exercise, among this section of the population. However, our data choosing to stand on the bus (for very short journeys) rather than
suggest that such a conclusion may be premature for two reasons. sit, and on occasion turning a public transport journey into a
First, for some, having free bus travel generated additional walk- physical challenge:
ing journeys that would either have not been undertaken without
I don’t really sit on the bus, I, you know by the doors, I just
the fare exemption or would have been carried out as a car
stand therey.I think there’s no point sitting because it’s only
passenger:
going to be a minute journey, so I just stand up for that. [y]
If I didn’t have free travelyI wouldn’t be going places I would (Hav, M, 14).
be probably staying quite local and through using free travel it
Me and Costos race [up train station steps] to see who gets up
means I can go places that I’ve always wanted to go (Sut,
there first every morning y I usually win y and from there
M, 15).
we walk (YS, M, 14–15).
By the same token, other journeys might be undertaken less
Crucially, riding the bus did not necessarily connote sedentary
often if free bus travel was not available. As one focus group
behaviour (cf. Hardy et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2005), in particular
participant put it when asked how journeys would change with-
where no seat was available on the bus or where adjacent seats
out free bus travel, ‘‘I don’t think anyone would really go out as
for groups of young people were not available. This finding was
much to be sociable’’ (Sut, F, 15-16). She goes on:
reiterated during observations made during fieldwork. These
[S]ometimes when I go out with my friends I get three buses showed that young people using public transport, in particular
there and three buses back, depending on where I’m going, and on their way home from school, would often be active during
I wouldn’t pay that much to spend three hours out, because their journeys—moving between friends sitting on different parts
you think about ity, you’re going to end up paying a lot of of the bus, running to or between buses, running off the bus after
money for just going out with your mates for three hours. nearly missing their stop and even using metal bars intended to
You’re already trying to save money doing stuff that doesn’t help passengers support themselves as ad hoc exercise frames.
cost us. [You don’t want to be paying for] getting there as well Thus for a secondary school child in London, public transport
(Sut, F, 15–16). journeys can be highly active events.

Elsewhere, another focus group participant put this more 3.3. Fare exemptions and the reduction of transport poverty
succinctly, stating that by having the free bus pass:
Universal free bus travel for young people removes a key
I go places moreythan I would normally [without the free
potential financial barrier to social inclusion: that of transport
pass] y. Like football, just places to out with my friends [I go
costs. Although few young people in our interviews were explicit
to] morey if I had to pay for the bus then it would cost more
about the impact of free bus travel on their own ability to take
to go outythan I’ve got (Sut, M, 14–18).
part in, for instance, education or social activities, there were
A marked geographical distinction was apparent in the data. In occasional accounts of increased opportunities for access to sport
inner city areas, with a higher density of bus stops and routes, and leisure:
young people would report that bus trips tended to displace
[For t]he local sports centre near meywe’ve got to get a bus to
walking trips, whereas in more suburban areas, with further to
get to it. So my brothers do that, and my mum takes my sister
walk to their nearest bus stop, bus trips were more frequently
because they have like that little baby club thing there. So if a
reported to have displaced car trips. As one young suburban
bus, the price went up, my mum wouldn’t take my sister to the
participant put it when asked how they would get to school if
little clubs where she can meet other little kids. And my
they did not have free bus travel: ‘‘[m]y mum and dad would
brothers probably wouldn’t go to the gym at all (Sut, F, 15–16).
drive me’’ (Sut, M, 13–16). Similarly another focus group partici-
pant from the same borough told us how they ‘‘hardly ever go in Notably, the instances of increased opportunity of access
the car anymore’’ (Sut, F, 14–18). In suburban areas in particular, recounted were often group-based activities, with the interven-
then, the free bus pass generated instances of physical activity by tion enabling families to more easily afford to go on outings:
encouraging hybrid walking and bus journeys instead of door-to-
door lifts by parents or guardians. When I was younger because my mum was pregnant at the
Across both inner London and the suburban boroughs, a timey me and my dad used to go up London because it was
significant proportion of walking is done within the transport free for mey We used to go the Science Museum and things
system, with accounts suggesting exercise within the course of a like thaty so it was quite fun (Sut, M, 13–16).
‘bus journey’ itself. Being able to travel without charge on buses To some extent our data generation method (with most young
meant that young people felt less limited in terms of their people interviewed in small groups) perhaps discouraged disclo-
transport choices, and would often take journeys involving multi- sures of financial barriers for less well off young people. One
ple buses (and inter-changes) if the most direct bus did not arrive: young man, for instance, prefaced his account of the difficulties
[B]ecause I have the free [bus travel] I’m not restricted to get a his family would have without the fare concession with a plea to
certain bus, so I can get any bus, get off andychange, so that other interview participants not to repeat his circumstances
saves me time (H&F, M, 12–17). outside the group (Isl, M, 15). However, the potentially dramatic
impact of free bus travel on social inclusion was evident in the
Such bus-changing strategies could also be adopted in order to taken-for-granted nature of inclusion implicit in young people’s
ensure a more comfortable, less crowded journey, or were even responses. First, across the data set, at every age, in outer
undertaken simply for fun. Regardless of motive they would and inner London, young people’s accounts suggested their
 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612 609

independent access to both local and more distant destinations by [L]ike we’ll just be bored and we don’t want to go home, so
bus was a routine expectation, a normal and unquestioned part of we’ll just hop on a bus and we’ll go anywhere (H&F, F, 12–17).
everyday life:
Picking up on this point, a male participant in the same focus
I just get two buses to school, and on the weekends same, I just group added:
get the bus anywhere. Like sometimes it can be far like the West
End, or not, it could just be like [local high street] or something I find it’s more girls that do that because my sister does that as
(Sut, F, 15–16 [emphasis added]). well. She goes around with her friends all the time on buses
In this respect, transport poverty was notably absent as a everywhere (H&F, M, 12–17).
salient concept for the participants in this research. Indeed the
taken-for-granted nature of being able to afford to get anywhere This is not to say that prior to the intervention buses had not
is perhaps indicated by the rather extreme response of one been treated by young Londoners as a space in which to socialise
participant (echoed less succinctly by others), who told us that with their peers. Rather, by rendering bus use free for young
if she could not use the buses for free she ‘‘wouldn’t come to people on an unlimited basis, the intervention dramatically
school’’ (H&F, F, 15). Across the boroughs, young people empha- shifted the degree to which buses could be used in this way.
sised the ease of getting around, and indeed the range of sites that The bus network became a part of the freely accessible geography
might be visited by bus: of London for all young people, not only as a way of getting to and
from destinations but also a destination in itself:
I take the bus every dayy [for] going to school, going to
dancing, going to see my friends, maybe going to churchy Me and my mates got a bus becauseyit [the bus journey] was
because it’s free y I can go to different places, so anywhere I really longy [W]e had a good sort of chat and stuff, it was
want to go (Hav, M, 15). really good (Isl, M, 12–13 [emphasis added]).

[T]hat’s [fare exemption] really helpful, whenever I really need

Notably, this use of the bus network as a setting in which to
to go anywhere it’s just, it’s no hassle (Sut, M, 14–18).
socialise appeared to be particularly prevalent among groups of
The ‘hassle’ of having to pay, and the fragility of young people’s school girls. As one group at an all girls school described it, there
entitlement to exempted bus fares, was made most clear during a operates a ‘‘kind of loyalty to get on the bus with your friends’’
focus group with young people in Hammersmith and Fulham. One (Sut 15–16), and the fact that the buses are free to use provides a
participant had had his right to free travel rescinded by Transport context in which this loyalty can be demonstrated without any
for London (as part of the ‘Behaviour Code’ penalties introduced in (direct) financial cost.
relation to some travel concessions for young people (TfL, Far from reporting it as a passive way of travelling between
2010b)): two points, then, a tendency emerged in our interviews and focus
groups for the young people to frame bus travel in terms of
[W]hen I didn’t have [free bus travel] I did struggle in terms of sociability. This contributed to the attractions of bus travel
not getting everything done because I didn’t have that freedom compared with other modes. As one focus group participant put
to get on a bus (H&F, M, 12–17). it, their walk to school is pretty straightforward, but ‘‘most of my
mates get the bus anyway, so, like, I go with my mates’’ (Isl, M,
Similarly, one young man noted of four friends who had their
12–13). Another noted the greater sociability of buses compared
passes taken away: ‘‘It puts a strain on their social activities
with car travel:
because they can’t go out as much’’ (Hav, M, 15). This suggests a
key element of the social inclusion facilitated by free bus travel:
My mum or dad would drive me if I want them to but it’s like I
as well as achieving some success in ‘‘helping young people to
said you meet friends on the bus and things like that (Sut, M,
unlock education, sport, leisure and employment opportunities’’
13–16).
(TfL, 2007), as the sport centre and football trips described above
attest, the scheme has also furthered the sociability of young
This is important on two counts when it comes to considering
people.
implications for wellbeing. First, by providing a means (as well as
a setting) for young people to convene, the intervention arguably
3.4. Fare exemptions and sociability enables them to improve their health outcomes through the very
act of socialising (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Second, in terms of
Free travel not only opened-up the range of places that young inequalities in health, the scheme enables all members of a given
people could go in London, but it also enabled young people to peer group to travel together, thus arguably playing a key role in
maintain friendship groups. As well as enabling young people to reducing transport exclusion (esp. Social Exclusion Unit, 2003)
travel in order to maintain social relationships with a broad and its harmful health consequences (Cattell, 2001). Travelling
network of friends, our observational and interview data also ‘together’ was widely reported as important, with many accounts
show that the fare-free nature of bus travel for young Londoners of groups of young people choosing to travel by bus because this
facilitated the treatment of London buses as a site for valued meant the whole group could travel together. The taken-for-
socialisation. As one focus group participant summarised: granted accounts, above, of unfettered access to getting around
It’s one of the main things you do on the bus, if you go out with London by bus were shared by young people from different socio-
someone you sit down and you talk about things (Sut, M, economic backgrounds in the study, and use of buses for some
14–18). journeys was near universal among the research participants.
Across the large data set we generated, the only statements
Eliminating the financial barrier to bus travel enables buses to relating to financial problems in getting around London related
become key public spaces in the city for young people to convene to losses or confiscation of the pass card used to show their
and socialise both as part of their school journeys but also in the entitlement. For almost all young Londoners, ‘transport poverty’
evenings, during school holidays and at weekends: One partici- was, therefore, insignificant in terms of its reported impact on
pant explained why they sometimes spontaneously catch a bus: everyday lives.
610 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612

3.5. Learning independent mobility: navigating place and social through bus travel, civic ways of interacting in public were being
interaction learned:

Sometimes it [offering your seat]ybypasses your mind,

Linked to these points about sociability and inclusion is the
though, because sometimes, I realiseywhen I’ve got off the
equality of opportunity that the fare exemption provides all
bus, and I think to myself, maybe I should have let that
young people in London when it comes to experiencing the city
person take my seat. I just didn’t think of it at the time, so
and gaining independence. The ‘experience of the city’ that the
(Isl, M, 12–13).
policy afforded is two-fold, comprising both opportunities to
experience otherwise less accessible geographical parts of the On occasion, such learning was reportedly rather more
city and opportunities to develop skills in socially navigating the didactic:
city. Access to free travel meant young people, from early ages,
were better able to explore London, and to develop an under- Every now and again [you interact with adults]y, like if
standing of the city’s geography: you are sitting down [on the bus] andy just leave your
rubbish there, they are like ‘‘have you forgot something?’’
When we [my friends and I] was in London we just saw a bus (Isl, M, 12–13).
that was goingytowards Oxford Street, didn’t know exactly
where it was going yand we get on it, we’re lost, see, see In terms of future attitudes to public transport, such experi-
where we end upy (Hav, M, 16). ences also, of course, mean that young people are exposed to the
‘normal’ use of public transport by a wide section of the popula-
I think if you get the bus a lot you can try and, like, vary it [the tion, and this may help to combat perceptions of buses as a
routes you take] up so you get to know London (Isl, M, 12–13). stigmatised transport mode compared with car use. This is not to
say that free bus travel enabled these experiences of social
In instances where young people almost purposefully ‘got lost’ interaction and growing independence, but rather that it
on the bus network the free bus provided not only a means to get levelled-off young Londoners’ opportunities to travel on the bus
lost, but also a means to return to more familiar surroundings. network. The policy has heightened young people’s capacity to
Thus, when our respondents found themselves in unknown parts broaden their horizons and experience unfamiliar places and
of the city they would typically ‘‘take the same bus in the opposite social interactions and to develop the necessary routine interac-
direction’’ (H&F, F, 12–17) as a means to re-orient themselves. tional skills needed to travel a busy city. Critically, in terms of
By holding a free bus pass, young people are able to mitigate fears wellbeing, while these places and interactions were often of a
and anxieties they might have about becoming stranded in a type which might be viewed as risky, having a free bus pass out of
foreign quarter of the city with limited means to extract them- a given situation apparently reduced the significance attributed to
selves from it. those risks by young people.
Having access to free travel increased the degree to which
young people were able to develop skills in social settings and
interactions. At one extreme, stories and experiences of ‘odd 4. Discussion
people’ (Whyte, 1988, p. 25) on buses were dotted through the
young people’s accounts—for example ‘‘the old guy with the We have drawn on young people’s accounts of travelling in
headphones that dances on the bus’’ and ‘‘the wizard man’’ who London, where they have (for the last 5 or 6 years) been able to
were described during one focus group (Sut, M & F, 14–18). use buses with no charge, to explore the ways in which transport
In contrast to these stories, which were often clearly part of the mode choice might impact on wellbeing. Policy debate has
common stock of narratives shared by friendship groups, were the focused on one particular potential outcome of accessible bus
more mundane experiences of everyday encounters with a range travel: that of potentially reducing the amount of ‘active’ travel
of other bus users. Interactions with others passengers routinely young people do. Our data initially suggest that fare exemptions
included young people of different ages or communities, com- for young people appear to result in the displacement of some
muters, tourists, older citizens, and mothers with buggies. Dealing walking journeys, and indeed even short (a few hundred metre-
with mundane interactions and, on occasion, more detailed long) journeys. However, we have also shown that this policy
conversations provided opportunities for developing the neces- intervention does not, straightforwardly or exclusively, encourage
sary skills to navigate the crowded transport spaces of the city, in travel ‘passivity’ among those subject to it. Indeed, in several
a social context in which young people may have limited other respects the policy facilitates ‘active,’ health-promoting experi-
opportunities to interact with a range of adults. Older citizens ences. These range from instances of active travel as they have
were reported as being particularly likely to engage young been conventionally understood in the literature: walking to/
people: from/between bus stops instead of being driven in a private
vehicle (especially in more suburban areas); increased numbers
F1: I don’t think there’s been a time that I’ve got on a bus and of walking trips as part of the additional journeys undertaken as a
there hasn’t been an old dear that’s got on andy[s]he’s sat in result of having a free bus pass; and more walking, and even
the front seat and just starts talking to the other people her running, within the ‘bus journey’ itself as young people are more
age. inclined to interchange buses given there is no longer a financial
F2: Or even just to us[y.] I’ve had many a conversation with cost in doing so. Any analysis of a free public bus transport
older people, not so much like 30–50 year olds theyykeep to intervention needs to acknowledge that buses largely take fixed
themselves (Sut, F, 18). routes and stop at designated points along these routes. They do
not provide a door-to-door service, and so ‘bus journeys’ almost
The most common type of interaction reported was in relation always comprise trips made on foot too: as research in other
to giving up a seat to a more deserving passenger, with partici- settings has noted, a considerable amount of walking happens
pants often listing the categories of ‘more deserving’ passengers: within a transport system (Besser and Dannenberg, 2005; Julien
the elderly, pregnant woman and those with disabilities were and Carré, 2002). Thus exemption from bus fares at one and the
usually cited. This perceived responsibility to give a seat up would same time creates the conditions for the displacement and
often prompt reflection among respondents, suggesting that the generation of walking trips. Whether generation outweighs
 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612 611

displacement (and indeed whether the small changes involved in in meeting policy goals like improving health’’ (Social Exclusion
total ‘active’ travel time have any health outcome implications) Unit, 2003, p. 16). Crucially, this ability was taken for granted for
requires empirical quantitative assessment. One study of older these young people, given that most had never experienced
citizens in England suggested that free bus travel has had a financial barriers to travel. Not surprisingly, perhaps, transport
protective effect on obesity (Webb et al., 2012): whether this is poverty was most striking in its absence in our data, with no
also true for young people is a question that we are exploring reported financial barriers to getting around.
elsewhere (Wilkinson et al., 2011). Other potential pathways by which bus accessibility affects
However, in a general sense, our data suggest that an opposi- wellbeing are suggested in accounts relevant to the more tangen-
tional or explicit (e.g. Mota et al., 2007; Van Dyck et al., 2009) tial determinants of health. By encouraging travel that is inde-
positioning of urban bus travel as ‘passive transport’ in contrast to pendent of parents or guardians, free bus use militates against
the ‘active’ modes of walking and cycling may be inappropriate. increasingly overprotected and ‘bubble-wrapped’ experiences of
Rather than assume time spent travelling by bus necessarily childhood in built-up areas (Carver et al., 2010; Hillman et al.,
represents inactive or sedentary time, and by implication 1990; O’Brien et al., 2000), and opens-up a network of places for
‘unhealthy’ time, we need to look more closely at how young young people to develop their skills in navigating both the
people actually conduct themselves on public transport. In physical space of their city and routine interactions with a cross
analysing young people’s accounts of travel in London, we suggest section of the public. At the same time, our data suggest that free
that bus travel, and in particular bus travel in groups that is bus travel enhances young people’s ability to forge and maintain
facilitated by universal fare-exemptions for schoolchildren, can be links with friends and family from across the city, potentially
‘active’ in two senses. First, as above, bus journeys can be active helping to develop stocks of ‘bridging social capital,’ suggested as
rather than passive: simply congregating and socialising over protective for health (De Silva et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2006) and
the course of the bus journey (and in particular over the course of essential for wellbeing.
bus journeys home from school) entails considerable movement, This paper has drawn on accounts from a range of young
engagement and social interaction. Second, the ‘active’ experi- people in London from different localities. However, it was not a
ences encouraged by having access to free bus travel certainly random sample, and we drew on accounts of transport behaviour,
extend beyond the generation of some walking trips. Pervasive rather than directly measuring use of transport modes. Our design
through the accounts we collected was the sense that this fares did not therefore aim to measure use of buses or other transport
policy opened-up the bus network as a set of public spaces for modes, or to evaluate the impact of free bus use on young
young people; public spaces that are ‘unexceptional’ but none- people’s health (or indeed the consequent possible effects on
theless valuable to users’ wellbeing (esp. Cattell et al., 2008). Of other bus users), but rather to outline some of the key pathways
importance here are both the socio-spatial conditions of the bus linking travel mode and health for young people. A policy such as
journey (that it takes place in an enclosed space that is co- a public transport fare exemption is likely to have a range of
occupied by adults but in which certain areas, typically the rear of effects, some health promoting, others less positive. Some of these
the top deck, can be appropriated by groups of children) and the effects can, in theory, be assessed quantitatively, such as the
universal nature of the fare exemption. This policy intervention distances young people walk. Others, we suggest, may be impor-
rendered buses freely accessible mobile public spaces for all tant to young people’s wellbeing, but be rather difficult to
young people in London. These particular public spaces are sites measure, such as the implications of providing a means for all
in which this group could get somewhere else, but also in which young people to participate in a public arena. A limitation of the
they could simply be—to gather, socialise, engage with one analysis presented here is that we have focused largely on the
another, talk, share experiences and even be physically active. data set as a whole, and the findings that were common across
Precisely at a time when social scientists and commentators have ages, localities and genders. However, the relationships between
argued that the in-between public spaces of cities are becoming travel use and health are of course also likely to be mediated by
increasingly subject to ‘revanchist’ urban politics (Mitchell, 2003; young people’s particular circumstances (O’Brien et al., 2000),
Ruppert, 2006; Smith, 1996), and in turn less hospitable to and to change with age. Although we argue that the universal
vulnerable sections of the population such as young people provision of free bus travel has implications for all young people
(esp. Valentine, 1996), the application of this fares policy inad- in terms of removing an important barrier to participation, this
vertently produced a readily accessible network of spaces under- may well have larger impacts on those in more deprived circum-
stood by our participants to be ‘‘[p]ublic, definitely, very public’’ stances, for instance. Similarly, the findings on independence
(Sut, M, 14–18). At the intersection of environmental conditions might need to be balanced with data on the risks of independent
and policy, therefore, these spaces that have been opened-up for travel differently at different ages. More work is needed on
young people are used in sociable, engaged and exploratory ways unpacking the variations among young people in the relationships
which we argue represent important types of ‘activity.’ between travel mode and wellbeing.
We argue that a more nuanced approach to the term ‘active
travel’ may be useful, which factors in the ‘‘balance of inactivity
and activity in different domains (transport, occupation, domestic 5. Conclusions
and leisure) of everyday life’’ (Brown et al., 2009). Such an
approach would recognise, as some researchers (e.g. Wen et al., Our data suggest that the pathways linking free bus travel and
2010, p. 2) already have, the overlaps, rather than imply a wellbeing for young people are likely to have contradictory effects
distinction, between public transport and active travel. Beyond on health. In terms of impacts on physical activity, eliminating the
this, though, the approach we propose would recognise that for cost of getting on a bus both disincentivises and generates travel
studies of transport-related behaviour ‘activity’ includes more by foot. Research is now needed on how far changes in transport
than narrowly defined practices such as walking and cycling. mode are likely to affect such direct determinants of health.
We have also illustrated how free bus travel potentially However, we have also identified a number of pathways by which
mitigates transport poverty, allowing all young Londoners access universal access to bus travel might positively affect wellbeing
to the city. Notably, it has been shown that this capacity to more generally. It broadens the capacity for all young people to
participate ‘‘in social, cultural and leisure activities is very travel independently of adult supervision. It opens up a network
important to people’s quality of life and can play a major part of public, mobile places in which young people can actively
612 A. Jones et al. / Health & Place 18 (2012) 605–612

maintain their often dispersed ‘‘‘virtual’ community of friends’’ GLA, 2010. The Future of London’s Buses—Transport Committee Seminar,
(Morrow, 2000, p. 150) in a relatively accessible setting. These 8 December 2009 [Transcript]. Greater London Authority, London.
Hardy, L.L., Bass, S.L., Booth, M.L., 2007. Changes in sedentary behavior among
effects may be more difficult to measure in quantitative studies, adolescent girls: a 2.5-year prospective cohort study. Journal of Adolescent
but are crucial to the ability of young people to have healthy, Health 40, 158–165.
independent lives. Finally, we suggest that the opposition of Hillman, M., Adams, J., Whitelegg, J., 1990. ONE FALSE MOVEy A Study of
walking and cycling as ‘active’ modes of travel with motorised Children’s Independent Mobility. PSI Publishing, London.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Layton, J.B., 2010. Social relationships and mortality
forms of transport as ‘passive’ is problematic. Rather, for young risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 7, e1000316.
people in London bus travel can be both a physically and socially Julien, A., Carré, J.-R., 2002. Cheminements piétonniers et exposition au risqueRisk
active experience. The intervention (and the data we have exposure during pedestrian journeys. Recherche—Transports—Sécurité 76,
173–189.
collected) problematises accounts that have presented ‘non-
Kerr, J., Frank, L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., 2007. Urban form correlates of pedestrian
motorised travel’ and ‘independent mobility’ among children as travel in youth: differences by gender, race-ethnicity and household attri-
coterminous (cf. Hillman et al., 1990; Whitzman et al., 2010). It is butes. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12,
not so much the mode of travel per se that shapes independence, 177–182.
Kim, D., Subramanian, S.V., Kawachi, I., 2006. Bonding versus bridging social
as the degree to which the mode is unrestrictedly accessible. As
capital and their associations with self rated health: a multilevel analysis of 40
we pay more attention to the interface between how we travel in US communities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60,
cities and our health, and at a time when social context has been 116–122.
recognised for its importance to health research, this paper Mikkelsen, M., Christensen, P., 2009. Is children’s independent mobility really
independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/
demonstrates that urban public transport networks can be
mobile phone technologies. Mobilities 4, 37–58.
important ‘places’ for the study of health-related behaviours. Mitchell, D., 2003. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public
Space. The Guildford Press, New York.
Morrow, V.M., 2000. ‘Dirty looks’ and ‘trampy places’ in young people’s accounts
Acknowledgements of community and neighbourhood: implications for health inequalities.
Critical Public Health 10, 141–152.
Mota, J., Gomes, H., Almeida, M., Ribeiro, J.C., Carvalho, J., Santos, M.P., 2007. Active
The ‘On the buses’ project is funded by the National Institute versus passive transportation to school—differences in screen time, socio-
for Health Research Public Health Research programme (project economic position and perceived environmental characteristics in adolescent
no. 09/3001/13). A.G. contributed to this project during a Post girls. Annals of Human Biology 34, 273–282.
O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D., Rustin, M., 2000. Children’s independent spatial
Doctoral Research Fellowship supported by the National Institute mobility in the urban public realm. Childhood 7, 257–277.
for Health Research. The views and opinions expressed in this Panter, J.R., Jones, A.P., van Sluijs, E.M.F., 2008. Environmental determinants of
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those active travel in youth: a review and framework for future research. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5.
of the NIHR PHR programme or the Department of Health. We
Ruppert, E., 2006. Rights to public space: regulatory reconfigurations of liberty.
would like to thank: Phil Edwards, Paul Wilkinson and Mark Urban Geography 27, 271–292.
Petticrew from the ‘On the buses’ team for input into this paper; Santos, M., Gomes, H., Mota, J., 2005. Physical activity and sedentary behaviors in
Chris Lines, Suzanne Lutchmun, Alex Philips, Richard Jeremy and adolescents. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 30, 21–24.
Smith, N., 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentification and the Revanchist City.
Steven Salmon from our Steering Committee for their support; Routledge, London.
two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft; Social Exclusion Unit, 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport
those who generously helped us with participant recruitment; and Social Exclusion. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
and, most importantly, all the young people who participated in Steinbach, R., Green, J., Datta, J., Edwards, P., 2011. Cycling and the city: a case
study of how gendered, ethnic and class identities can shape healthy transport
our research. choices. Social Science & Medicine 72, 1123–1130.
Strauss, A., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University
References Press, Cambridge.
TfL, 2006. Transport for London News. Transport for London, London.
TfL, 2007. Pan-TfL Developments: Fares and Ticketing, Free Travel for Children.
Besser, L.M., Dannenberg, A.L., 2005. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet Transport for London, London.
physical activity recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine TfL, 2010a. Getting Around with Discounts. Transport for London, London.
29, 273–280. TfL, 2010b. Young Persons Behaviour Code, Penalty Fares and Prosecutions.
Brown, W.J., Bauman, A.E., Owen, N., 2009. Stand up, sit down, keep moving: turning Transport for London, London.
circles in physical activity research? British Journal of Sports Medicine 43, 86–88. Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A., Salmon, J., 2004. Perceptions about the local
Carver, A., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K., Crawford, D., 2010. Are children and neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive Medicine
adolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active 38, 39–47.
transport due to perceived risk? Social Science & Medicine 70, 1799–1805. Townshend, T., Lake, A.A., 2009. Obesogenic urban form: theory, policy and
Cattell, V., 2001. Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of practice. Health & Place 15, 909–916.
social networks and social capital. Social Science & Medicine 52, 1501–1516. Valentine, G., 1996. Children should be seen and not heard: the production and
Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., Curtis, S., 2008. Mingling, observing, and lingering: transgression of adults’ public space. Urban Geography 17, 205–220.
everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social Van Dyck, D., Deforche, B., Cardon, G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., 2009. Neighbourhood
relations. Health & Place 14, 544–561. walkability and its particular importance for adults with a preference for
De Silva, M.J., McKenzie, K., Harpham, T., Huttly, S.R.A., 2005. Social capital and
passive transport. Health & Place 15, 496–504.
mental illness: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Webb, E., Netuveli, G., Millett, C., 2012. Free bus passes, use of public transport and
Health 59, 619–627.
obesity among older people in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Com-
de Vries, S.I., Hopman-Rock, M., Bakker, I., Hirasing, R.A., van Mechelen, W., 2010.
munity Health 66, 176–180.
Built environmental correlates of walking and cycling in Dutch urban children:
Wen, L.M., Kite, J., Rissel, C., 2010. Is there a role for workplaces in reducing
results from the SPACE Study. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 7, 2309–2324. employees’ driving to work? Findings from a cross-sectional survey from
Evans, R., 2011. Scrap free bus travel for kids, Boris—it’s fueling obesity. Local inner-west Sydney, Australia. BMC Public Health, 10.
Transport Today, 566. Whitzman, C., Romero, V., Duncan, M., Curtis, C., Tranter, P., Burke, M., 2010. Links
Frank, L., Schmid, T., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.E., 2005. Urban form between children’s independent mobility, active transport, physical activity
relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth American. and obesity. In: Waters, E., Swinburn, B., Seidell, J., Uauy, R. (Eds.), Preventing
Journal of Health Promotion 21, 305–311. Childhood Obesity: Evidence, Policy and Practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Frohlich, K.L., Potvin, L., 1999. Health promotion through the lens of population Whyte, W.H., 1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday, New York.
health: toward a salutogenic setting. Critical Public Health 9, 211–222. Wilkinson, P., Edwards, P., Steinbach, R., Petticrew, M., Goodman, A., Jones, A.,
Giles-Corti, B., Kelty, S., Zubrick, S., Villanueva, K., 2009. Encouraging walking for Roberts, H., Kelly, C., Nellthorpe, J., Green, J., 2011. The health impact of free
transport and physical activity in children and adolescents: how important is bus travel for young people in London: protocol for an observational study,
the built environment? Sports Medicine 39, 995–1009. LSHTM Occasional Papers in Transport and Health. LSHTM, London.