Boris Johnson, beware the voter on the number 48 bus

Route 48 brings to life statistics about the transport mode used by London's low-paid. But are they listening to Ken Livingstone?

London bus
'London has the most expensive public transport of any major city in the world.' Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a staple of London folklore, a century-old personification of reasonable suburban opinion and average metropolitan means. He is a fellow who – in my mind at least – keeps his door knocker polished and owns a sensible sort of mac. He will live on for many more decades. But this year his importance could be eclipsed by a different touchstone citizen: the voter on the number 48.

Bus policy is already a bruising battleground in the London mayoral election campaign. Frontrunners Boris Johnson, the Conservative incumbent, and his Labour challenger and predecessor, Ken Livingstone, are making very different overtures. Johnson is pointing proudly to his removal of articulated "bendy" buses from the dozen of London's 700 routes they operated on, and to his forthcoming introduction of a new model double-decker, though only eight have so far been ordered to grace a total London fleet of 8,500.

Livingstone is casting a wider net. His Fare Deal campaign pledges to "wipe out" the latest of Johnson's four consecutive inflation-plus price rises across the entire public transport network of buses, trains and trams, and to do so from October. He makes a particular point of promising to bring down bus fares.

The Labour candidate's chance of completing a remarkable political comeback depends heavily on his enthusing the sorts of Londoners who travel on routes such as the 48. It connects the public transport hubs of Walthamstow Central and London Bridge, conveying many workers to and from the employment magnet of the City. Riding on it, especially in the morning rush hour – as I often do when travelling from my home to City Hall and as I did on Tuesday when London went back to work – provides telling insights into the capital's economic metabolism and glimpses of the lives of those of its citizens feeling the worst effects of the financial squeeze.

Inhabitants of Walthamstow itself have three public transport options for reaching places of work in the Square Mile: the overground train to Liverpool Street; the underground southbound, changing lines en route; or the number 48 all the way. The latter is the cheapest, and it shows. Passengers typically range from north-east London equivalents of that legendary Clapham traveller to others who, I'd guess, lead less certain lives. Dress codes range from budget white-collar (primarily the women) to building site durable (mostly men). Once past the handbag wholesalers, council blocks and occasional Georgian terraces of Hackney Road, they disembark in numbers along Bishopsgate and melt into the City's ancient side-street labyrinth.

Route 48 brings to life the statistics showing that the bus is the public transport mode used most heavily by Londoners on low pay – people who will most notice the five pence increase per journey with which Johnson has welcomed them to the new year. Their numbers often swell when economic times are hard because the alternatives cost more. Livingstone and his Fare Deal activists have been urgently reminding anyone who will listen that before the Tory mayor came to power in 2008, a single bus fare was just 90p – compared with £1.35 now.

There are signs that the Fare Deal campaign is drawing blood. Johnson's media chums are querying Livingstone's maths and honesty, while the official Johnson campaign argues that Fare Deal demonstrates financial irresponsibility. Yet when the latest increases came into effect Johnson himself was not to be seen, with his lieutenants declining to say if he was still on holiday abroad or just pretending to be.

Meanwhile, House of Commons library figures have shown that London has the most expensive public transport of any major city in the world. Johnson's latest rises have pushed that up by 5.6% across the board. Livingstone is calling them "a stealth tax" symbolic of wider Tory attitudes. Will enough voters on the number 48 take note? If they do, both they and their famous Clapham counterpart could be paying less before the end of this year.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments

81 comments, displaying oldest first

  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • Triffid100

    4 January 2012 9:10AM

    The issue isn't whether the costs go up. I've yet to meet a Londoner who would not accept paying more.

    The issue is they want something in return, namely, a better service. If we pay more for nil result there will be hell to pay. If it results in a better system with no over crowding then most will accept.

    Ken has no plan to actually give what the people want - namely an end to cattle truck commuting.

    Which is why he will never hold office again.

  • MrGLDavis

    4 January 2012 9:10AM

    All the buses in the word won't Sanatise Ken's associations with the religious far-right.

  • mestizo

    4 January 2012 9:12AM

    I'm sure he can bring the fares once he finds out how much ha can save by using non-bendy buses... where everyone actually has to pay.

  • medicallyretired

    4 January 2012 9:16AM

    Lucky Walthamstow to have three means of getting to work in the City.For those in South london seeking the same the options are less good and dependance on bus routes to anywhere , at reasonable cost are essential. Should Ken promise a reversal of these fair rises , and get the publicity to ensure it gets across to the electorate , he should defeat Boris , the PM in waiting . Were Labour to promise to renationalise and regulate fares of all means of public transport I suspect there might be a landslide for them , at least in the major cities and increasingly in the more rural areas.

  • uncleHARRIE

    4 January 2012 9:33AM

    All the buses in the word won't Sanatise Ken's associations with the religious far-right


    I don't think they are Tory voters or ukip, but more likely George Gallaway supporters , so shell we tell it like it is and say the religious far left ?

  • scoosh

    4 January 2012 9:39AM

    Yes, they listen to Boris but only to give them something to laugh at. In hard times like this people need something to lift their spirits. Still can always wait for what Cameron says will be the most optimistic thing of the year good for us all - the fireworks at the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee!

  • earplug

    4 January 2012 9:46AM

    Apart from fiddling with the odd bus, and jumping on the odd politically expedient bandwagon (eg Westminster 'nightlife tax' parking regime,) doubt that many can seriously point to anything that Johnson has done in his entire time as mayor. The thing he's most famous for was instigated by livingston anyway. He was the Not Ken candidate, and remains so.

    Can't we have somebody other than these two? Is this the best we can do?

  • HowardD

    4 January 2012 9:47AM

    Dave, why do you not mention that some of the biggest fare rises occurred under Ken's reign, despite his pledges to hold them down?

  • emale

    4 January 2012 9:47AM

    Route 48 brings to life statistics about the transport mode used by London's low-paid. But are they listening to Ken Livingstone?

    Dave, I suspect you are the only person left still listening to Ken Livingstone.

  • ishotthesheriff

    4 January 2012 9:48AM

    Livingstone has alienated people with his flip fllopping between ultraleft and ultrapc issues. Although the Standard slinging endless shit at him has not helped
    However a focus on core bread and butter problems facing londoners could help revive the labour party in London.

    Transport is Ken's main strength. He opposed the PPP on the tube which led to the looting of Metronet by its owners via overpriced contracts and the eventual renationalisation of tubelines.
    As far as TFL goes there are plenty of overpaid managers that could be cut out.
    it would also help if the unions in exchange with pledges on health and safety would agree to binding arbritation or some other no strike deal in contrast with the union bashing from tory toff Boris.

    As far as the buses go the services seem to be run for the benefit of the operaters.
    The debacle of the Hammersmith bridge barrier being "manually altered" as the private profit of the bus owners needs to be maintained at all costs.
    There is also a case for the reinstatement of conductors albeit not primarily fare collectors to keep the buses moving and deter low level anti social behaviour.

  • SidsKitchen

    4 January 2012 9:51AM

    As a life-long Londoner, I do think Ken made a positive difference to London transport during his time in office - especially in regard to bus service provision.

    However, I don't retain much of an appetite to vote for him - to much nepotism, too many dodgy connections, and a rather offputing sense he now views the position as somewhere between a birthright and an obligation founded in ideological neccesity - a bit like the Prince of Wales attittude to being King in other words.

  • Rigsby74

    4 January 2012 9:52AM

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

  • haardvark

    4 January 2012 9:53AM

    Ken might have another chance when Boris gives up being mayor for PM. Until then he'll be spending a lot of time with his newts.

  • earplug

    4 January 2012 9:53AM

    Anybody? Please step forward? Can't we have someone in the middle of the fauntleroy-trotsky axis? And Somebody who isn't going to bat exclusively for the private sector?

  • AntiTerrorist

    4 January 2012 9:54AM

    Inflation is by definition paying more for the same product or service. So perhaps your comment should read, Londonders would not mind paying an increase above inflation provided it results in a better service. But ultimately as Boris has pointed out the increase is a stealth tax on the less well off, what else could it be put down to.

  • Triffid100

    4 January 2012 9:55AM

    HowardD

    Dave, why do you not mention that some of the biggest fare rises occurred under Ken's reign, despite his pledges to hold them down?


    Also, lets not forget that Ken has form for promising one thing and doing the complete opposite. I seem to remember similar promises before the 2008 election even though he had secretly agreed fare increases.

    Dave - you really need to start seeing Ken for the fraud he is. Doesn't mean you have to like Boris (most don't) but this incessant rose tinted glasses reporting is becoming a problem for you.

  • twincam

    4 January 2012 9:57AM

    Sick of hearing about London to be honest. Shocking, but Britain has other areas
    .Fracking Olympic this, Mayor that, City Bank pigs trotters et all.
    Solution would be to just leave the Thames barrier open and wash away all the deceit.Warn all the peeps though, well , most.A Venice style of thing, with Boris and Ken on a punt each, trying to knock each other off.It would just emphasise the farce.
    Parliament flooded with effluent. No change there then.
    I noticed the ref to London being the most expensive city in the world blah blah blah.I think you will find Britain has become the most expensive country in the world for the lower paid people to live in.

  • Triffid100

    4 January 2012 10:00AM

    AntiTerrorist

    Inflation is by definition paying more for the same product or service. So perhaps your comment should read, Londonders would not mind paying an increase above inflation provided it results in a better service.


    I concede your point - though the rises are above inflation.

    But ultimately as Boris has pointed out the increase is a stealth tax on the less well off, what else could it be put down to


    You're back to the old London issue - if you want to improve London services either London pays for it or the whole country does. The rest of the Country aren't so keen, so London has to.

  • indigo80

    4 January 2012 10:33AM

    Are we supposed to believe Ken?
    Wasn't his manifesto I'll tell you after the election?

  • Pinkpearl

    4 January 2012 10:33AM

    I am certainly not a massive fan of Ken but I have to admit the bus services improved significantly when he was mayor. I was a student in London from 2000 and relied heavily on buses. The services in the early years were inadequate and infrequent. By the time I graduated buses were plentiful and the night services in particular was excellent.
    I am currently living in Sydney and the public transport system here is far inferior (although it is pretty cheap).

  • thevorticist

    4 January 2012 10:42AM

    But how many people on the No 48 bus and elsewhere on London's buses, trains, trams and boats factor in the following:

    Children under 5 travel free at any time on London buses, the tube, trams, Docklands Light Railway (DLR), and London Overground (London trains) when accompanied by an adult with a valid ticket. Zip is the name for Oyster photocards for under-18s that allows them to travel for free or a discounted rate. There is a £10 non-refundable application fee for each Zip Oyster photocard.

    Just so we get the full picture would Mr Hill get someone to do the calculations?

  • KrawuziKapuzi

    4 January 2012 10:47AM

    Are these two the best we can do?


    Apparently so. A borderline senile hard core leftie with a taste for religious loons vs a Bullingon boy, lazy to the core, who never held a proper job before. Utterly depressing. Well, we seem to get what we deserve :-(

  • JamesDavid

    4 January 2012 10:50AM

    Livingstone has to be the most self-entitled politician in the country. He seems to view the office of Mayor as his divine birthright, and his ejection by the voters in favour of some toff usurper was a simple accident that will be remedied in due course.

    What part of "no" does he not understand? He's like the ex who unilaterally refuses to let the relationship end and keeps making drunken phone calls in the middle of the night.

  • Streatham

    4 January 2012 10:51AM

    uncleHARRIE

    All the buses in the word won't Sanatise Ken's associations with the religious far-right

    I don't think they are Tory voters or ukip, but more likely George Gallaway supporters , so shell we tell it like it is and say the religious far left ?

    Come on, all you tell-it-like-it-is people usually say that Hitler was actually a left-winger. So doesn't that mean the Galloway left-wingers are really right-wingers?

  • MrJoe

    4 January 2012 10:57AM

    Ah yes, the Livingstone "fare deal, where London ratepayers subsidize transport costs of commuters and tourists.

  • tomcmc

    4 January 2012 10:59AM

    I have a plan-renationalise the railways across the whole country and cut bus fares back to where they were.
    The cost would be significantly offset by the saving in the massive subsubsidies paid to the private train operating companies.

    He would win on a landslide.

  • jekylnhyde

    4 January 2012 11:04AM

    Public transport should stop one kilometre from the Square. The workers of the City should follow their principles on trade and the free market and get taxis from there.

  • Stonk

    4 January 2012 11:09AM

    Having read all this, anyone is better than Boris the bicycle Tory.

    Like all other Tories (this government) they lie through their teeth. Boris flashes

    enough enamel around to qualify as a leading teller of 'porky pies'.

    Being a regular bus traveler, (can't afford the tube) annual fare increases are par

    for the course. Robin Hoods in reverse, take it from the poor and give it to the rich.

  • Triffid100

    4 January 2012 11:12AM

    jekylnhyde

    Public transport should stop one kilometre from the Square. The workers of the City should follow their principles on trade and the free market and get taxis from there.


    Actually, I think most City workers would like the square mile pedestrianised ... or at least made one way and pavements widened. The silver lining of the Bishopsgate debacle is it's stopped traffic so people can cross the road.

  • bromley

    4 January 2012 11:14AM

    Still cannot believe that Labour couldn't come up with somebody better than Ken. He is yesterday's man and is a liability.

  • thereverent

    4 January 2012 11:15AM

    @jekylnhyde

    Public transport should stop one kilometre from the Square. The workers of the City should follow their principles on trade and the free market and get taxis from there.


    What an idiotic idea.
    That would wipe out public transport for a large area of central London.

  • milinovak

    4 January 2012 11:18AM

    I'm listening to Ken Livingstone, and I live on a different bus route. I'm sure I'm not alone.

  • HelenOnTheBus

    4 January 2012 11:32AM

    Ken has no plan to actually give what the people want - namely an end to cattle truck commuting

    One of the first things Boris Johnson did when he took office was to cancel Livingstone's Cross River Tram, brand new infrastructure and rolling stock which would have transported large numbers of passengers quickly and efficiently; the reason Johnson gave was that the scheme was "unfunded".

    Think of all the schemes Johnson promised Londoners at no cost (they would be covered by private funding), secured little or no funding yet pressed ahead with, regardless. The cycle hire scheme and the cable car, for instance - a couple of hundred million.

  • brituser

    4 January 2012 11:38AM

    SidsKitchen
    However, I don't retain much of an appetite to vote for him - to much nepotism, too many dodgy connections, and a rather offputing sense he now views the position as somewhere between a birthright and an obligation founded in ideological neccesity - a bit like the Prince of Wales attittude to being King in other words.


    Maybe Ken simply wants to get back as mayor again so he can have all the trappings, fame, power and money, as he found it very helpful in his ability to 'explore his sexuality' as he put it.

  • Irritant

    4 January 2012 11:43AM

    OK Dave we get it. You don't like Boris and you think that Ken is super. Now, for the love of god, will you please write about something else.

  • kandos

    4 January 2012 11:44AM

    Londoners gave Ken ample opportunity to improve the life of Londoners by electing him for two terms.

    Some of his notable achivements were putting up train/bus fares and entertaining hardline muslim preachers from the middle east, at tax payers' expense . The highlight of a 3rd term is highly likely to involve events featuring speakers from ex Gunatanamo inmates.

    Ken will do anything to win votes and also try to be the centre of attraction. I think Londoners know what good old Ken is upto. As Ed Miliband advised one of Labour party grandees, Ken should retire gracefuly.

  • Staberinde

    4 January 2012 11:48AM

    Of course, some of us in E17 find Leyton underground also quite convenient.

    As someone who uses the Victoria Line, Central Line, 48, 55 and 56 buses regularly from Walthamstow, my view is that the comparative fares for buses and tubes are neither here nor there.

    If either candidate wants to target the commuter vote, they should address journey times and reliability rather than fares. The 48 can easily take longer than an hour to get to Liverpool Street from Walthamstow. And it might take 20 minutes before one turns up.

    The traffic is appaling. Bus lanes are intermittent. Take Lea Bridge Road - a major road with mere pockets of bus lane - and constant traffic jams at rush hour.

    I've been socialised to the idea that public transport in London is expensive, irrespective of its mode. What grates with me is that, for all the fare investment Londoners are making in the transport system, so little impact is achieved on journey times, capacity, availability and reliability.

    It often seems that Bob Crow sets the fare increases rather than the Mayor, since his members appear to be deriving most benefit from them.

  • hyperchild

    4 January 2012 11:54AM

    But wasn't the 90p bus fare only possible due to Ken Livingstone cosying up to Hugo Chavez and getting cheap Venezuelan state oil? Yes, fares are currently astronomic, but Ken's tactics were dubious.

  • bobfourton

    4 January 2012 12:01PM

    Honesty and Ken Livingstone in the same article?? When he had his chance before he put up transport fares too, even when he said he wouldn't.

    He spent nearly £2m of tax payers money asking Londoners if they wanted the Western C-charge extension, and when the majority said no, he did it anyway and called it a consultation. So where was the honesty in that? I suppose he'll subsidise the buses with some dodgy deal with some despot abroad. Maybe North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela again?

  • thereverent

    4 January 2012 12:04PM

    What would make the 48 Bus run faster and more efficiently would be less cars on the road.

    The organisation doing most for this in Lonon at the moment is Westminster Council (by reducing parking). But they have been criticized by Boris, Ken and Brian Paddock (and a campaign run against them by the the Evening Standard).

  • Eques

    4 January 2012 12:05PM

    From the Telegraph:

    Promise
    “I will freeze bus and tube fares in real terms for four years” – Ken Livingstone manifesto at May 2000 election

    What actually happened
    - In January 2004, the single bus fare outside central London was raised from 70p to £1, a rise of 43%. Fares on the Tube rose by up to 25%. Inflation was 2.6% at the time. (Oyster pay as you go users could avoid these rises, but Oyster pay as you go was not introduced on buses until later in 2004.)
    - The weekly bus pass for those travelling outside central London rose from £7.50 to £9.50, a rise of 26.6%. For those travelling in central London it rose by 11.7%, from £8.50 to £9.50. See pp210-14 of this PDF.
    - Livingstone himself states in his recent memoirs (page 491): “I decided to increase the fares before the [2004] election.”


    Promise
    A rise in the congestion charge “won’t be necessary. It’s now quite clear that £5 was enough. I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary” – Ken Livingstone, Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2003
    What actually happened
    Just over two years later, in July 2005, the congestion charge rose by 60% (from £5 to £8). Livingstone had made no mention of this in his 2004 election manifesto.

    Promise
    “I will hold any future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation” – Ken Livingstone, 34th mayor’s report to London assembly, 2003, after announcing 2004 increase.
    Livingstone also states this in his recent memoirs (page 491): “I decided to increase the fares before the [2004] election and then promise that they wouldn’t rise by more than inflation.”

    What actually happened
    - In January 2005, the single Oyster bus fare was raised from 70p to 80p (a rise of 14.3%). Inflation was 3.2 per cent at the time.
    - In February of the same year, the fare was raised again for peak hour travellers from 80p to £1 (a further rise of 25%.) The peak rise had been planned to start from January, but was delayed by seven weeks because of technical glitches.
    - In January 2007, the off-peak Oyster single bus fare was also raised from 80p to £1 – a 25% rise. Inflation was 4.2 per cent at the time.
    - Just before the election, Livingstone reduced the fare from £1 to 90p. Even allowing for this, bus fares during Ken’s second term rose by about 11 per cent above inflation over the same period.
    - TfL was condemned for misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority after claiming in publicity material that fares had been frozen.
    - Livingstone himself admits in his recent memoirs (p497) that he “increase[d] the fares…this meant breaking my promise not to raise fares faster than inflation.


    This is the second article Hill has written on this subject and shame on him for not mentioning any of this in either of them. Shame also on any Londoner who takes anything Ken says on fares remotely seriously.

    The full article has more on this too.

  • wolfmeister

    4 January 2012 1:06PM

    i cant understand why no mayor implements a plan to massively use the Thames for transport. We've been gifted this huge river, 2 times the width of the m25, going from east to west just sitting empty apart from a smattering of tourist boats and the odd tourist-use-only river bus. It requires no roads to be built or maintained & no congestion problems can be caused by using it. All we need to do is build floating termnus stations & co-ordinate those with bus drop-off points so people can take a short local journey (or walk/cycle)m then river-bus the rest to the center.

    The Thames could shift millions of comuters from east & west London daily. This would free up massive capacity on trad transport.

    Seems madness to me anyway not to use the river.

Comments on this page are now closed.

Guardian Bookshop

This week's bestsellers

  1. 1.  Bigger Message

    by Martin Gayford £18.95

  2. 2.  Stop What You're Doing and Read This!

    £4.99

  3. 3.  Send Up the Clowns

    by Simon Hoggart £8.99

  4. 4.  Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere

    by Paul Mason £14.99

  5. 5.  Very Short History of Western Thought

    by Stephen Trombley £14.99

Bestsellers from the Guardian shop

Latest posts