Last night I got the train back from London. For the fifth consecutive trip it was late. I missed my connection home. My options were a dark walk across Manchester late at night to get a rail replacement bus service, or a taxi. I picked the latter. I was lucky because I had £30 spare to pay for this safer, more convenient form of transport.
I’m increasingly getting frustrated by the dire state of public transport in this country. Where I live, which is semi-rural, the bus timetables have been dramatically cut. The trains are rarely on time, the train station in one direction is inaccessible if you have a buggy or mobility issues, and it is prohibitively expensive. When you cycle you thank your lucky stars that you haven’t been hit by a motorist.
While researching our upcoming position statement on air pollution we found that and second biggest contributor to PM 2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers diameter). It is therefore common sense that we need to reduce the amount and type of traffic on our roads. In London the . Some studies show that, in so doing, illness and hospital admissions from respiratory conditions have also decreased.
However, the introduction of a ULEZ isn’t straightforward, with several equality and inclusion elements to consider, such as the disproportionate financial impact on certain groups., and they would be hit by ULEZ charges. Initiatives like scrappage schemes - offering financial support to exchange your vehicle - are vital in making sure these initiatives work for everyone. For this reason, the , while alternative solutions are sought [see photo of Manchester’s Clean Air campaigners meeting with Rosamund Kissi-Debrah].
In her book Caroline Criado Perez describes how public transport systems were designed to suit a ‘man’s role’ i.e. travelling from home to work and back again, in-out, of a city centre. But the reality for anyone in a caring role – often women – is that you travel around a city centre, hopping on and off transport as you drop kids at school, go to the supermarket and run errands. Our transport systems were never created to be equitable, but they desperately need to be if we, in good conscience, are telling our patients to use them to reduce emissions.
In hospitals we know that children who are not brought to clinic are a group at risk. I recently learnt that parents are least likely to bring their children to hospital appointments in the week before pay day, because it costs money that they don’t have. Hospitals are invariably difficult to access by public transport, which is often expensive and inconvenient.
In the RCPCH-Clean Air Fund partnership, we strongly believe that road traffic must be curbed to reduce air pollution. To do this we need a functioning accessible affordable public transport system nationwide. We need to make active travel (e.g. walking and cycling) the norm. We need to protect children from the effects of essential road transport through initiatives like , that helps communities create traffic-free zones around schools. As a doctor, I want to be able to tell patients that air pollution is affecting their health, but that there is a better way to travel – that there is hope.
Next week ex-Olympic cyclist will be leading which aims to ‘galvanise the sport and physical activity sector to step up its work in tackling climate change’ (and thus air pollution). The team will be accompanying and advocating for child health. I hope our new Government will make the radical improvements that are needed on how we move and travel in the UK for all our sakes, but particularly for children.
For more information on our asks to the new Government, including on tackling air pollution, please see our manifesto.