Free public transport?

[The Johnster]

I have free public transport, as a pensioner living in Wales.  It has enabled me to dispense with a car altogether, just as well since I can't afford one, though I miss the luxury of going to locations that cannot be reached by bus, and would love the WAG to extend it to rail travel.

 

There are issue; it applies to local bus routes only.  Hereford and Gloucester can be reached if you board the bus our side of the border, as I believe can Shrewsbury and Chester, important shopping centres for Welsh people living near them, but Bristol, formerly included, is no longer so as it is classed as a coach service to which the WAG scheme does not apply.  It is impossible to travel west of Bridgend from Cardiff (except Porthcawl) either (though Builth Wells could be reached; who wants to go to Builth Wells one asks), which means that Swansea is out of bounds unless you pay for the coach service.

 

Yay Welsh Assembly Government, who will also serve you an excellent cream tea at a subsidised price if you visit the Senedd in Cardiff Bay.  But free public transport for all would mean huge numbers of extra buses in urban areas, probably at the cost of those in rural areas, a major consideration in thinly populated areas like much of Wales and Scotland, and considerable tracts of Northern England.  I commend the idea that Newport Corporation had in the days before deregulation or the WAG; you paid 20p to board a bus, every time you boarded a bus, irrespective of the distance travelled or the time spent aboard.  Simple and easy to understand, easy for the driver to cash up, time saved at stops, win win.  The 20p would probably equate to 50p now, and I assume the system did not make a loss.  I don't associate Newport with progressive thinking, or any sort of thinking come to that, but this was a good and popular move!

[caradoc]

Given that the costs of providing public transport will remain even if no fares are charged (other than making redundant all booking office staff and ticket machine maintainers), the service would not be free at all, instead being paid for out of taxes by everyone, regardless of whether they can or will ever use the service. For some things, such as the NHS, this is acceptable, as we are all likely to need healthcare at some stage, even if not right now, for other things such as the Fire Service it is a potentially life-saving form of insurance, however public transport is a different matter. And the question would be, if ceasing to charge fares led (as it should) to an increase in passengers, how would the system cope, given that according to our national media, trains are perpetually overcrowded already ?

 

One benefit however would be on buses; When I visit Oxford, half the time taken getting to the city centre by bus is standing at stops while the Driver issues tickets, rather than actually moving.

[jonny777]

I have free public transport, as a pensioner living in Wales.  It has enabled me to dispense with a car altogether, just as well since I can't afford one, though I miss the luxury of going to locations that cannot be reached by bus, and would love the WAG to extend it to rail travel.

 

 

 

Same here, only on the other side of the Severn Estuary, but I have retained my car because it is just so convenient for me to have the option available. 

 

I can get to Bristol easily, because we have a bus every 15 minutes during the day; but getting anywhere else involves changing buses, long waits, and as Johnster says the free OAP pass is not valid on National Express. 

 

From Bristol, I can reach a few places - but I thought of going to Gloucester and that is hardly possible on service buses. Bristol services run to Thornbury, and Gloucester go to Stroud. 

[Kylestrome]

After quickly skimming through this thread, I think most commenters are making the mistake of trying to relate this story to rural/small town British public transport. Firstly, this is only a proposal and, if one thinks more than two seconds about it, it is a pretty daft one. Secondly, it was made as a possible solution to the levels of traffic pollution in many large German cities.

 

Personally, I think it has very little chance of success, or of achieving its goal of getting people to leave their cars at home. Most urban districts in Germany have very good public transport systems at the moment, but that could very quickly change for the worst if the service became free. As it is, the transport companies have difficulties enough trying to finance services and invest in new vehicles and rolling stock. At the beginning of the year the prices for the entire Ruhr Region were increased as a result of this. Another reason for the fare increase is the number of so-called "Schwarzfahrer", or in other words passengers who travel without a ticket, resulting in a loss of revenue.

 

No doubt, the idea is that all public transport will be payed for by local governments, or even the national government? It doesn't take a genius to see where that will end up. Some future administration will decide to cut costs and suddenly the once good service becomes somewhat less than good.

 

And will it make the slightest difference to how many people drive their cars? People drive for various reasons, most of which won't change just because they can now travel free on a crowded S-Bahn, bus or tram.

 

It would be nice if such as scheme could succeed, especially as I live in one of the cities for the proposed trial, but I don't hold out much hope.

 

David

[scouser]

The Duke of Wellington opposed passenger railways because it would encoutage the poor to travel. For travel you could possibly say "escape"!

Just some thoughts , when discussing public transport.

Cities are very different from towns and rural areas.

My own commuting involved times and places where there there was no public transport, e.g. 5 am into the countryside.

I am also tired of hearing train travellers whinge about the cost of train travel.

Nobody ever subsidised my travel to work, in fact I was taxed for the privalage. Vehicle tax, fuel tax and VAT.

If you want to travel pay for it.

one last thing whenever congestion is mentioned nobody seems to talk about the growing population, more people simply means less room.

Oh yes free roads, what free roads?

The only people getting free roads are cyclists and any poor who has to use them because scumbag has parked on the kerb !

The powers that be have banned this in the London Free State, sod the rest of us

Edited February 14, 2018 by scouser

[The Stationmaster]

I've got free rail travel anyway and I do use it, especially for longer distance journeys.  But although thh local branch line asses Tesco, and a railway passes the branch of Waitrose we use most, there isn't a siding in my front garden so the heavier shopping is conveyed in my (diesel engined) car.  Once folk have teh conveniencer of a car they'll be loathe to give it up - even if it is cheaper not to use it.

[NickC]

Take it out of the bottomless pot that supplies " Free Roads" to motor vehicles.

Those “Free Roads” are more than paid for by car owners out of the Fuel duty and Vehicle Execise duty they pay. And that’s not counting the VAT they pay on fuel and the VAT on purchasing the car in the first place.

[pete_mcfarlane]

When I was in Germany recently I used public transport extensively, and didn't see a single ticket collector or ticket barrier. It's entirely possible that 'free' travel is already happening on a large unofficial scale. 

[stadman]

These people always forget one group.

Those who work on public transport, driving the first or last whatever cannot use it.

A recent enquiry about parking at a local rail station with the council I was informed that the Park & Ride isn't for rail users except for 25 spaces.

[Kylestrome]

When I was in Germany recently I used public transport extensively, and didn't see a single ticket collector or ticket barrier. It's entirely possible that 'free' travel is already happening on a large unofficial scale. 

 

They always come when you are least expecting them! (cue: Monty Python 'Spanish Inquisition' jokes   )

 

If you are caught, they allow no excuses, except for a broken ticket machine (which they can check on), and you are fined 80 Euros. Failure to pay lands you in court.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Kylestrome

[flapland]

The problem with free public transport is that it is free! There is a high chance that rather than struggling to get more people onto the buses, getting them off would be the problem.

back in the 80s prior to de-regulation, South Yorkshire had probably the best bus service in the country and it was virtually* free - Virtually being the key point; you did have to pay something for your journey - which does prevent the bus becoming a sort of mobile day centre.

 

2p for Children 5p or 10p for adults - Even 30 years ago it was not more than spare change.

 

I remember back in the 80's going to Sheffield on the train from Manchester and then going to Tinsley on the bus and being amazed at the cheap fare. 

[pH]

These people always forget one group.

Those who work on public transport, driving the first or last whatever cannot use it.

 

As far as buses are concerned, in the days before widespread car ownership, there used to be 'staff buses' which ran before and after public service to deal with that. And, if necessary, the drivers of those services used to get to take the bus home with them!

[pH]

One benefit however would be on buses; When I visit Oxford, half the time taken getting to the city centre by bus is standing at stops while the Driver issues tickets, rather than actually moving.

Another idea would be to employ a second crew member whose job would be to collect fares while the bus was in motion.

[Nearholmer]

Standman

 

And TfL runs “staff taxis” for tube workers, which sounds luxurious and profligate, until you understand that they are, in fact, minibuses running on fixed routes to a timetable for the most part.

 

K

[Butler Henderson]

If it happens here it needs proper funding direct from central government otherwise we will have operators going bust more than (bus operators) do at the moment. The free travel for over 60s is a joke in some parts of the country with councils paying operators peanuts meaning that single fares (which the council pays a return at a often a very low % per over 60) are nearly the same as return tickets. In the case of North Yorkshire [not] serving Englands Biggest County [very well] two operators have gone bust in the last 6 months and a number of packed services has been pulled simply because the cost of running the service outstripped the revenue due to vast majority being free pass holders for which the subsidy received by the operator from NYCC was insufficient, in one case two operators tried a service and even the low cost operator than uses almost clapped out vehicles fit for the scrapyard could not make it pay.

[jonhall]

Nobody seems to have mentioned London, where travel is free when

 

You are under 16 on Buses and trams

or

Over the normal retirement age with a freedom pass

or

Over 60 and prepared to shell out £20 on an Oyster photocard 

 

So free for millions of people! Of course you also have to be a London resident which presumably means that you ARE paying for it in your taxes!

 

Particularly for those under 16, conditioning them to rely on buses and not 'need' a car seems to be a good way of preparing them as public transport users of the future, although I do have a bit of a problem with the over 60's having free access to the network in the peaks, when the network is pretty much full, and operators and govenrment are looking at how to price people off the busiest services to manage demand (I've lees objection to them paying a reduced rate).

 

Certainly my parents make very good use of their bus passes, it allows them to get out more than they would without, and the scheme probably takes a few less capable drivers off the roads, but I do get slightly grumpy when I'm probably the only person on a bus that has actually had to pay for the journey at point of use, and by the time I get to retirement (if it dosn't move away from me faster than I age) I doubt the country can afford these things..

 

Jon

[lmsforever]

Free travel is indeed a myth cheap fares are a thing of the past due to the costs of actually providing the vehicles and staff ,some counties are good at service provision my local one is excellent about the only thing they are good at! Aylesbury is well served by local buses and it is relatively easy to journey south and north add to these the Arriva buses to Oxford H Wycombe Watford and MK add to the mix then you add in Chiltern and I think we must be doing well.Every month I read Buses there are at two sometimes three companies closing often due to the county withdrawing the grant ,Oxford did this and at least twenty routes disappeared leaving many people stranded and the councillors don't care.Someset is the latest county to devastate bus routes and next year could be one of the biggest problems coming up.TFL are losing the government grant and will be scratching hard for cash to provide services by bus,the underground is okay but the overground is dodgy and it is hoped that Crossrail is going to put profit back into the system.They need new trains for an underground line so are having to sell stock and lease it back to raise funds not a good situation and bodes ill for the future in London.Public travel is a need not a luxury and should be a high priority by the authorities as if people haven't got an alternative means of movement to work leisure local facilities will suffer even given car usage.The young are not buying cars or even learning to drive in numbers the elderly eventually give up the car and they need access to shops hospitals etc so everybody when its local or county elections make a noise in favour of public transport write letters to every local paper its the only way to wake up councils.Rant over!

[LBRJ]

Those “Free Roads” are more than paid for by car owners out of the Fuel duty and Vehicle Execise duty they pay. And that’s not counting the VAT they pay on fuel and the VAT on purchasing the car in the first place.

Yep. Indeed that is supposedly how it works, but not all vehicles are equal.

the nationwide road system is free at the point of use, rather like the NHS is; as both should be.

 

I can see no reason why semi-urban public transport should also not be virtually the same- say a flat fare of 50p per ride?

After all, more people on the buses means more road for the car driver

[jjb1970]

Given that the costs of providing public transport will remain even if no fares are charged (other than making redundant all booking office staff and ticket machine maintainers), the service would not be free at all, instead being paid for out of taxes by everyone, regardless of whether they can or will ever use the service. For some things, such as the NHS, this is acceptable, as we are all likely to need healthcare at some stage, even if not right now, for other things such as the Fire Service it is a potentially life-saving form of insurance, however public transport is a different matter. 

 

Completely agree. I think there is a valid argument in support of subsidising public transport as a good public transport system has benefits for the economy, society and environment but I also think that the those who use public transport and who are the principal beneficiaries should pay for it. I pay a rather substantial sum each year for my season ticket so in some ways "free" rail travel would be great for me (assuming the amount saved was greater than the consequential increase in tax I'd end up paying) but I believe that users should pay for the services they use. Personally I believe users should pay at least 50% of the cost of their services.

[ForestPines]

They always come when you are least expecting them! (cue: Monty Python 'Spanish Inquisition' jokes   )

 

If you are caught, they allow no excuses, except for a broken ticket machine (which they can check on), and you are fined 80 Euros. Failure to pay lands you in court.

 

Moreover unlike in the UK, every German ticket inspector I've been inspected by has been very much "plain clothes".  Just a normal passenger in jeans and a shirt, until the doors close and out comes their ID.

 

And TfL runs “staff taxis” for tube workers, which sounds luxurious and profligate, until you understand that they are, in fact, minibuses running on fixed routes to a timetable for the most part.

 

Didn't BR run staff trains on a lot of routes also?  Round my way, some of the larger employers do run staff buses to get people to work - Liverpool Victoria and Aviva are two that spring to mind.  The Severn Valley still runs staff trains on Santa Special days!

[Dunsignalling]

Take it out of the bottomless pot that supplies " Free Roads" to motor vehicles.

The only bottomless pits around here are in the roads.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Completely agree. I think there is a valid argument in support of subsidising public transport as a good public transport system has benefits for the economy, society and environment but I also think that the those who use public transport and who are the principal beneficiaries should pay for it. I pay a rather substantial sum each year for my season ticket so in some ways "free" rail travel would be great for me (assuming the amount saved was greater than the consequential increase in tax I'd end up paying) but I believe that users should pay for the services they use. Personally I believe users should pay at least 50% of the cost of their services.

While transport is subsidised, it greatly reduces any impetus to clear out the hundreds of thousands of London jobs that don't need to be physically located there.  

 

That will happen eventually, but if current employers want to be future employers, they need to get the process under way much more actively or, as has already been suggested, others will do it and undercut and displace them.

 

Unfortunately, possibly because Parliament meets in London, the political establishment considers that everyone else should consider working there normal, too. In fact, those whose activities need to be conducted in the capital would find the knock-on effects of shifting (say) half-a-million office drones onto home-working would make their own businesses run more smoothly. 

 

In the long term, it is untenable to continually increase economic activity of the kinds that draw workers daily into London. The point will sooner (rather than later, I think) be reached where further substantial expansion of transport infrastructure crosses the line between very challenging (where we are now) and financially unviable / damn-near-impossible.

 

We are now running short of usable space beneath the capital in the same way that we already have on the surface. Whereas "up top" one can expand upwards, at a price, the cost of significantly expanding downwards (effectively going underneath everything that is already there) makes it a very different proposition. 

 

On the fare issue, I agree on the 50% maximum subsidy despite having a bus pass myself. Free travel just stimulates joy-riding - try and get on the "Jurassic Coaster" bus route on a sunny day if you don't believe me.............

 

John

Edited February 15, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[jjb1970]

There is a lot of truth in the old adage that if you think something is expensive then try making it "free".

[jjb1970]

On the fare issue, I agree on the 50% maximum subsidy despite having a bus pass myself. Free travel just stimulates joy-riding - try and get on the "Jurassic Coaster" route on a sunny day if you don't believe me.............

I think it is true of most subsidies. If a business or individual isn't prepared to put their own money on the line and take a risk for their idea or plans why should anybody else? I'm not totally against government funding being used to support new ideas, start ups, technology development etc but if businesses aren't willing to risk their own money it kind of begs some important questions as to why not. Similarly, I support subsidised higher education and helping people go into education but I also believe in tuition fees of some sort as it is a good way to make people think about whether it is the right thing to do. Several of my school friends became almost serial university drop outs as they started courses and then lost interest.

[Zomboid]

. I commend the idea that Newport Corporation had in the days before deregulation or the WAG; you paid 20p to board a bus, every time you boarded a bus, irrespective of the distance travelled or the time spent aboard. Simple and easy to understand, easy for the driver to cash up, time saved at stops, win win. The 20p would probably equate to 50p now, and I assume the system did not make a loss. I don't associate Newport with progressive thinking, or any sort of thinking come to that, but this was a good and popular move!

London buses have worked on this principle for years (for a higher price, because London) - though now you get something akin to what I experienced in Ottawa, which they called a "transfer", and which was in reality an hour long bus pass.

 

In other news, the bus system in Ottawa was really good, though it didn't serve half the conurbation because the other side of the river is in Quebec and is a different city.