Free public transport?

[Nearholmer]

JJB

 

I don’t entirely disagree with what you say about subsidies, but it is a solid fact that if public transport in cities isn’t subsidised, and subsidised in a way that amounts to overt ‘social engineering’, it will serve prosperous people well, and poor people very badly, if at all.

 

There is a much-delayed storm brewing in London currently about the operating deficit of TfL, and that is really all about this issue, in that the big “loss maker” is the bus service. The Tube is, I think, currently, very slightly loss-making, but it wouldn’t take much of a fare rise to turn that into a small operating profit, and the balance has been deliberately tipped that way before.

 

And, busses in London are a big “loss maker” because they’ve been used, very consciously, as a way of improving “social inclusion”, getting high-quality public transport into areas not near the tube and largely lived-in by less prosperous people. This policy has deep roots in London, it works, and it has been supported by politicians of all colours ....... one doesn’t tend to think of Boris as a social-inclusion-jockey, but he quietly continued, and even reinforced the policy of using busses in this way, while he was Mayor. Even his big “faux Routemasters” were as much about good quality provision in poorer areas as about icons in central London ...... look at the route maps to see who really benefits from them.

 

The storm comes, because central government turned-off TfL’s operating subsidy (in 2015 IIRC), and because the current Mayor went ‘front and centre’ with two policies that were deliberately all about giving the less-well-off good, cheap busses: a fares-freeze; and, a tweak to the way multi-route journeys are charged.

 

So, as in Yorkshire all those years back, and in ‘Fares Fair’ under Ken1, bus subsidy gets political really quickly, because those affected know that if it is taken away the poor will be left to walk, for the simple reason that it is challenging to make a profit out of them.

 

(The above is all “transport policy” discussion, not politics, otherwise I will get ‘moderated’!)

 

Kevin

Edited February 15, 2018 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

JJB

 

I don’t entirely disagree with what you say about subsidies, but it is a solid fact that if public transport in cities isn’t subsidised, and subsidised in a way that amounts to overt ‘social engineering’, it will serve prosperous people well, and poor people very badly, if at all.

 

There is a much-delayed storm brewing in London currently about the operating deficit of TfL, and that is really all about this issue, in that the big “loss maker” is the bus service. The Tube is, I think, currently, very slightly loss-making, but it wouldn’t take much of a fare rise to turn that into a small operating profit, and the balance has been deliberately tipped that way before.

 

And, busses in London are a big “loss maker” because they’ve been used, very consciously, as a way of improving “social inclusion”, getting high-quality public transport into areas not near the tube and largely lived-in by less prosperous people. This policy has deep roots in London, it works, and it has been supported by politicians of all colours ....... one doesn’t tend to think of Boris as a social-inclusion-jockey, but he quietly continued, and even reinforced the policy of using busses in this way, while he was Mayor. Even his big “faux Routemasters” were as much about good quality provision in poorer areas as about icons in central London ...... look at the route maps to see who really benefits from them.

 

The storm comes, because central government turned-off TfL’s operating subsidy (in 2015 IIRC), and because the current Mayor went ‘front and centre’ with two policies that were deliberately all about giving the less-well-off good, cheap busses: a fares-freeze; and, a tweak to the way multi-route journeys are charged.

 

So, as in Yorkshire all those years back, and in ‘Fares Fair’ under Ken1, bus subsidy gets political really quickly, because those affected know that if it is taken away the poor will be left to walk, for the simple reason that it is challenging to make a profit out of them.

 

(The above is all “transport policy” discussion, not politics, otherwise I will get ‘moderated’!)

 

Kevin

 

You also need to remember that TfLs operating subsidy also had to pay or things like road resurfacing, street lighting etc on some of Londons busiest roads.

 

Yes, as from next year the Government expect TfLs public transport receipts (principally from the tube and the Elizabeth line*) to pay for the upkeep of the likes of the A3, A4, A40, A10, A12, A2, A20, A316, A205, A406 and pay the A13 DBFO shadow tolls within the Grater London boundary.

 

* If you dig down far enough its quite frightening that the mere ability of TfLs future budget plans to work relies completely on (i) Crossrail opening on time and (ii) It bringing huge amounts of revenue.

 

No other City is expected to survive without grants towards the upkeep of their roads - except London. Yet another thing the chip on the shoulder northerns will fail to take into account no doubt.

Edited February 15, 2018 by phil-b259

[Nearholmer]

Indeed.

 

The part of all this that slightly mystifies me is why TfL’s financial position is suddenly “news” this week. The position was, I believe, well-understood two, or even three, years ago. Figures laid out here, and this is dated December 2016 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-mayors-budget-2017-18.pdf and, if you pick through the tables of figures you can see where it is sensitive to quite small undershoots in things like ridership increases and ability to realise efficiency savings.

 

Perhaps it is that the fares-income projections have come slightly unstuck due to a small fall in ridership, or perhaps that small fall is a useful “peg” on which to hang the promulgation of some news that nobody, but nobody, really wanted to hear. Almost certainly some things will have to be done that nobody really wants to have to do, and which will be especially painful for a the current Mayor to have to do.

 

[EDIT: for ‘TfL Spotters’ here are all the figures as seen a year on from the above link, which makes an interesting comparison in assumptions http://content.tfl.gov.uk/transport-for-london-mayors-budget-2018-19-final.pdf ]

Edited February 15, 2018 by Nearholmer

[ForestPines]

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.

The way it seems to work in a lot of European cities is: you buy a ticket, you activate your ticket, and you have a set time to complete your journey with as many changes of service or mode as you like. Some cities (e.g. Berlin) have an overlaid zonal system, so you have a set time to complete your journey but must stay within a certain set of zones.

[royaloak]

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.

There are many jobs where public transport is useless, tonight I finish at midnight, the last bus is at 23:03 so what use to me?

Next week I am on earlies starting between 04:40 and 06:10, the first bus gets me to work for 06:15 if it runs so no use there either.

[Wheatley]

Passenger fares contribute about £10bn a year to the cost of running the railways, according to ORR. That's about the same amount that the government last ploughed into 'Help to Buy' to help just 135,000 people get into lifelong debt. On that basis £10bn to make the railways free sounds like a good deal.

 

You might argue that if they were free the demand would not be regulated by high fares as it is now and passenger numbers would go through the roof. But when I were a lad the buses in the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire were almost free - you could go anywhere in the county for 2p per journey child fare and 5p-25p adult. (For comparison a bar of chocolate cost about 15p). They were well used but I don't remember hoards of people having to walk home every day because they were full.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Wheatley

[stadman]

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!

 

Nice thought but I can't fit a 2+8  in my drive or get it around the narrow country lanes, don't know what the neighbours would think either.

Probably wouldn't get away with taking  bus home without an operators licence for the premises.

Neither do I live in a city where public transport is readily available throughout the daytime, it doesn't work well for shifts whatever the business.

Edited February 15, 2018 by stadman

[Butler Henderson]

Transdev Harrogate still run staff buses.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Butler Henderson

[scouser]

On my latest vist to London, July 2017, it became apparent that the plan to cut costs and congestion etc. involved bikes.

Now what about lots more bikes and bike powered rickshaws.

On a serious note, I rather think there is a conundrum in wanting cheap fares in luxurious vehicles.

Surely it coukd be cheaper to use cut down simple transports.

[Nearholmer]

Wheatley

 

Your Post 56 tempts me to make a cruel, and I’m sure unjustified, jibe, about everyone staying at home because there was nowhere worth going to, but I won’t.

 

Kevin

[Coryton]

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.

 

 

Is that a very recent change? The last time I saw the X1 it had huge adverts on the side saying that it was free to concessionary pass holders.

 

There is a bus service from Newport to Cribbs Causeway and the centre of Bristol. I'd be surprised if this didn't take concessionary passes as it seems to be a normal bus service.

 

 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!

 

Flat fares are pretty common in UK cities now, including Newport (though it's not quite as flat as it was a few years ago when you paid the same to go from Newport to Cardiff as you did to go one stop).

 

However the flat fare is a lot more than 50p and I very much doubt there would be any buses if that's all they charged.

 

It's quite possible that the Newport buses did 'make a loss', in the sense that they were subsidised by the council.

 

Flat fares are, however, rather hard on people going a short distance especially when it's part of a journey involving another mode of transport (or possibly just another bus company). The popular model of high single fares and (relatively cheap) day tickets doesn't work out well in such circumstances.

[009 micro modeller]

No other City is expected to survive without grants towards the upkeep of their roads - except London. Yet another thing the chip on the shoulder northerns will fail to take into account no doubt.

I always feel that the regional divide argument is a bit of a red herring in public transport terms ('getting London's cast offs' etc). The reason that a lot of money is spent on public transport in London and surrounding area is perhaps because, for some people, it is the only option - they can't drive to work in Central London, so they must take the train. Obviously there are some other parts of the country where it's getting the same way and I do understand why people get annoyed about the supposed focus on the south, but I can't think of any other city (possibly Manchester?) in the UK where public transport ends up being the only option. I did go from Leeds to York on TPE a few months ago - very overcrowded but it felt like this was because of an assumption that the train would not be full and thus capacity not provided (something that might have been possible given the single class 185 and long platforms at all stations called at).

[LBRJ]

Wheatley

 

Your Post 56 tempts me to make a cruel, and I’m sure unjustified, jibe, about everyone staying at home because there was nowhere worth going to, but I won’t.

 

Kevin

 

Good

 South Yorkshire has plenty to look at - whatever its merit.

but we did get the right approach to public transport, albeit before its time....Cars were seen as The Future then. 30 years later we are more awake.

[009 micro modeller]

It's also interesting how park and ride is often seen as a solution. Yes it reduces congestion in city centres, but it also means that everyone is driving and making public transport more overcrowded in the same journey.

[Coryton]

No other City is expected to survive without grants towards the upkeep of their roads - except London. Yet another thing the chip on the shoulder northerns will fail to take into account no doubt.

 

Perhaps.

 

But those "chip on the shoulder Northerners" might also be a little envious that London is still allowed to have an integrated transport system, and in particular is allowed to cross-subsidise buses and even fund them from rail revenue. Outside London all the revenue from profitable routes goes straight to the shareholders and bus subsidies - where they still exist - have to come out of the ever-shrinking pot of council funding. (And if an altruistic bus company wants to cross-subsidise routes themselves they risk running foul of competition law).

[Nearholmer]

You don’t have to be in the north to suffer the worst of bus arrangements, simply outside London.

 

Arriva have just withdrawn daytime (non subsidised) trips on a core route locally, simpky because they can’t make it profitable, even with their ungenerous wages and very no-frills approach.

 

I suspect that there is a bit of ‘levering’ going on, where what they actually want is the subsidy periods extended, but we shall see.

 

As I said in an earlier post, without the right subsidy regime, the less well off get fresh air and exercise, or stuck at home.

[Coryton]

You don’t have to be in the north to suffer the worst of bus arrangements, simply outside London.

 

Arriva have just withdrawn daytime (non subsidised) trips on a core route locally, simpky because they can’t make it profitable, even with their ungenerous wages and very no-frills approach.

 

I suspect that there is a bit of ‘levering’ going on, where what they actually want is the subsidy periods extended, but we shall see.

 

As I said in an earlier post, without the right subsidy regime, the less well off get fresh air and exercise, or stuck at home.

 

And those who can't drive for health reasons.

[Nearholmer]

Or, are too young to hold a licence, or, or, or ........

 

Buses can be a force for ‘inclusivity’, and their absence the opposite, is my broad point.

 

And, as councils are squeezed white by austerity measures, inclusivity is going quietly out of the window.

 

Whether or not that is important is a political question, I guess.

[royaloak]

There can be no such thing as 'free' bus travel, somebody, somewhere has to be paying for it!

[62613]

There can be no such thing as 'free' bus travel, somebody, somewhere has to be paying for it!

In the same way we pay for our defence, education, emergency services, NHS (just). Consider it in the same light as an insurance policy. Oh, and everyone pays some tax, unless they're hermits.

[Pandora]

Where public transport infrastructure such as railways buses etc are subsidised by the public via general taxation, would it be the decent thing  to give every taxpayer or citizen  a limited amount of free travel on the subsidised infrastructure ? Free travel which may be considered as  a citizens  benefit.

Provided the access to free travel is reasonable and regulated, what objections could there be to such a benefit?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Pandora

[Butler Henderson]

There is a solution to cutbacks in Councils funding being rolled out by a number of operators as a crowdfunded solution. Started by Transdev Blazefield as a solution for school bus cutbacks in North Yorkshire, its been taken up by Reading Buses and Peoples Bus on Merseyside - all under the Vamooz banner. Probably other operators are doing something similar under different brand names. Someone suggests a service and provided enough subscribe to it the service runs and the more that subscribe the lower the fare becomes.

[hayfield]

Where public transport such as railways buses etc are subsidised by the public via general taxation, would it be the decent thing  to give every taxpayer a limited amount of free travel? Free travel which may be a small allowance  of  free  journeys per annum on the subsidised trains and buses as a citizens  benefit.

 

 

The trouble in doing so it just increases the costs born by those who have to pay for the service. No service is actually free as it is paid for out of one fund or another which gets its income via taxes. Lovely idea but economically unsound.

 

The trouble now is so many things and people are dependant on one form or another of state hand out, which at the end of the day has to be paid for (by us all)

[009 micro modeller]

The other irritating feature of public transport in London is their desire to control services (rail or bus) which run both in and outside Greater London but then running it in such a way that it only benefits those within London. I remember reading about the demise of the Ongar branch of the Central line, in a book on the tube whose title now escapes me. The argument advanced by LU was that if the counties (in this case Essex) wanted to keep the service they would pay any subsidy needed. However I find myself more convinced by the argument that the county councils should not have to pay as it is effectively a rail service which just happens to be part of LU rather than the national network (for which any subsidy would normally come from central government). While I think London Overground is generally having a positive effect I think further expansion of it could produce a similar effect. Incidentally I believe the sale agreement for the Epping Ongar railway originally required the owner to operate a regular public service but this was quietly dropped.

Edited February 16, 2018 by 009 micro modeller

[Andy Hayter]

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

 

David

 

I think you missed some important points:

1:  Compared with the UK fares are cheap, yet some will still use a car.

2:  Travel to (or is it from, I can never remember) work is tax deductible, so you only pay 85% of the return fare anyway if you are  tax payer*  

 

So even in those relatively advantageous situations, people use the car, I doubt how many will switch to public transport.   If you want to make them switch, stuff up the tax on fuel.  

 

I worked 11km from the office and drove every day,  The office then moved and made the journey 100km and I used the company provided benefit to travel by train but when that benefit was consumed, 4  of us got together and car pooled.  With the best will in the world and with the best of services, people are likely to look at the flexibility that a car provides. 

 

Edited to add: * but that applies to the car journey as well and it may be more financially beneficial to use a car.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Andy Hayter