Free public transport for all...

[scifisam]

Because lots of teenagers treat buses as mobile youth clubs - ride on them all evening making a racket with their mobile phones, taking up seats, swearing, spitting, drinking, smoking, paying no heed to admonitions and generally being aggressive. Before free travel they behaved much the same, but only if they were travelling somewhere, so it was for a limited period. Many drivers I've spoken to are driven to despair by the goings-on.

Ah, I see what you mean.

For me as a parent the free transport has been great, though, not so much for money savings (because we always got an add on to a family travelcard, which cost hardly anything), but because of the queues. Due to people fraudulently buying child tickets from machines, they took all the child options away from them, so all the kids and parents had to queue. It was ridiculous, and probably extremely annoying for anyone who (for whatever reason) had to buy a ticket by hand to get to work, and found themselves stuck behind six eight-year-olds for half an hour.

I reckon that's why they made travel free for kids (though it still isn't on overland trains or the DLR); nothing to do with being nice to kids, it just makes it much simpler to administer Oyster and reduce fraud.

 

[Isambard]

Maybe that's why nobody's come up with such an asinine policy to date?

Except when Labour won elections in London and South Yorkshire based on exactly these kind of policies.

Services have to be paid for. The fact that the UK is terrified of investment is the reason that the bloody place is crumbling into the sea.

I'm a voter. I'd be be prepared to pay more tax in return for reducing public transpot fares at the point of use in the direction of zero.

Whether politicians (of any of the partes) can be trusted to hold their side of the deal for the extra tax revenue is of course a case in point.

 

[Cobbles]

Except when Labour won elections in London and South Yorkshire based on exactly these kind of policies.

Services have to be paid for. The fact that the UK is terrified of investment is the reason that the bloody place is crumbling into the sea.

I'm a voter. I'd be be prepared to pay more tax in return for reducing public transpot fares at the point of use in the direction of zero.

Whether politicians (of any of the partes) can be trusted to hold their side of the deal for the extra tax revenue is of course a case in point.

London has public transport that's free at the point of use? - Why did I have to shell out fo the tube at the week-end? - are you actually saying "at one tiny point in time, London had subsidised public tansport until the tax bills made voters realise what a crock that policy was".

Similarly South Yorkshire may have had a cheap fare policy (subsidised by taxpayers) but that was consigned to the dustbin of history by a change of government (voted in by tapayers fed up with high taxes funding stuff they couldn't use).

 

[Isambard]

You wanna stop sniffin' the petrol you dribble Cobbles.

South Yorkshire's move to make public transport cheaper at the point of use was scuppered by Margaret Thatcher privatising bus services and abolishing the SY County Council against local wishes.

The GLCs move to make public transport cheaper at the point of use was scuppered by a partisan High Court judgement bought by the London Borough of Bromley and the abolition of the GLC against local wishes.

No, for adults there are no free fares at the point of use in London right now.
The way the oyster system can work however shows illustrates the principle: Where the journey is already "paid for" and there is no marginal dis-incentive at the point of travel, people will make marginally more use of available public transport.

 

[Cobbles]

You wanna stop sniffin' the petrol you dribble Cobbles.

South Yorkshire's move to make public transport cheaper at the point of use was scuppered by Margaret Thatcher privatising bus services and abolishing the SY County Council against local wishes.

Local goverment receives its block grant from Central Government which comes from??????

An Electorate.....

If South Yorks didn't like that, all they had to do was find oil and declare UDI.

The GLCs move to make public transport cheaper at the point of use was scuppered by a partisan High Court judgement bought by the London Borough of Bromley and the abolition of the GLC against local wishes.

See above. Why should I (in Edinburgh) pay to subsidise public transport in any other city? Similarly, who voted in the administration in Bromley who won the High Court action - penguins? - no - an electorate. Last time I looked, the courts were not partisan or prone to political interference - Ken shouldn't have wasted public funds trying to defend his illegal position.

No, for adults there are no free fares at the point of use in London right now.
The way the oyster system can work however shows illustrates the principle: Where the journey is already "paid for" and there is no marginal dis-incentive at the point of travel, people will make marginally more use of available public transport.

The more it's used, the more it'll cost. Taxpayers will revolt (or simply take their wealth, spending power and taxes elsewhere) and the freeloaders will have to start paying again.

The only country that has or ever will have "free at the point of use public transport" is la-la land.

 

[Isambard]

Central to moving public transport in the direction of free at point of use is a fair local taxation system (for individuals and businesses) and local autonomy in local taxation.

The London Borough of Bromley won their court case on the fact that although they were paying to subsidise London underground fares the borough had no underground services.

The north/south historical divide in London with regard to which areas had underground services had aleady been recognised by Ken Livingstone who offered monies to BR so that all of london could have the same deal. Thatcher threatened to take away penny for penny any money BR received from the GLC from their general budget.

It was due to political spite from the Evil One and nothing else.


Moving towards public transport that is free at the point of use is about recognising mobility as a public good that can benefit the whole of society.
if the cost of public transport are increasingly borne by a fair tax base and the transport is increasingly free at the point of use, who is "free loading" ?

 

[Fez909]

I like the idea of free public transport and I think it could work.

Some of the issues raised about increased demand could easily be solved with restraints on the free transport. Proposal:

Free public transport for all, regardless of age on the following terms:

One return bus, rail or tram journey per day which does not exceed 5 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per week which does not exceed 50 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per month which does not exceed 100 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per year anywhere in the UK.

A journey can be broken up, like the system currently in place on return train journeys, and they cannot be bought/sold/swapped etc.

Obviously this is not without it's flaws, too, but it's one way of addressing the increase in demand - which I'd imagine would be limited to the first few weeks/months of the scheme being introduced. (Has attendance for museums/art galleries and such sustained high levels since they were all made free? Not a great comparison, but the only thing I can think of.)

 

[untethered]

Free public transport for all, regardless of age on the following terms:

One return bus, rail or tram journey per day which does not exceed 5 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per week which does not exceed 50 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per month which does not exceed 100 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per year anywhere in the UK.

It's a nice idea, but this of course implies that you have to have a smartcard system and all the overheads/privacy concerns that go with it. Plus, of course, paid ticketing for people that want to use more than their free quota.

One of the benefits of free travel is that you can remove that whole thing.

There is also an important psychological benefit of making the whole thing literally free (yes, yes, at the point of use). To actually give people the "freedom" of the country/their city would change the way people look at public services. That doesn't work if there are still restrictions on it and teams of people employed to look at everyone's "papers".

On a pragmatic point, though, I'd rather go with those limitations than carry on in the existing way.

There are also implications for station design, etc. Removing ticketing facilities frees up a lot of space. It even saves power!

On the buses, a benefit is that you reduce the "dwell time" that the vehicle waits at stops. That's already been quite reduced with Oyster cards etc. (though the whole country doesn't have them) but it could go further.

One downside, as per the complaints about children making a nuisance of themselves, is that it becomes very difficult to regulate people's misuse of the system.

Still a serious debate (and campaign!) about moving public transport as far as possible to being free at the point of use is very much welcomed.

 

[Cobbles]

I like the idea of free public transport and I think it could work.

Some of the issues raised about increased demand could easily be solved with restraints on the free transport. Proposal:

Free public transport for all, regardless of age on the following terms:

One return bus, rail or tram journey per day which does not exceed 5 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per week which does not exceed 50 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per month which does not exceed 100 miles.
One return b, r, or t journey per year anywhere in the UK.

A journey can be broken up, like the system currently in place on return train journeys, and they cannot be bought/sold/swapped etc.

Obviously this is not without it's flaws, too, but it's one way of addressing the increase in demand - which I'd imagine would be limited to the first few weeks/months of the scheme being introduced. (Has attendance for museums/art galleries and such sustained high levels since they were all made free? Not a great comparison, but the only thing I can think of.)

If you live in Norfolk or on Colonsay, will transport be provided to get you to a bus stop?

 

[fredfelt]

If you live in Norfolk or on Colonsay, will transport be provided to get you to a bus stop?

Yeah, get a bike. Proivde somewhere to park it, and cycle tracks to get to the bus stop. No problem

 

[Cobbles]

Yeah, get a bike. Proivde somewhere to park it, and cycle tracks to get to the bus stop. No problem

There's no cycle track from Colonsay to the nearest railway station.

 

[teuchter]

There's no cycle track from Colonsay to the nearest railway station.

In the interests of accuracy ... there is a ferry to the nearest railway station, at Oban.

 

[fredfelt]

There's no cycle track from Colonsay to the nearest railway station.

Cobbles, In an earlier post I was saying that I don't support free public transport as oil powered transport is energny intensvie.

But I am all for investing in a decent infractructure which reduces the need for oil powered transport. Part of which should be decent cycle paths.

I have no idea where Colonsay is, but if you are concerned about the absence of cycle paths in this area I suggest you join a local cycle campaign group who will be able to help.

 

[Cobbles]

In the interests of accuracy ... there is a ferry to the nearest railway station, at Oban.

Great, so we need to include free bicycles (to get to the bus/train stop if it's more than, say half a mile from our front door), as well as free ferry tickets.

I imagine that managing such a scheme should only add about 3 or 4 billion quid a year to the actual cost of travel so let's call it an extra grand a year on the average tax bill.

 

[teuchter]

Great, so we need to include free bicycles (to get to the bus/train stop if it's more than, say half a mile from our front door), as well as free ferry tickets.

I imagine that managing such a scheme should only add about 3 or 4 billion quid a year to the actual cost of travel so let's call it an extra grand a year on the average tax bill.

You would have to bear in mind the fact that the ferry service is already heavily subsidised.

 

[Cobbles]

I have no idea where Colonsay is, but if you are concerned about the absence of cycle paths in this area I suggest you join a local cycle campaign group who will be able to help.

I don't think so - it's an island. Whilst many such groups may prattle on about "building bridges", in the case of creatin a cycle path from Colonsa to Oban, that's what'd be needed - a bridge.

It's all very well droning on about tat like free public transport but let's not forget that large areas of the UK don't have any accessible "public" transport at all so why should something that will only ever be a convenience for urban dwellers have to be paid for by everyone whether or not they'll ever get to use it?

 

[soulman]

I don't think so - it's an island. Whilst many such groups may prattle on about "building bridges", in the case of creatin a cycle path from Colonsa to Oban, that's what'd be needed - a bridge.

It's all very well droning on about tat like free public transport but let's not forget that large areas of the UK don't have any accessible "public" transport at all so why should something that will only ever be a convenience for urban dwellers have to be paid for by everyone whether or not they'll ever get to use it?

You have a point however a commitment to free public transport for all would by it's very inclusiveness mean a commitment to either increasing services in rural areas or creating them where they no longer exist.

 

[Isambard]

but let's not forget that large areas of the UK don't have any accessible "public" transport at all so why should something that will only ever be a convenience for urban dwellers have to be paid for by everyone whether or not they'll ever get to use it?

Something like 85% (can't remember a source sorry but if i ever find it I'm goinng to hold onto it) live within walking distance of an hourly public transport service. Becaause even in more rural areas, people live along radial routes and in nodes to a lage extent.

There are a number of ways that public transport services can be and are provided to communities tat are are more spatial.

A proposal to move towards zero charges for public transport at the point of use can really only work coupled with a fair local taxation system and local taxation autonomy.

So your "argument" falls flt on it its arse. Again.

What you are really scared about Cobbles is that the people of Edinburgh might decide to subsidise public transport out of your local taxes and we know how you view the "pikies" that use your local buses.

 

[soulman]

In a BBC poll released today 60% favoured a local income tax rather than the council tax - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6425599.stm

 

[fredfelt]

I don't think so - it's an island. Whilst many such groups may prattle on about "building bridges", in the case of creatin a cycle path from Colonsa to Oban, that's what'd be needed - a bridge.

It's all very well droning on about tat like free public transport but let's not forget that large areas of the UK don't have any accessible "public" transport at all so why should something that will only ever be a convenience for urban dwellers have to be paid for by everyone whether or not they'll ever get to use it?

To answer your question with another - TFL reported that 85% of all journies to the centre of London were NOT done by car. Is it fair that for that for those 15% of people who are car dependant just about every public space is full with cars?

Is it fair that everyone, not just the 15%, have to put up with the polution, noise, accidents, and general uglyness caused by the city being swamped by cars?

Still not suggesting that public transport should be free, just much cheaper than the car.

 

[J@ffa]

One downside, as per the complaints about children making a nuisance of themselves, is that it becomes very difficult to regulate people's misuse of the system.

Surely it could be done so there were conductors on every bus, or Transport police handy? That way, if anyone's done anything actually wrong they can be prosecuted? I'm sure the people who get free child fares now and are banned just get on anyway, bus drivers are hardly going to be expected to remember everyone who's banned.

 

[Cobbles]

Something like 85% (can't remember a source sorry but if i ever find it I'm goinng to hold onto it) live within walking distance of an hourly public transport service. Becaause even in more rural areas, people live along radial routes and in nodes to a lage extent.

What proportion live within the same range of a quarter hourly route with a choice of destinations? 10%? An hourly service that only runs to a local town hub is utterly useless in terms of providing mobility.

There are a number of ways that public transport services can be and are provided to communities tat are are more spatial.

Such as? Post buses that run twice a day - wowee!

A proposal to move towards zero charges for public transport at the point of use can really only work coupled with a fair local taxation system and local taxation autonomy.

Something that no political party with any chance of running a non-coalition Government currently espouses and therefore merely a pipe dream.

What you are really scared about Cobbles is that the people of Edinburgh might decide to subsidise public transport out of your local taxes and we know how you view the "pikies" that use your local buses.

There's no reason for public transport to suck up any subsidy at all - selection of a mode of transport is a matter of personal choice so why should some people be shielded from the true cost of the mode that they choose?

 

[Isambard]

Been pointed out above that there is widespread support for a local income tax scheme. Sooner or later we need to break the impasse of the FPTP electoral system as part of a general constitutional overhall that I think should see more powers devolved regionally and to local communities.

Moving towards free public transport at the point of use is something that local communities can decide on. It doesn't have to be a blanket solution. If one district finds it appropriate, they can go for it, while their neighbours needn't.

For the minority of the population that live in the more rural areas with a lower level of public transport there are schemes to try and improve that and yes, Postbus is one of them. Alongside community transport projects, "wiggle bus" schemes, taxi schemes, opening school buses to the public and and and.....

As for the "true cost"; why should people who travel by bus or train bear the cost of the pollution brought about by cars? A move towards public transport free at the point of use recognises mobility as a public good, not just a product to be bought.