Freedom Pass to become buses only?

[z444z]

Do you think older Londoners should get special treatment because the method of travel they are being given for free isn't fast enough for them?

Yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2026 ==

I would expect this change to result in (modest) increase in car use and some journeys not made, but the cost of both passes is quite a lot per head in financially stretched times.

Preventing a modest increase in car use in London is worth far more than this proposal would save.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is kite-flying, given that Reform UK's candidate for Mayor has talked about getting rid of the Freedom Pass at the same time as getting rid of ULEZ.

Personally, I'd make all pensioner passes, not just in London, half fare only. Like it used to be.

 

[Bayum]

Sorry, I don't understand this - why would there be a need to scan two cards? Surely you'd just scan whatever payment card you were using to pay for the train rather than scanning the Freedom Pass?

Well, you just tap your pass don’t you? So would they show the pass and then tap with their debit card?

 

[Watershed]

Well, you just tap your pass don’t you? So would they show the pass and then tap with their debit card?

Why would you need to show your pass before tapping with a debit card? Who would you be showing the pass to?

 

[cool110]

There’s no credit function on the ENCTS passes

There is in some places

 

[TUC]

Very likely, I would guess. Can't see it leading to an extra £100m year spending on rail and tube fares. Speaking personally, most of my Freedom Pass use is for leisure trips; if I can't go into London for free, likely I'd go somewhere else instead.
This would actually put over 66s in London in a worse position than those in other parts of the country. If you live in Manchester or a rural area, a bus might be a reasonable option to reach your nearest town or city centre, indeed it may be the only option. But buses just aren't a serious form of transport from most London suburbs into the centre, to the point where they are, effectively, unusable. From where I live it would be around two hours to the West End or City.

Strange how London buses are so frequent and so well patronised then.

 

[Watershed]

Strange how London buses are so frequent and so well patronised then.

They are well patronised for local journeys. But very few people will be making long distance journeys on them, it's just too slow. Even living in the middle suburbs (zones 3 or 4) it is ridiculously slow compared to rail-based alternatives. That's not the case in most other cities.

 

[NER1621]

I can see why such a proposal would cause a fuss, but it does seem yet another issue where Londoners are unaware that what they have is not available to most of the rest of the country

Yes, I seem unaccountably to have mislaid my tiny violin. Why do so many Londoners completely lack any self-awareness?

 

[z444z]

They are well patronised for local journeys. But very few people will be making long distance journeys on them, it's just too slow. Even living in the middle suburbs (zones 3 or 4) it is ridiculously slow compared to rail-based alternatives. That's not the case in most other cities.

Some examples, all timings at 5pm today:

Liverpool Street to Woodford (Z4)
21m on Central Line
109m on three buses
5.2x longer

King’s Cross to Walthamstow Central (Z3)
14m on Victoria Line
83m on two buses
5.9x longer

Farringdon to Mill Hill Broadway (Z4)
20m on Thameslink
126m on three buses
6.3x longer

Farringdon to Southall (Z4)
22m on Elizabeth Line
142m on SEVEN buses
6.5x longer

London Bridge to Orpington (Z6)
16m on Southeastern
123m on two buses
7.7x longer

Euston to Harrow & Wealdstone (Z5)
11m on WMR
118m on four buses
10.7x longer

 

[Taunton]

I find this inconsistent because, as part of the Covid deal with TfL, they gave up 24x7 validity to exclude the morning peak, which one was given to believe was a considerable element of the total. This must surely have therefore led to reduced spending for the boroughs. But not a word said then, and it was all TfL complaining about it

 

[Harratt4]

I don't think this is unreasonable at all - working people cannot continue to fund pensioner's every whim!

If you are retired, why are you in a rush to get to places? You have all the time in the world! If you are in a rush a need a faster journey, perhaps you should be paying for that extra service.

Perhaps the extra rail fares could be paid out of the gold plated, triple locked pension increases.

This wont be a popular opinion, but in an aging population, I am afraid that pensioners have to start paying their way. And no, they didn't "pay in for it when they were at work" they paid for the previous generation of pensioners concessions, during a time when the ratio of working age people paying taxes to pensioners was far smaller. Perhaps they should have fixed the system for the future then, when they had the chance. It wasn't like the demographic time bomb wasn't very obviously ticking in the corner for the past 30 years.

That said, I wouldn't object to a voluntary top up to add rail fares or pensioners being charged a concessionary rate as has been mentioned above.

 

[Haywain]

Some examples, all timings at 5pm today:

Meanwhile, the rest of the country rarely has the rail option for journeys of similar distance, and often doesn't have any sort of realistic bus option.

Perhaps the extra rail fares could be paid out of the gold plated, triple locked pension increases.

The state pension isn't as generous as you seem to think. Pensioners who can afford a good lifestyle are usually in that position because they paid for it when they were in work by paying in to a private or company pension scheme.

 

[styles]

Well such a move, as unpopular as it may be, would in fact level up the pass availability to match those older person passes issued by councils in the provences.

As example: older person pass holders in say Twyford, Berkshire can't use their passes on the Elizabeth line so why does the reverse apply for those passes issued by London Councils and valid right out into Berkshire?

While true, I think I would prefer the opposite outcome - that other LAs/operators expand pass acceptance to rail services. I am not actually that passionate about it though, most likely because I am three decades away from becoming eligible. Also rail does have the Senior Railcard, ScotRail has the Club 50 card, TfW has the concessionary tickets, etc.

I do think in London some journeys, especially crossing the river, can be made much more difficult by such a move though.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

London is a region and it seems that you are choosing to ignore that your local town centre (based on your location of Purley) - the thing that most of the country has for shopping and entertainment - isn’t central London but Croydon.

Last theatre in Croydon closed about ten years ago; a couple of nasty multiplex cinemas, a few indifferent pubs. Why would I want to have a night out in Croydon when central London offers so much more?
CL

 

[Harratt4]

The state pension isn't as generous as you seem to think.

Over the past decade, the UK State Pension has increased at a significantly faster rate than average earnings due to the government's "triple lock" policy. According to the IFS "Had the value of the state pension grown in line with either prices or earnings since 2011, it would now (report published in 2023) be around 11% lower than it is – a full new state pension would be worth around £180 per week, compared with the actual current amount of £204 per week. Compared with the state pension rising in line with prices or earnings, the government now spends an additional £11 billion per year on state pensions as a result of the triple lock.

A £200 sum from 2015 would be worth approximately £270.40 today (2026) if it had increased in line with average UK earnings, but approximately £327.90 if it had increased at the same rate as the UK state pension due to the triple lock policy.

Seems pretty generous to me...

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Strange how London buses are so frequent and so well patronised then.

They are but they are absolutely useless for journeys from zones 5/6 to central London. From where I live it would take two hours, assuming no untoward traffic delays, and would need a change of bus. Train does the equivalent run in 25 minutes or so. On a bad day a bus might take three hours.

 

[Harratt4]

Last theatre in Croydon closed about ten years ago; a couple of nasty multiplex cinemas, a few indifferent pubs. Why would I want to have a night out in Croydon when central London offers so much more?
CL

Did it - seemed pretty open when I visited it last year, and my parents later last year: https://www.fairfield.co.uk.

You've only just missed the opportunity to go to the panto

 

[z444z]

Meanwhile, the rest of the country rarely has the rail option for journeys of similar distance, and often doesn't have any sort of realistic bus option.

Sure, let’s improve that too instead of taking things away from people in London and encouraging them into cars with disastrous effects for traffic and environmental goals?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Did it - seemed pretty open when I visited it last year, and my parents later last year: https://www.fairfield.co.uk.

You've only just missed the opportunity to go to the panto

Proper theatre, like the old Croydon Warehouse, not pantos and musicals past their sell-by date...

 

[RJ]

And I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of going back to paying eye-watering Zone 1-6 train fares. Khan - or any Labour successor - will not be getting my vote if this comes to fruition. In fact, I might well move out of London - council tax would be lower and I'd probably make a bit of a capital gain by selling my property and getting a cheaper one.

It's understandable that nobody would vote for a reduction in benefits and I personally wouldn't advocate a reduction in benefits for those who are 60+.

But looking at the bigger picture, Londoner's have had access to the 60+ Oyster card since 2012. Is it typical elsewhere in the country for any free travel to be given between the ages of 60 and pension age? The rail mode benefits are also a considerable perk over and above the free bus entitlement, which not every area gets. Some ENCTS passes give a discount on rail travel, but there are probably only a few isolated examples of free rail travel.

Buses may be slow, but frequencies and operating hours across London far surpass what's offered elsewhere in the UK. It's a valuable service which sees more daily trips than any of the rail modes in London. The London/TfL free travel schemes in their current form are far more generous than any other concessionary travel scheme in place for those aged 60+.

Sometimes in life, you do well out of schemes which have to come to an end because they become unsustainable for someone else to cover. I've participated in "outstanding value" schemes of many kinds over the years and know that each and every one has a shelf life, and when that day comes I appreciate what I got out of it.

 

[Haywain]

Why would I want to have a night out in Croydon when central London offers so much more?

If it offers so much more why would you object to paying to get there?

 

[Taunton]

The settlement is based on trying to restore TfL and non-TfL owned TOCs to the position they would have been if the passes didn't exist. Instead of the journey cost it's discounted to factor in that not all travel would take place if it wasn't free to the pass holder. £100 million is roughly £100 per pass which isn't a lot of trips.

As the London Councils are paying for any of their residents who do go to Twyford or Reading where those councils don't pay TfL for their residents to be able to travel on their services.

The validity along the entire Elizabeth line is a primary legislation thing. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 section 243 requires all railway services are treated the same for freedom pass validity. To remove Twyford from the area of validity requires at a minimum removing all Elizabeth line and Overground service validity. It's not ideal, but it's unlikely to be a legislative priority and won't make much of a saving.

I don't know how use of the Elizabeth to Reading etc is accounted for, but it's not per journey as the cards do not work the ticket gates outside London, in or out, you just have to wave them at the gateline staff, who do not record them. So there must be just some overall averaged payment - if any. As there's no concern over incomplete journeys, touched in within London but not touched out beyond the boundary, I suspect the same much applies for the rest of the financial calculation.

I was actually peripherally involved in a pioneer elderly pass scheme, on the city buses in Edinburgh, way back in 1973. The actual operator payment involved then was - nil. It was just calculated that usage was principally off peak and just used spare capacity, which it was more cost effective to just keep running rather than substitute smaller vehicles outside the peak. When implemented we found it didn't make a measurable difference to revenue, and some initial novelty overloading soon died away. This is a common sort of transit cost calculation; the bus service in those times still made a positive contribution to regional council receipts, despite the fares just being in pennies. I doubt any additional rail capacity is provided in London to handle these pass holders, in the same way as other groups (TfL staff; police officers) do not cause it, and thus can't see any cost savings from it being withdrawn.

 

[Haywain]

Sure, let’s improve that too instead of taking things away from people in London and encouraging them into cars with disastrous effects for traffic and environmental goals?

I agree that improvements elsewhere is the ideal answer but those living in London regularly fail to appreciate how good their public transport is.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

If it offers so much more why would you object to paying to get there?

Because my taxes and council tax have gone into paying for this scheme for the past 40 years, but now it's going to be taken away, just at the point where I expected to gain the benefit of it.
CL

 

[Haywain]

Because my taxes and council tax have gone into paying for this scheme for the past 40 years, but now it's going to be taken away, just at the point where I expected to gain the benefit of it.
CL

But you haven't been paying for your use of the scheme for the past 40 years, and if it is changed you won't be paying for it in future.

 

[Harratt4]

But you haven't been paying for your use of the scheme for the past 40 years, and if it is changed you won't be paying for it in future.

100% this - as I said above, perhaps the current generation of pensioners should have sorted out the massively predictable problem when they were the generation "in power" rather than shirking it, leaving the next to sort out then complaining when they don't like the solution that those it was left to come up with.

Importantly - I address this collectively to the current generation as a whole - not to you personally - obviously!

 

[Shimbleshanks]

But you haven't been paying for your use of the scheme for the past 40 years, and if it is changed you won't be paying for it in future.

I don't think my taxes/council tax are going to magically fall because the scheme isn't in operation any more.

 

[Haywain]

I don't think my taxes/council tax are going to magically fall because the scheme isn't in operation any more.

I doubt they will, but you'll have the consolation that you're not paying for free rail travel for the people of Greater London.

 

[Harratt4]

I don't think my taxes/council tax are going to magically fall because the scheme isn't in operation any more.

No, because they are needed to pay for all of the new demands on the exchequer as a result of a rapidly aging population where the ratio of working age to retired is massively out of kilter (amongst other things, I accept).

Your position suggests that such a move would result in the public sector having a surplus of money as a result of this change when in reality it is going towards plugging the hole in the bucket.

The money saved will help to fund the social care needs of the current generation of pensioners will need - none of which was or indeed promised would be covered by taxes paid during their working lives.

Social care is not healthcare provided by the NHS into which people's national insurance notionally pays.

 

[bakerstreet]

Currently, the tubes and rail services seem to be able to cope with the capacity demands placed upon them by the free travel offer to 60+ / 66/67+ users in London.

Meanwhile, bus capacity in London has been steadily and significantly reduced over the past 5 to 6 years or so.

If those who use the free rail / tube travel at the moment switch to buses instead, might bus levels / frequencies need to be increased to cope with rising demand?

Which could end up costing more than it saves.

Unless rail/tube frequencies are reduced commensurately.

It also means older users may venture out less, reducing their health and well-being, costing more to the NHS.

In addition, and only as an example, with the planned pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and many older people growing into positions of increased accessibility needs, and with tube stations providing the most accessibility if buses are moved away from Oxford Street, this could have many undesirable unintended consequences.

Perhaps there are other undesirable unintended consequences to this potential move.