Freedom Pass to become buses only?

[sheff1]

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.

Most other cities don’t have the large shopping, services, eating etc areas which are commonplace in London’s middle suburbs.

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

People in Rotherham might prefer a night out in Sheffield for the same reason. They don’t get free travel from 60 years to do that. Same with other provincial cities.

 

[Deerfold]

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

I live 1.5 miles from my nearest town centre. There's not a lot there. It's 19 miles to the nearest decent city centre in Leeds.
Coming back from Leeds at 5pm on the bus takes around 140 minutes with good connections (add another 15 minutes if you're 5 minutes late at Keighley). If you go on the train, with good connections. you can do it in 40 minutes.
Neither has the sort of frequency you get in London (the bus from Leeds is hourly in the evenings, the train half hourly).
3.5x longer.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

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!

I don't think £100 million is going to make much of a dent in the nation's social spending bill.
Another objection is that, if large numbers of over-66s start to use buses instead of trains, it will thrust more of the burden onto them, so existing (paying) bus passengers will suffer in terms of less comfortable journeys, being denied boarding, delays at boarding points etc. Bus passengers tend to be less well off than trains users so the burden will fall disproportionately on the poorer sections of society.

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

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.

Exactly, agree 100%. And it doesn't as I've said above take into account the wider benefits to the economy, well-being etc. In fact, I would go further and say that rail is often in a better position to handle any surges in demand than buses. You can usually stuff a few more passengers onto a train for ten minutes between East Croydon and Clapham Junction without too many ill effects, whereas buses reach their official limit and then start leaving people behind. So putting all the over-66s onto the buses will hurt the paying bus customer first and foremost.

 

[perstreperous]

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.

I wonder why local councils are paying TfL anything in this situation for the reasons you describe, especially given that the scheme was restricted to off-peak a few years ago.

Situations like this are a magnet for wrong/disingenuous/dishonest financial arguments. I am reminded of the dishonest music industry arguments 25 years ago that "everyone who uses Napster to download a music track would have paid for that track if Napster had not existed, therefore the distributor should be compensated for (retail price of track * number of downloads)".

 

[sprunt]

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.

There's nothing to stop councils outside London funding such travel if they choose to. The existence of the free travel in London isn't some munificence bestowed on London that couldn't possibly happen elsewhere, it's simply what the local government for London has decided to spend its money on.

I wonder why local councils are paying TfL anything in this situation for the reasons you describe, especially given that the scheme was restricted to off-peak a few years ago.

Situations like this are a magnet for wrong/disingenuous/dishonest financial arguments. I am reminded of the dishonest music industry arguments 25 years ago that "everyone who uses Napster to download a music track would have paid for that track if Napster had not existed, therefore the distributor should be compensated for (retail price of track * number of downloads)"

Why, given that it's already been pointed out in this thread that the £100 million does not cover the total cost of the journeys made using the 60+ Freedom Pass in recognition of the fact that some of the journeys wouldn't have been made if they needed to be paid for? There's no equivalence.

 

[blimmo]

There's nothing to stop councils outside London funding such travel if they choose to.

Local councils are not in (significant) control of either their income or expenditure. Therefore in reality they are highly dependent on central government providing grants (or allowing additional tax raising powers such as for the Elizabeth line) to actually do things. Consider the Leeds tram vs the Elizabeth line. Both local councils have supported the ideas but the difference between one being built and being hugely successful and the other being repeatedly delayed and cancelled is the approval of central government.

 

[Stephen42]

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

The morning peak was funded by TfL not London Councils and hasn't reduced borough/council spending as a result (if anything it's moved journeys into off peak costing London Councils).

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.

London Councils and TfL have lots of back & forth on the methodology for the figures. It takes into account that not all passes will be touched in, particularly on Tram/DLR where they aren't staff present at the validators.

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.

By that logic all off peak fares could be free for everyone. That would leave a huge hole in the revenue generated which needs to come from somewhere and no one has lots of spare money around to pay for it. The logic only really works for a tiny proportion of users (which freedom pass holders are not) and even then while it doesn't save costs it forgoes revenue which isn't free unless absolutely none of the journeys would have taken place.

 

[TUC]

There's nothing to stop councils outside London funding such travel if they choose to. The existence of the free travel in London isn't some munificence bestowed on London that couldn't possibly happen elsewhere, it's simply what the local government for London has decided to spend its money on.

It still begs the question how London local authorities can afford it when others can't?

 

[Watershed]

It still begs the question how London local authorities can afford it when others can't?

Because housing prices are much higher on average, so a greater proportion of properties fall into higher council tax bands for which more council tax is paid.

It's all well and good saying that council tax for a particular band (e.g. the middle hand D) is lower in most London boroughs than in, say, Middlesbrough but the amount that most people actually pay will be much more comparable, if not higher.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's all well and good saying that council tax for a particular band (e.g. the middle hand D) is lower in most London boroughs than in, say, Middlesbrough but the amount that most people actually pay will be much more comparable, if not higher.

To an extent, although council tax follows the valuations as they were in 1991. Some parts of London were very cheap indeed in 1991.

In Kensington, though, a band F property occupier there will pay roughly the same as a band C property occupier will pay in North Tyneside. Despite the fact that they’re likely to be significantly more wealthy than the person in the north east.

The whole system is fundamentally broken but the people who do well out of it- rich people in rich areas- are the ones with influence. So no government will solve it.

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

It still begs the question how London local authorities can afford it when others can't?

Because reimbursement doesn’t work in the same way in London as it does in non-franchised areas. ENCTS doesn’t apply in London, the Freedom Pass is issued under different legislation with different rules. So it is much cheaper.

Just another benefit of our deregulated bus system in the provinces.

 

[TUC]

Because housing prices are much higher on average, so a greater proportion of properties fall into higher council tax bands for which more council tax is paid.

It's all well and good saying that council tax for a particular band (e.g. the middle hand D) is lower in most London boroughs than in, say, Middlesbrough but the amount that most people actually pay will be much more comparable, if not higher.

The government grants system to local authorities is meant to equalise this effect. It does not seem that is operating very effectively.

 

[Harratt4]

I don't think £100 million is going to make much of a dent in the nation's social spending bill.
Another objection is that, if large numbers of over-66s start to use buses instead of trains, it will thrust more of the burden onto them, so existing (paying) bus passengers will suffer in terms of less comfortable journeys, being denied boarding

Then what else should pensioners give up to pay their way? The working age population cannot afford to keep paying for their largess.

If the bus is full, maybe the pensioners should be told to get off and wait for the next one. They aren’t in a rush, they are retired after all.

 

[tumbledown]

Other appointments exist besides work.

 

[z444z]

Then what else should pensioners give up to pay their way? The working age population cannot afford to keep paying for their largess.

Your fellow working class people are not the problem.

 

[Spamcan81]

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.

I’ve news for you. I’m a pensioner and I still pay tax on my private pension and savings interest.

 

[Agent_Squash]

There is no reason to subside rail travel for pensioners other than to buy votes.

 

[tumbledown]

There is no reason to subside rail travel for pensioners other than to buy votes.

That rather depends on one's values.

 

[Agent_Squash]

That rather depends on one's values.

Equality of access is a reasonable value. Giving the richest pensioners free transport by virtue of being old is rather incompatible with most people’s.

 

[z444z]

Equality of access is a reasonable value. Giving the richest pensioners free transport by virtue of being old is rather incompatible with most people’s.

It’s far more complex than that. I would describe that statement as a gross oversimplification.

Until we have that equality of access, what do you propose? I’d say a scheme incentivising older people, who are statistically more likely to use private motor vehicles, in one of most congested cities in the world and one that is looking to reduce car traffic, to use public transport, is a fantastic use of a relatively small sum of money when it comes to government budgets. And that is far from the only benefit.

 

[TUC]

It’s far more complex than that. I would describe that statement as a gross oversimplification.

Until we have that equality of access, what do you propose? I’d say a scheme incentivising older people, who are statistically more likely to use private motor vehicles, in one of most congested cities in the world and one that is looking to reduce car traffic, to use public transport, is a fantastic use of a relatively small sum of money when it comes to government budgets. And that is far from the only benefit.

And they would still have this, just only by bus.

 

[Watershed]

And they would still have this, just only by bus.

Most people are not going to ditch their car for the bus if they can help it.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Most people are not going to ditch their car for the bus if they can help it.

As an example it takes me ten minutes to drive to the station, the bus takes 30 minutes to Newcastle then it's a ten minute walk to the station from the bus station. Explain why I would take the bus?

 

[Harratt4]

Other appointments exist besides work.

Then schedule them at a time when you can get there by bus - you're retired - you have total freedom to manage your time, or pay a top up and go by train!

Your fellow working class people are not the problem.

But pensioners are not working! Also - I suspect it is a little bit of a stretch to call the retired population "working class" when pensioners hold nearly half of all UK wealth (source: office of national statistics)...
(variations of course exists between individuals)

I’ve news for you. I’m a pensioner and I still pay tax on my private pension and savings interest.

But not enough pensioners do, relative to the working age population. If they did, we wouldn't have this problem.

Most people are not going to ditch their car for the bus if they can help it.

So (some, again this is about a generation not an individual) pensioners can afford to run a car and pay the congestion and ULEZ charges, but they can't / won't afford to buy their train tickets...

I say again - the current generation of pensioners could have been proactive and fixed this absolutely screamingly obvious problem from arising in the way that suited them - but they, collectively, popped it in the "too hard" tray and left it to the next to sort out - well they can hardly now complain that they don't like the solution now.

 

[z444z]

But pensioners are not working!

That’s not what working class means.

 

[Harratt4]

That’s not what working class means.

I edited my post but you were too quick on the draw

I realise that but I don't think the section of the population who hold nearly half of all UK wealth can be easily described as working class. It wasn't how it was defined when I went to school, anyway!

 

[Haywain]

Then schedule them at a time when you can get there by bus - you're retired - you have total freedom to manage your time, or pay a top up and go by train!

Have you tried telling the NHS that the time available for your hospital appointment isn't convenient?

But not enough pensioners do, relative to the working age population. If they did, we wouldn't have this problem.

So, your problem is with pensioners having too much money but simultaneously not paying tax? Where is this money coming from, and how is it being spent on things that avoid taxation?

 

[z444z]

Also - I suspect it is a little bit of a stretch to call the retired population "working class" when pensioners hold nearly half of all UK wealth (source: office of national statistics)...

That still isn’t what working class means.

 

[Harratt4]

Have you tried telling the NHS that the time available for your hospital appointment isn't convenient?

So, your problem is with pensioners having too much money but simultaneously not paying tax? Where is this money coming from, and how are we spending it on things that avoid taxation?

Well on the occasions you have to pay for the train - and actually yes I have and been easily able to get a more convenient time - but I accept I may be an outlier!

And yes my problem is that pensioners have too much money and don't pay enough tax. Although it is true that the relative tax take has resulted in a higher share of pensioners paying income tax, working-age people typically pay a higher overall tax amount due to NICs from which pensioners are generally exempt. Put it this way, if working age people possessed half of the national wealth - we would not be having this discussion!

Any way you cut it - there are not enough working age people in the UK to pay for everything that a rapidly expanding retired population wants, needs and expects (and everyone else but the costs of servicing the retired populations needs are rising faster than the population as a whole (source - my informed opinion, I just haven't researched the figures).

 

[aavm]

A lot of elderly people are socially isolated and lonely. I'd like to see free off peak rail travel for all, not just Londoners. As people have already said, it's little marginal cost.

Over 60s is a nice perk, but once given, it's politically expensive to remove.

Free off peak rail travel for all will just have to wait for...

 

[Harratt4]

That still isn’t what working class means.

Well what does it mean.

In my day, if c20% of the population were hoarding 50% of the wealth of the whole nation, I might have called them the elites...