Bus Fare Cap will be £2 from January

[Man of Kent]

Does anyone have any details on how well this has gone in Norfolk? They are offering 15% off day, weekly and monthly tickets using BSIP funding.

If the scheme in Norfolk is doing well, I'd strongly be onboard with your idea. Not only does it then help regulars but should help more people to become regulars.

Not seen figures for Norfolk, but the low fare experiment in Cornwall, which was supposed to be a national pilot, is well and truly over. The lack of concrete information on what it achieved suggests very much that it was not value for money.

Fare subsidies were unaffordable in the 1970s, with both Labour and Conservative governments of the time railing against them. This scheme is likely to end exactly the same way.

 

[Bungle965]

A reminder, this thread is not meant for another debate around the merits/disadvantages of cash fares! This thread is around the £2 fare cap

 

[BuhSnarf]

Reinstate lost services, primarily, but also increase frequencies where they have reduced. A £2 fare is all very well if there is no useful service or none at all.

It (as per passes) is also unfair to those for whom rail provides their local service.

Urban bus journeys are very affordable - season tickets are extremely cheap (under the cost of two £2 singles per day in most cases). There is little gained by subsidising longer journeys which are primarily for leisure.

Re-instating lost services are unlikely to benefit most of the country like a £2 cap is, it's likely that the routes were lost for a reason - lack of patronage - so essentially you'd just be subsidising buses running mainly empty.

How is it unfair to those who use rail? The bus is already cheaper, it's only going to be £1 cheaper than it currently is and I doubt the rail journey is also costing £3. In fact, rail has ALWAYS been more expensive than the bus so I don't think anyone is choosing the train over the bus based on price, it's based on convenience/time/comfort.

Urban bus journeys may be affordable where you are, but yesterday I had to pick my car up from it's MOT - I took the bus there and was charged £2.90 for what was less than a mile journey, I wouldn't say that's cheap by any means. On getting back I checked the Uber price and it was £4. Not every one using longer journeys is primarily for leisure. Plenty of people take the X7 from Leicester to Northampton for work and that's a two hour journey and there is no rail journey.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Fare subsidies were unaffordable in the 1970s, with both Labour and Conservative governments of the time railing against them.

I don't think we can use the 1970s as the best example.

There is a cost to running a bus service. Either that cost is paid for through the farebox, through taxpayer subsidy, or through a combination of the two. In most cases now it is a combination of the two- adult working-age passengers paying normal fares together with pensioners and disabled people having their fares paid for by the taxpayer.

I don't see how you can say that lower fares are "unaffordable." The cost of running a bus service is being met- where it isn't met, the service doesn't run. The question is whether the cost comes out of a public purse or a private purse.

Lower fares reduce traffic congestion and lower fares attract people into town and city centres for shopping or for leisure. Higher fares do the opposite. We saw that with the low fares policies in the Democratic People's Republic of South Yorkshire in the early 1980s, with the GLC's Fares Fare policy in the mid 1980s, and again under Ken Livingstone as Mayor in the early 2000s. The low fares schemes in London and South Yorkshire in the 1980s were sunk for political reasons, the Thatcherite Conservatives considering something like low-priced public transport as a bit too communist for their liking. Anyone aged over 30 seen on a bus has failed at life, after all.

Given how moribund high street shopping now is, and given how badly the hospitality sector is struggling, my view is that lowering public transport fares is a way of tempting people out of their cars and back into city centres. Has to be better than what we have now, charging people a fortune for public transport and then wondering why everyone stays at home.

There is little gained by subsidising longer journeys which are primarily for leisure.

Again, depends how holistically you look at it.

Lower fares drag people out of their cars. All those people sat on a Coastliner bus paying £2 to go to Scarborough are people not sitting in a car in the A64 car park.

Lower fares give people more money to spend in their destination. All those people paying £2 instead of £12 have an extra tenner to spend when they get to Scarborough. It's a tenner they're giving to the fish and chip shop or the cafe owner or whoever. Multiply that effect for a family. Lower fares probably achieves more than the recent VAT cut for that.

Rural services are inevitably longer distance and rural poverty is a massive issue. These services are already heavily subsidised so, really, the net additional cost of the reduced fare isn't that much. Five people paying £2 or one person paying £10, it's all the same in the end.

But these rural services are also sometimes the ones that are popular with tourists and how do you distinguish? Take the X18 which winds its way up the Northumberland coast from Newcastle to Alnwick and then on to Berwick. Yes, in summer it is full of tourists, but it is also the only bus service and the only lifeline for villages like Craster or Bamburgh.

I'd say the £2 cap is more justifiable than ENCTS...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re-instating lost services are unlikely to benefit most of the country like a £2 cap is, it's likely that the routes were lost for a reason - lack of patronage - so essentially you'd just be subsidising buses running mainly empty.

I don't think we should be "benefitting most of the country". We should be targetting support to where it is most needed.

How is it unfair to those who use rail? The bus is already cheaper, it's only going to be £1 cheaper than it currently is and I doubt the rail journey is also costing £3. In fact, rail has ALWAYS been more expensive than the bus so I don't think anyone is choosing the train over the bus based on price, it's based on convenience/time/comfort.

There are lots of places where there is no bus service and the sole local transport option is rail (or car).

One notable example is the Conwy Valley, where there is no £2 cap as it's Wales, but free passes are valid on the rail service as there is no bus service.

Urban bus journeys may be affordable where you are, but yesterday I had to pick my car up from it's MOT - I took the bus there and was charged £2.90 for what was less than a mile journey, I wouldn't say that's cheap by any means. On getting back I checked the Uber price and it was £4. Not every one using longer journeys is primarily for leisure. Plenty of people take the X7 from Leicester to Northampton for work and that's a two hour journey and there is no rail journey.

I don't see a huge problem in a flat fare type context of overcharging a bit for short journeys. Under a mile and unless disabled you really should be walking anyway; making short distance bus journeys cheap does not contribute positively to public health. If elderly or disabled you'll have some sort of pass.

Do "plenty of people" really commute from Leicester to Northampton by bus? I'd probably suggest that that's a case where people getting jobs more locally or moving house might be a more laudable aim than giving them a cheap commute, though if they bought a monthly bus season ticket they'd get a cheap commute commercially anyway, these are normally superb value.

 

[BuhSnarf]

1) I don't think we should be "benefitting most of the country". We should be targetting support to where it is most needed.

2) There are lots of places where there is no bus service and the sole local transport option is rail (or car).

One notable example is the Conwy Valley, where there is no £2 cap as it's Wales, but free passes are valid on the rail service as there is no bus service.

3) I don't see a huge problem in a flat fare type context of overcharging a bit for short journeys. Under a mile and unless disabled you really should be walking anyway; making short distance bus journeys cheap does not contribute positively to public health. If elderly or disabled you'll have some sort of pass.

4) Do "plenty of people" really commute from Leicester to Northampton by bus? I'd probably suggest that that's a case where people getting jobs more locally or moving house might be a more laudable aim than giving them a cheap commute, though if they bought a monthly bus season ticket they'd get a cheap commute commercially anyway, these are normally superb value.

1) This is a measure to help with cost of living and is going to be funded centrally, so yes it should be at the benefit of the most amount of people possible - like any public spending.

2) I'm not sure that this is relevant to this situation. If there is the demand for a bus service it is likely that an operator would pick it up commercially or a council would subsidise it. If there is already a rail link this goes back in to your argument that the transport should complement each other, so the people can use the train?

3) You might not see a problem with it, but for families on a small income a £1 each trip reduction can certainly help as they will find the current £3 fee high. Disabled people are some of those that are potentially in that vulnerable group so may not have sufficient funds to pay for it even for small journeys. I took the bus as I was on my lunch break and so needed to get back for work, there's plenty of reasons why a customer wishes to use the bus.

4) I'm unsure on figures but it's enough to maintain a bus service (and doubled with the X3 to Market Harborough) and is usually pretty rammed at peak working hours so yes, I'd assume many do rely on the route. If you increase the cap on the route, maybe they then up that to £5/6 for a single which in turn pushes up the weekly/monthly ticket saver tickets and suddenly they don't become such good value.

I'm not sure why you want people to pay more - other than to suit your agenda of opening up random lost routes which would likely cost much more money and benefit much less people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1) This is a measure to help with cost of living and is going to be funded centrally, so yes it should be at the benefit of the most amount of people possible - like any public spending.

I fundamentally disagree. Public spending should be targetted at need, not at the majority. The majority, generally, will be able to live their lives without much subsidy.

2) I'm not sure that this is relevant to this situation. If there is the demand for a bus service it is likely that an operator would pick it up commercially or a council would subsidise it. If there is already a rail link this goes back in to your argument that the transport should complement each other, so the people can use the train?

Yes, they should use the train, and thus it's unfair that only one mode is in receipt of fare subsidy (or free passes). I have never supported the cap or indeed ENCTS etc for that reason. A much better system is a zonal one offering free/discounted local travel on all modes (potentially even taxi where there is no bus service at all), but unlike doing it by County Council one zoned based on where people actually go (e.g. people in Ormskirk go to Liverpool rather than Lancaster).

I'm not sure why you want people to pay more - other than to suit your agenda of opening up random lost routes which would likely cost much more money and benefit much less people.

I want my taxes targetted at need, not simply at the majority. See also stuff like winter fuel payments on which the Government should have held their nerve. If people can afford to pay more (as I can for instance) they should pay more. And people who are making one-mile journeys should walk.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I fundamentally disagree. Public spending should be targetted at need, not at the majority. The majority, generally, will be able to live their lives without much subsidy.

Yes, they should use the train, and thus it's unfair that only one mode is in receipt of fare subsidy (or free passes). I have never supported the cap or indeed ENCTS etc for that reason. A much better system is a zonal one offering free/discounted local travel on all modes (potentially even taxi where there is no bus service at all), but unlike doing it by County Council one zoned based on where people actually go (e.g. people in Ormskirk go to Liverpool rather than Lancaster).

I want my taxes targetted at need, not simply at the majority. See also stuff like winter fuel payments on which the Government should have held their nerve. If people can afford to pay more (as I can for instance) they should pay more. And people who are making one-mile journeys should walk.

This is targeted at need, it will help those that need it the most across the whole country without being overly complicated.

So far from what I've read your suggestions would help a very small amount of people in a small part of the country. Increasing a frequency does not help with cost of living. How is what you're proposing going to help with the cost of living?

I am happy that you're able to pay more and maybe that explains your position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So far from what I've read your suggestions would help a very small amount of people in a small part of the country. Increasing a frequency does not help with cost of living. How is what you're proposing going to help with the cost of living?

£2 bus fares will help the cost of living of relatively few who aren't already on some sort of pass. Most people commuting will have weekly or monthly tickets which typically cost about 4-5 quid per day anyway.

I think it is performative to be honest and a poor use of money, poorly targetted, not means tested and unfair to those who lack the option to go by bus.

And I'm sorry but I lack sympathy for people complaining of the cost of going under a mile by bus/taxi unless disabled or elderly (for whom it's free anyway). Walk! It's twenty minutes. If you want convenience/laziness be willing to pay, not be subsidised.

 

[BuhSnarf]

And I'm sorry but I lack sympathy for people complaining of the cost of going under a mile by bus/taxi unless disabled or elderly (for whom it's free anyway). Walk! It's twenty minutes. If you want convenience/laziness be willing to pay, not be subsidised.

Going by taxi is not free for those who are disabled.

There are also many conditions/illnesses that aren't classed as a disability where walking even just a mile can be difficult. I'm not sure you should tar everyone who cannot walk as lazy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going by taxi is not free for those who are disabled.

There are also many conditions/illnesses that aren't classed as a disability where walking even just a mile can be difficult. I'm not sure you should tar everyone who cannot walk as lazy.

Then the right thing to do is to expand free travel to those people (and include things like taxi travel to railheads and bus equivalent for those without bus services). Not to give discounts to people who could and should walk (to considerable public health benefit).

In short, this money needs to be well-targetted, not generalised.

 

[Mike395]

Then the right thing to do is to expand free travel to those people. Not to give discounts to people who could and should walk (to considerable public health benefit).

In short, this money needs to be well-targetted, not generalised.

But without a reform of the health and social care system which would be far more costly than what's being proposed here, those people can't be targeted. The UK doesn't have a concept of 'registering as disabled' in the general sense, there are a large number of mildly disabled people (myself included) who take no Government subsidy, and care about having access to cheap, reliable local public transport without having to jump through hoops.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Simple economics is that banning cash speeds up boarding and therefore speeds up journeys, making them more competitive with car. Also, over a day that time saving can equate to less driver and vehicle resource being needed and less cost to the operator of processing and banking the cash, making services more financially viable to operate. There's also the reduced emissions from less sitting at bus stops.

Depends on the circumstances as mentioned before. A cash in hand fare can be quicker than finding a card or pass and waiting for the machine to register it.

Buying any ticket, because it needs issuing, takes ages on Stagecoach and even Ticketeer machines are still painfully slow compared to London.

Stagecoach are moving to Ticketer, which will give them the option to do Tap On Tap Off.

Tap-on with the £2 fare cap also largely means tap-off isn't necessary, speeding up journeys further. Look how much faster More are at boarding as most just tap.

Again, depends on the circumstance.

A proper £2 cap and full cashless fares would position bus services to be as competitive as possible on cost and journey time, which would hopefully boost patronage and undo the damage the increase to £3 has done. It would also increase driver safety as they wouldn't be carrying change around.

As mentioned before, cashless fares would put up barriers to those who need the fare cap the most.

But these rural services are also sometimes the ones that are popular with tourists and how do you distinguish? Take the X18 which winds its way up the Northumberland coast from Newcastle to Alnwick and then on to Berwick. Yes, in summer it is full of tourists, but it is also the only bus service and the only lifeline for villages like Craster or Bamburgh.

Craster and Bamburgh are also served by Borders Buses service 0418.

On the topic of Coastliner, it also provides a cheap service for those living in villages along the A64 to their nearest town or city. I've noticed people who lock their bikes up at bus stops on the A64 and catch the Coastliner into Malton or York. The £2 fare cap will further open up opportunities for these people to have cheap and frequent travel into towns and cities. Coastliner is only one example of this.

 

[BuhSnarf]

But without a reform of the health and social care system which would be far more costly than what's being proposed here, those people can't be targeted. The UK doesn't have a concept of 'registering as disabled' in the general sense, there are a large number of mildly disabled people (myself included) who take no Government subsidy, and care about having access to cheap, reliable local public transport without having to jump through hoops.

Exactly this.

The cap benefits many people whilst being simple and easy to understand without introducing any further costly red tape/schemes/exclusions. Will there be some people who benefit that maybe "could" pay more, sure. But overall it's a massive benefit to the public who at the minute are struggling with the cost of everything.

 

[Farigiraf]

I think it is performative to be honest and a poor use of money, poorly targetted, not means tested and unfair to those who lack the option to go by bus.

Most - but not all - of the bus routes that have been cut in recent times were for a reason. Some of them were unjustified, and could do with bringing back, but that's only about 10% of them. The majority were one-a-day shopper buses from villages that weren't really a good use of council money.

One thing to solve that problem would be further development of DRT, including potentially involving it in the bus fare cap, and making it a lot easier to book for technologically inexperienced travellers. People prefer the infrequent, fixed route buses right now because they're easier to use and cheaper, but I do think DRT has potential as long as it's made as easy as possible to use by its main userbase, which'll be elderly people and children.

Of course, the optimal world is one where every village gets a frequent fixed-route bus, but to accommodate that alongside investment in the busier routes, you'd need a lot of money to spare.

And I'm sorry but I lack sympathy for people complaining of the cost of going under a mile by bus/taxi unless disabled or elderly (for whom it's free anyway). Walk! It's twenty minutes. If you want convenience/laziness be willing to pay, not be subsidised.

I get your point but do note that not everywhere has the same amount of quiet, segregated active travel routes as Milton Keynes does. A 20-30 min walk in a suburb on the outer fringes of a car-dependent city can be stressful, noisy and bad for your lungs. For a daily commute, particularly if you don't cycle - which is increasingly becoming a financial commitment in the same way as cars are, as prices go up and increasingly good locks are required - that's not preferable.

 

[danbarjon]

It's a great policy and its return is welcomed.

Here in Lancashire Preston Bus left the £3 cap, and recently left the County Council funded £1 cap for evenings/Sundays, so I assume it'll be a case of going back down again.

Believe me: those of us on very little money appreciate the cap.

I personally don’t see Preston Bus going back into the cap, just saw in small writing on Andy Burnhams bus it’s only if operators opt in. So it looks like us Lancashire living people could be paying a lot more than the average…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get your point but do note that not everywhere has the same amount of quiet, segregated active travel routes as Milton Keynes does. A 20-30 min walk in a suburb on the outer fringes of a car-dependent city can be stressful, noisy and bad for your lungs.

Even given that, it is without any doubt healthier to walk one mile in any UK urban area than travel it in motorised transport. That's why active travel is at the top of the hierarchy. If you consider noise an issue, consider noise cancelling headphones. If you find it stressful then you're not good at managing stress, frankly, or have a disability, and I'm all for special accommodations for those with disabilities.

20mph limits and ULEZs help anyway. The air in central London is without doubt cleaner than it is in MK with its 60/70mph roads and no pollution restrictions.

If you are able bodied and it is not raining heavily, only one mode of transport should be under consideration for a journey under one mile - foot. (Even getting a bike out of the shed is faff for a journey that short). Bus fare policy should in no way consider encouraging such journeys to be made by motorised transport; that too many of them are is a major contributor to obesity.

 

[Tetchytyke]

£2 bus fares will help the cost of living of relatively few who aren't already on some sort of pass.

Yes and no.

The price cap, whether it is £2 or £3 or whatever, will have an effect on the fares charged for a pass. It'll also have an effect on whether you buy a pass or simply pay as you go.

Take Newcastle, where a Megarider is £20 a week. Yes, if you're only using Stagecoach buses and travelling five days a week or more then the cap makes no difference. But where you're more flexible in your working pattern, or where you might use Stagecoach one day and Go North East another, then suddenly the cap makes a lot more difference.

And I'm sorry but I lack sympathy for people complaining of the cost of going under a mile by bus/taxi unless disabled or elderly (for whom it's free anyway). Walk! It's twenty minutes. If you want convenience/laziness be willing to pay, not be subsidised.

I don't understand this example? Fares for very short journeys always used to be way under the fare cap. These journeys now cost more because most operators now treat the fare cap as a fixed fare. So they're not being subsidised- if anything, they're paying for people travelling further.

I find the bus cap a bit performative but I think it is a direct response to rampant price-gouging by commercial bus operators over the years, particularly on single fares.

I can't understand why a £2 fare cap is so controversial. Where I am, with our government-owned bus company, a single from my house into Douglas three miles away is £1.40. If I buy a carnet of 12 tickets, loaded on to a smartcard (one for the cash-free fanatics), it comes down to £1.13.

Before I left the UK in 2020 I was charged over three quid by First Bus for a single journey of a similar duration and distance and Go North East had the audacity to charge £2.60 to go a mile from the supermarket back to my house.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes and no.

The price cap, whether it is £2 or £3 or whatever, will have an effect on the fares charged for a pass.

It doesn't appear to have had in my observation. The passes are just unattractively priced so people buy singles.

It'll also have an effect on whether you buy a pass or simply pay as you go.

It will, but people paying as they go instead of using passes isn't a good thing - it slows boarding, for one.

Take Newcastle, where a Megarider is £20 a week. Yes, if you're only using Stagecoach buses and travelling five days a week or more then the cap makes no difference. But where you're more flexible in your working pattern, or where you might use Stagecoach one day and Go North East another, then suddenly the cap makes a lot more difference.

A sensible policy in Newcastle would be of full integration between bus and Metro fare structures with no difference between making a given journey by bus, by Metro or by a combination. And of not running buses parallel to the Metro*, rather feeding it.

* not the rather ridiculous Gateshead example; clearly that forced change was silly.

I don't understand this example? Fares for very short journeys always used to be way under the fare cap. These journeys now cost more because most operators now treat the fare cap as a fixed fare. So they're not being subsidised- if anything, they're paying for people travelling further.

It was specifically aimed at a poster who was complaining about an uncapped fare for a 1 mile journey being £2.90, to which I simply say - walk then. If an able bodied person insists on making a journey like that by mechanised transport then they should pay the going rate and not complain when it's a journey that's ideal for making on foot unless it's absolutely tipping down.

I find the bus cap a bit performative but I think it is a direct response to rampant price-gouging by commercial bus operators over the years, particularly on single fares.

Certainly there has been single-fare gouging but that's a direct result of ENCTS and how in some areas the reimbursement is calculated based on those. Typically the day tickets are good value, and the seasons excellent.

I can't understand why a £2 fare cap is so controversial. Where I am, with our government-owned bus company, a single from my house into Douglas three miles away is £1.40. If I buy a carnet of 12 tickets, loaded on to a smartcard (one for the cash-free fanatics), it comes down to £1.13.

No journey on the Isle of Man is long enough to be that expensive so it's an odd comparison. However, there is no justification in subsidising a journey from Oxford to Bedford down to £2. If it was £10 it would still be astonishingly good value - rail is £40 odd if I recall.

Before I left the UK in 2020 I was charged over three quid by First Bus for a single journey of a similar duration and distance and Go North East had the audacity to charge £2.60 to go a mile from the supermarket back to my house.

A journey of a mile should be undertaken on foot, so I have no truck at all with such complaints. It's an artifact of flat fares, yes, but it's a positive one because we need more people choosing active travel to counter health and obesity problems. And if someone in their 30s or 40s walks those journeys now, they may still be healthy enough to do so in their 70s. If they make them by bus or car, they may not.

 

[Mike395]

Even given that, it is without any doubt healthier to walk one mile in any UK urban area than travel it in motorised transport. That's why active travel is at the top of the hierarchy. If you consider noise an issue, consider noise cancelling headphones. If you find it stressful then you're not good at managing stress, frankly, or have a disability, and I'm all for special accommodations for those with disabilities.

20mph limits and ULEZs help anyway. The air in central London is without doubt cleaner than it is in MK with its 60/70mph roads and no pollution restrictions.

If you are able bodied and it is not raining heavily, only one mode of transport should be under consideration for a journey under one mile - foot. (Even getting a bike out of the shed is faff for a journey that short). Bus fare policy should in no way consider encouraging such journeys to be made by motorised transport; that too many of them are is a major contributor to obesity.

You entirely ignored my point a few posts ago I see - without major health and social care reforms, and also extensive research into the privacy considerations it would cause too, so disabilities are registered in this country (and I am talking without subjecting everyone to a degrading PIP-style assessment), how else would you do these special accommodations?

Without a good solution to this (and I am not convinced one exists) - surely you see that a fixed fare helping everyone a) be able to get about and also crucially b) not jump in their own private car contributing to congestion is a generally positive move. Your argument about journeys under a mile is a bit of a fallacy anyway; a large chunk of local bus journeys are more than this anyway.

 

[BuhSnarf]

If you are able bodied and it is not raining heavily, only one mode of transport should be under consideration for a journey under one mile - foot. (Even getting a bike out of the shed is faff for a journey that short). Bus fare policy should in no way consider encouraging such journeys to be made by motorised transport; that too many of them are is a major contributor to obesity.

You don't know everyone's circumstances so you should avoid such generalisations. You don't know what the person is doing at the other side of the short bus journey, for example someone who has been on their feet all day at work in a hospital are they not allowed to catch a bus for a mile or are they lazy?

 

[Mike395]

No journey on the Isle of Man is long enough to be that expensive so it's an odd comparison. However, there is no justification in subsidising a journey from Oxford to Bedford down to £2. If it was £10 it would still be astonishingly good value - rail is £40 odd if I recall.

I'm going to pick you up on this one specifically. This is no reasonable comparison and you know it; there is currently no reasonable 7-day-a-week route avoiding London for this journey, and there is a premium accordingly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

(I do agree that long-distance routes being £2 is a bit of an outlier, but I do think there should still be a cap on the increase of these now a fixed fare is in place; I have taken a lease on a serviced office in Cambridge, for example, partially due to the £3 e.w fare, you cannot expect people to absorb a 100% rise in these fares overnight)

 

[Bletchleyite]

You entirely ignored my point a few posts ago I see - without major health and social care reforms, and also extensive research into the privacy considerations it would cause too, so disabilities are registered in this country (and I am talking without subjecting everyone to a degrading PIP-style assessment), how else would you do these special accommodations?

I do support disability registration and identification cards for it so one can prove one's entitlement to special accommodation, yes. Most civilised countries have it in some form. But I think answering that in detail is wildly outside the scope of this thread so I won't go further on it, but if you do want to create a new thread on it I will contribute.

Without a good solution to this (and I am not convinced one exists) - surely you see that a fixed fare helping everyone a) be able to get about and also crucially b) not jump in their own private car contributing to congestion is a generally positive move. Your argument about journeys under a mile is a bit of a fallacy anyway; a large chunk of local bus journeys are more than this anyway.

Reducing car journeys is one of the positives, but I think you'd probably reduce more car journeys in Milton Keynes by subsidising the provision of frequent, fast bus services using high quality vehicles (e.g. with air conditioning as even the cheapest car now has) rather than the typical overheated, rattly ageing tin box once an hour winding around all the estates if it exists at all (and nowt on a Sunday) - like Northern's hourly "Merseyrail" services people just won't use that even if it's free.

Bus is REALLY unattractive, and in most cases a two quid fare won't make it much more attractive. It's unattractive simply because the majority of how buses are run in the UK, from the vehicles to the approaches to timetables, fares, integration etc - is just downright rubbish, and is generally done with an eye to a captive audience rather than to truly wishing to achieve significant modal shift.

 

[tomoufc]

I want my taxes targetted at need, not simply at the majority. See also stuff like winter fuel payments on which the Government should have held their nerve. If people can afford to pay more (as I can for instance) they should pay more. And people who are making one-mile journeys should walk.

But isn’t this what they’re doing? Older people and certain categories of disabled people get free travel, while others pay a modest fee? It’s worth bearing in mind that if you’re targeting bus passengers as a group for suppport, then you are by definition helping people more economically marginalised. This isn’t a universal benefit, like child benefit, for instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm going to pick you up on this one specifically. This is no reasonable comparison and you know it; there is currently no reasonable 7-day-a-week route avoiding London for this journey, and there is a premium accordingly.

Given the distance I still expect, when it opens, East West Rail to charge an Anytime Day Return of around £40 for this journey. OK, that's £20 each way, not £40, but it would still make a tenner a bargain. I'd expect the Off Peak Day Return to be around £25.

For what it's worth, the commercial fare for this route used to cap out at the Dayrider which was about a tenner, so £10ish day return. An absolute bargain. Though with a note on the quality point above, it could be free and I'd still not use it, because I'm unwilling to spend two hours on a rattly old city bus with no toilets. I did used to ride it for pleasure (for no other reason than the journey) when it was good quality coach vehicles. Quality matters much more than knocking the price right down if you want modal shift.

(I do agree that long-distance routes being £2 is a bit of an outlier, but I do think there should still be a cap on the increase of these now a fixed fare is in place; I have taken a lease on a serviced office in Cambridge, for example, partially due to the £3 e.w fare, you cannot expect people to absorb a 100% rise in these fares overnight)

Given that it is clear that the scheme is not permanent and always was, anyone who made a permanent or close to permanent decision on locating their home or business due to the fare cap I would argue has made a very poor decision. The only mode of transport I'd make such a decision based on is a rail-based one as that has some level of permanence, though obviously with Beeching etc not 100%.

 

[tomoufc]

I don't understand this example? Fares for very short journeys always used to be way under the fare cap. These journeys now cost more because most operators now treat the fare cap as a fixed fare. So they're not being subsidised- if anything, they're paying for people travelling further.

What we’d need to do is take the short distance fares from before the cap and apply a multiplier, probably based on previous years’ rises, to see what they would be now. My guess is that many would have hit or gone over the £3 cap anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You don't know everyone's circumstances so you should avoid such generalisations. You don't know what the person is doing at the other side of the short bus journey, for example someone who has been on their feet all day at work in a hospital are they not allowed to catch a bus for a mile or are they lazy?

They're allowed to catch the bus, they just need to pay the going rate.

 

[Mike395]

Given that it is clear that the scheme is not permanent and always was, anyone who made a permanent or close to permanent decision on locating their home or business due to the fare cap I would argue has made a very poor decision. The only mode of transport I'd make such a decision based on is a rail-based one as that has some level of permanence, though obviously with Beeching etc not 100%.

This is a recent decision of mine, for context; I'd argue strongly that once it reaches several years of being in effect, it's no longer 'temporary' and it is unrealistic to catapult fares right back to commercial rates set by private operators.

 

[EYFanatic]

£2 (and £3) is too cheap for the longer-distance services

I disagree strongly - thanks to the cap, I have used the X46/X47 to York more often then the train as its more affordable. Also, and again an EYMS service, its a good way to get the kids out to the countryside on summer special buses like the M1/M3 for example which are part of the scheme

 

[BuhSnarf]

They're allowed to catch the bus, they just need to pay the going rate.

They're allowed? That will be a relief to them as they were worried you might call them lazy.

(I do agree that long-distance routes being £2 is a bit of an outlier, but I do think there should still be a cap on the increase of these now a fixed fare is in place; I have taken a lease on a serviced office in Cambridge, for example, partially due to the £3 e.w fare, you cannot expect people to absorb a 100% rise in these fares overnight)

Agree, the cap for the full route of say the X17 or the X5 is an outlier... but actually how many people travel the full length of that route - as someone who has I can attest very few do. Therefore I doubt there's many people 'making money' off the cap in that way. Most will be using it to jump between large towns on the route. But to avoid over complicating the scheme I think it just makes sense to say that any journey is £2, rather than saying all journeys are £2, unless your journey goes over 20 miles at which point it could be anything more.

As I said above, you will get the odd few people who benefit from a rather long journey for a cheap price, but I doubt there's many (normal) people thinking "oooh, I can now travel on a bus for 3 hours for £2."