Free Bus Travel for young people: Soon to be in England.

[BuhSnarf]

At times on this forums, it does almost seem like heresy to suggest that giving transport away for free isn't a good thing.

I'm with you on everything you say in your above post, in particular this part with one caveat. People on this forum think that giving transport away for free is a bad thing... unless it's for pensioners.

Which really feels like double standards.

 

[Djgr]

Sorry you’re talking in riddles.
So the taxpayer covers the cost but it’s ok because it goes in the operators pocket?

I'm not saying this is okay but what I am saying is that if there is a spare seat and someone wasn't going to travel anyway then there is no increase in the operating costs of running the bus. Revenue allocation is a completely different matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:45 ==

At times on this forums, it does almost seem like heresy to suggest that giving transport away for free isn't a good thing. It'll reduce car use, improve the environment, etc are the common refrains - it doesn't. The experience in Tallinn was that it didn't change car use - what it did do was encourage people to catch a free bus, rather than walk or cycle https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213624X17300858

We shall see what benefit the country sees in the economy but I suspect it'll be negligible.

ps @GusB - I'm with you on the businesses, billionaires and oligarchs who employ complex financial wheezes and royalty payments to avoid paying tax....Starbucks!

Interestingly this is what I wrote my UG dissertation on many moons ago and broadly reached a similar conclusion.

However, I would say that the Tallinn study is somewhat dated and it would be useful to consider a broader data set, given that more examples have arisen in the past few years e.g. Luxembourg.

What we are debating is about free AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY and there are other areas where we as a society have determined that this is the optimal approach.

One major advantage, rarely mentioned, is that this eliminates all the costs to do with revenue collection: processing, security, control and not least wasted time for all passengers whilst this is ongoing.

 

[mayneway]

I'm not saying this is okay but what I am saying is that if there is a spare seat and someone wasn't going to travel anyway then there is no increase in the operating costs of running the bus. Revenue allocation is a completely different matter.

It doesn't work like that though and any operator would laugh at you for making that statement.
There might not be any additional cost to the operator BUT when a group then start causing problems which results in buses being delayed or cancelled while police are called etc it then does end up costing more.

 

[820KDV]

There might not be any additional cost to the operator BUT when a group then start causing problems which results in buses being delayed or cancelled while police are called etc it then does end up costing more.

Here we go again!

In most of the country we don't get these problems. Many buses round here don't have assault screens, even.

There is a world beyond the biased, narrow, view from your bus cab!

 

[mayneway]

Here we go again!

In most of the country we don't get these problems. Many buses round here don't have assault screens, even.

There is a world beyond the biased, narrow, view from your bus cab!

The links about operators banning travel after 18:00 unless with an adult suggest different.

And im certainly not biased, just realistic. Driving a bus for 10 hours a day is very different to your couple of short journeys daily/once in a while.
Maybe it’s quiet and quaint where you live but in many parts of the UK the issue of anti social behaviour and bus stations/buses/trams etc is a major issue.

 

[yorksrob]

What we are debating is about free AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY and there are other areas where we as a society have determined that this is the optimal approach.

One major advantage, rarely mentioned, is that this eliminates all the costs to do with revenue collection: processing, security, control and not least wasted time for all passengers whilst this is ongoing.

In other areas where society has determined that "free at the point of delivery" is optimal (health, education) this has tended to be applied universally, rather than to particular groups.

The point about revenue collection and processing is relevant to this as those costs only tend to go if you do make it universally free.

 

[johncrossley]

The links about operators banning travel after 18:00 unless with an adult suggest different.

The places mentioned (for example Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent) are places where anti-social behaviour is generally an issue in general. In most of the south of England (for example) it isn't anywhere near as bad.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not saying this is okay but what I am saying is that if there is a spare seat and someone wasn't going to travel anyway then there is no increase in the operating costs of running the bus. Revenue allocation is a completely different matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:45 ==


Interestingly this is what I wrote my UG dissertation on many moons ago and broadly reached a similar conclusion.

However, I would say that the Tallinn study is somewhat dated and it would be useful to consider a broader data set, given that more examples have arisen in the past few years e.g. Luxembourg.

What we are debating is about free AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY and there are other areas where we as a society have determined that this is the optimal approach.

One major advantage, rarely mentioned, is that this eliminates all the costs to do with revenue collection: processing, security, control and not least wasted time for all passengers whilst this is ongoing.

It's ten years ago so not that dated. We're not trying to compare today with the 1970s.

I know we're talking about travel and at point of usage but for what reason? I think we can all see that this summer measure is a political gimmick and nothing more. You're making the point that there's no additional cost if those journeys were not going to be taken but there are clearly implications if that leads to overloading and the exclusion of farepayers. Also, there are fares that the operator would otherwise forego (i.e. they were going to be taken) so the taxpayer is paying for someone else's free trip.

On a wider point, the evidence suggests that price doesn't have the impact on modal shift to public transport. In Luxembourg, the highly discounted fares and investment in public transport during the 2000s had little impact on public transport usage. Whether that has changed in the last 5 years is open to question, given car ownership is still the second highest in Europe, is open to debate.

 

[Djgr]

In other areas where society has determined that "free at the point of delivery" is optimal (health, education) this has tended to be applied universally, rather than to particular groups.

The point about revenue collection and processing is relevant to this as those costs only tend to go if you do make it universally free.

Yes. That is understood but these costs are non-trivial.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 13:41 ==

It's ten years ago so not that dated. We're not trying to compare today with the 1970s.

I know we're talking about travel and at point of usage but for what reason? I think we can all see that this summer measure is a political gimmick and nothing more. You're making the point that there's no additional cost if those journeys were not going to be taken but there are clearly implications if that leads to overloading and the exclusion of farepayers. Also, there are fares that the operator would otherwise forego (i.e. they were going to be taken) so the taxpayer is paying for someone else's free trip.

On a wider point, the evidence suggests that price doesn't have the impact on modal shift to public transport. In Luxembourg, the highly discounted fares and investment in public transport during the 2000s had little impact on public transport usage. Whether that has changed in the last 5 years is open to question, given car ownership is still the second highest in Europe, is open to debate.

I wonder if there is overloading. With the exception of a few places (Bournemouth always comes up) I would have thought there might be slack during the month of August.

 

[BuhSnarf]

It's ten years ago so not that dated. We're not trying to compare today with the 1970s.

I know we're talking about travel and at point of usage but for what reason? I think we can all see that this summer measure is a political gimmick and nothing more. You're making the point that there's no additional cost if those journeys were not going to be taken but there are clearly implications if that leads to overloading and the exclusion of farepayers. Also, there are fares that the operator would otherwise forego (i.e. they were going to be taken) so the taxpayer is paying for someone else's free trip.

On a wider point, the evidence suggests that price doesn't have the impact on modal shift to public transport. In Luxembourg, the highly discounted fares and investment in public transport during the 2000s had little impact on public transport usage. Whether that has changed in the last 5 years is open to question, given car ownership is still the second highest in Europe, is open to debate.

Whilst I think that modal shift is unlikely to have been achieved with either this or future 'incentives' as without significant funding like new buses / improved routes and (more importantly) bus prioritisation on the roads for most the car will always be the preferred option due to convenience.

It *would* be interesting to see whether schemes like this actually encourage either additional journeys via bus alongside the car usage - or - a higher proportion of journeys via bus. For example I know when the cost is lower I will take the car for my commute as the bus is just very incovenient for my commute (20 mins car vs 90 mins+ on two buses) but I will make more leisure journeys via bus - which no doubt benefits the high street as I'd be unlikely to visit my local town by car whereas I will by bus.

Importantly, free or subsidised transport must be accompanied by ongoing infrastructure investment. Certainly looking at Luxemburg they've continued investing and not just left it at "free bus/tram/train" and this is seen in increased train/tram/bus usage each year. Of course, it's hard to say it's just because of the free travel as it was launched during Covid.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wonder if there is overloading. With the exception of a few places (Bournemouth always comes up) I would have thought there might be slack during the month of August.

An example I saw the other day - 8 kids got on in Bristol to travel under a mile. I doubt they'd have done that if they had to pay - they'd have walked or not gone into town at all. The bus was already heaving and they were able to be accommodated but it was a long wheelbase First decker and had it been one of shorter examples, that might not have been the case. In fact, I was on it because the previous Stagecoach bus WAS full at 1630 on a Tuesday. Who knows whether people were travelling for free on that bus... perhaps Stagecoach didn't get my £3 as a consequence?

As I said before, there may be some "hard working families" who are getting relief from the cost of living crisis but I suspect that a lot are unaccompanied journeys (from my own observations) where kids would've walked or not travelled at all.

 

[Djgr]

An example I saw the other day - 8 kids got on in Bristol to travel under a mile. I doubt they'd have done that if they had to pay - they'd have walked or not gone into town at all. The bus was already heaving and they were able to be accommodated but it was a long wheelbase First decker and had it been one of shorter examples, that might not have been the case. In fact, I was on it because the previous Stagecoach bus WAS full at 1630 on a Tuesday. Who knows whether people were travelling for free on that bus... perhaps Stagecoach didn't get my £3 as a consequence?

As I said before, there may be some "hard working families" who are getting relief from the cost of living crisis but I suspect that a lot are unaccompanied journeys (from my own observations) where kids would've walked or not travelled at all.

I'd be happier with some overall stats rather a statistical sample of 2.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Whilst I think that modal shift is unlikely to have been achieved with either this or future 'incentives' as without significant funding like new buses / improved routes and (more importantly) bus prioritisation on the roads for most the car will always be the preferred option due to convenience.

It *would* be interesting to see whether schemes like this actually encourage either additional journeys via bus alongside the car usage - or - a higher proportion of journeys via bus. For example I know when the cost is lower I will take the car for my commute as the bus is just very incovenient for my commute (20 mins car vs 90 mins+ on two buses) but I will make more leisure journeys via bus - which no doubt benefits the high street as I'd be unlikely to visit my local town by car whereas I will by bus.

Importantly, free or subsidised transport must be accompanied by ongoing infrastructure investment. Certainly looking at Luxemburg they've continued investing and not just left it at "free bus/tram/train" and this is seen in increased train/tram/bus usage each year. Of course, it's hard to say it's just because of the free travel as it was launched during Covid.

There's a lot to agree with here.

Price elasticity of demand is often overstated; remember that during the period of the hopper fare in London, bus patronage has continued to be substantially below the 2014 peak, falling every year from 2016's introduction to 2020 and Covid.

Yes, cutting fares may have some casual discretionary uptake and ENCTS did have an impact. However, that was with a demographic who despite the grim reaper coming into view, are rather more time-rich. The reality is that for many, if they have access to a car, aren't going to forego it in favour of public transport unless there is a time or convenience benefit.

I'd be happier with some overall stats rather a statistical sample of 2.

So would I but I reckon you have as many or fewer as I have.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Yes, cutting fares may have some casual discretionary uptake and ENCTS did have an impact. However, that was with a demographic who despite the grim reaper coming into view, are rather more time-rich. The reality is that for many, if they have access to a car, aren't going to forego it in favour of public transport unless there is a time or convenience benefit.

Interestingly, the time I resided in London was the only time I've commuted solely by public transport even though I had a car and I will say I enjoyed it as it meant I could relax listening to music and reading on the way to/from work. I've ALWAYS wanted to replicate this but never lived anywhere else where it's been as convenient to take the bus.

But you're absolutely right - for most the car will always trump public transit as it's a bubble from the real world.

 

[Djgr]

There's a lot to agree with here.

Price elasticity of demand is often overstated; remember that during the period of the hopper fare in London, bus patronage has continued to be substantially below the 2014 peak, falling every year from 2016's introduction to 2020 and Covid.

Yes, cutting fares may have some casual discretionary uptake and ENCTS did have an impact. However, that was with a demographic who despite the grim reaper coming into view, are rather more time-rich. The reality is that for many, if they have access to a car, aren't going to forego it in favour of public transport unless there is a time or convenience benefit.


So would I but I reckon you have as many or fewer as I have.

I have. Travelled last week from Altrincham to Warrington around 1400. Plenty of room. Around half a dozen young teens got on and off during the journey. Well behaved. No smoke bombs, balaclavas, knife crime.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I have. Travelled last week from Altrincham to Warrington around 1400. Plenty of room. Around half a dozen young teens got on and off during the journey. Well behaved. No smoke bombs, balaclavas, knife crime.

I don't think I suggested that my 8 passengers behaved poorly? What made you think they were?

However, there was the possibility that I may have been precluded from travelling on a previous journey because the bus was full (I wasn't able to enter and check ages/tickets) as not everywhere does have spare latent capacity outside the South Coast.

 

[mayneway]

Interestingly TFGM have today launched a driver survey in Manchester which gathers the thoughts and experiences of drivers and support staff in Manchester during the scheme.
They state the outcome of the survey will impact further schemes in the future.

 

[M60lad]

While I'm a passenger not a driver myself I'd be interested in the outcome of the survey as I know that even before the scheme started some of the drivers at Oldham were definitely not looking forward to it and them giving the reasons why I could actually see where they were coming from.

Regarding the past month I was on a Metrolink Tram the other week and a group of Inspectors got on and I got talking to one of them and they mentioned how quiet it was without the kids and they were wondering where they were until I mentioned that they are now probably travelling by bus due to the free travel and they said how right I probably was.

 

[overthewater]

Maybe we should have a poll to see if people are in favour or not this scheme. It would be interest to see where dice land. The fact TFGM has stated a driver survey proves to me the scheme needs to be fined turned and better safe guards are put in place. We can't punish everyone because of some bad apples, but come on at least be able to deal with those bad apples in the first place.

FYI I would vote to keep the scheme.

 

[mayneway]

Maybe we should have a poll to see if people are in favour or not this scheme. It would be interest to see where dice land. The fact TFGM has stated a driver survey proves to me the scheme needs to be fined turned and better safe guards are put in place. We can't punish everyone because of some bad apples, but come on at least be able to deal with those bad apples in the first place.

FYI I would vote to keep the scheme.

Not sure where your from but in TFGM land the scheme is to return in January for 11-15 year olds, however it will be with a pass, either an igo or our pass card which will have their name and photo ID on it. From what we are told the passes can be withdrawn if there’s issues with anti social behaviour so fingers crossed things are better.

 

[overthewater]

Not sure where your from but in TFGM land the scheme is to return in January for 11-15 year olds, however it will be with a pass, either an igo or our pass card which will have their name and photo ID on it. From what we are told the passes can be withdrawn if there’s issues with anti social behaviour so fingers crossed things are better.

Scotland, where this scheme come from. The under 22 must have passes issued to be able to travel However that useful withdrawal because of anti social behaviour is still being debated 4 years after the scheme coming in, and a death of a bus driver. Of course the wheels of power never move fast.