Bus Fare Cap will be £2 from January

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
If you subsidise one mode of transport to be cheaper than others you don't have an integrated network, you have a set of separate modes. It does make it cheaper to add bus to rail, to be fair, but it also means bus competes with rail by being cheaper rather than sitting closely alongside it as a partner.

I don't think this is always the case, look at TfL - buses are cheaper yet many people use the Tube/National Rail etc. The price should be comparable to the mode of transport - trains are a premium as they arrive quicker and tend to have a higher level of comfort. If someone wants to take a bus from Leicester to Derby on the Skylink it's £2 versus the £10 on the train - but it's a completely different experience.

The fact we have a multitude of systems that don't interface with each other is the reason that the network is not integrated.

JKP said:
My opinion is that £2 is too cheap. £3 should be retained.

£2 is too cheap? Not sure that will swing for those who rely on the bus to commute and don't have a lot of disposable income!

YorkRailFan said:
London is different economically from the rest of England. Not every Local or Combined Authority is going to have the money to introduce some sort of smartcard scheme to replace cash

At this point we're at the point where around 98% of the UK adult population has access to their own debit card, banks and financial institutions have made many strides over the past few years to bring accounts to those who previously were 'unbanked' - most of those on low income will have access to an account now as benefits are now paid electronically. I don't think it's the barrier it was 10 years ago. There is no requirement to introduce a complicated smart card solution like Oyster to the country, people can just use their debit card.

RailUK Forums

pokemonsuper9 · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
London is different economically from the rest of England. Not every Local or Combined Authority is going to have the money to introduce some sort of smartcard scheme to replace cash

You don't need a smartcard scheme, just agreements with the 3 main card providers.
The traveller just need a debit card connected to a bank account - banks will provide these to pretty much anyone.
Most towns will have a corner store that's a PayPoint where you could get paper tickets sold, or pre-paid cards if someone really refuses to go with the times, let it be their own problem not everyone else's.

Dwells with ticket sales are the second biggest problem to bus journey times (the first being traffic). This is a incredibly easy problem to solve.

DDB · 22 Jul 2026

Snow1964 said:
But someone has to pay for it.

It is also macroeconomically poor (discourages people from needing to better themselves, learning, night school, studying, skills courses, setting up own business etc), in blunt terms allows people to be stay on little money, and not improve their pay by ambition and growth. Not helping to grow the economy is bad overall long term.

A short term fare cap is more of a political stunt, than a serious way to growth the economy and make people less poor. Appeases those who don't see the whole picture, but just think of themselves.

People can't get to night school without evening bus services and affordable ones at that.

Goldfish62 · 22 Jul 2026

Gareth1990 said:
Which is why the fare cap needs to be made compulsory, there’s really no excuse not to now

If it's made compulsory and the reimbursement rate is insufficient to cover foregone revenue then operators will simply cut services. No point having a £2 fare for a service that no longer exists!

YorkRailFan · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
Don't you think there were poor people in London when cash fares were increased in London prior to cash fares being scrapped? At the moment, poor people outside London are suffering with long dwell times. Introducing a nationwide flat fare should make boarding times quicker not slower.

There are still poor people in London today.

How does making people paying cash pay a full fare reduce dwell times? If anything it could increase times. A low income household is more price conscious than time conscious.

Introducing a flat fare does reduce dwell times. It's far easier to pay £2 in cash to get the bus into town than have to pay £3.65 (a made up example) in cash for the same journey.

Greater London had the money to introduce Oyster, a replacement for cash that people can pay into using cash and use to budget for their travel. Not every region in the UK has the funding to do this.

BuhSnarf said:
At this point we're at the point where around 98% of the UK adult population has access to their own debit card, banks and financial institutions have made many strides over the past few years to bring accounts to those who previously were 'unbanked' - most of those on low income will have access to an account now as benefits are now paid electronically. I don't think it's the barrier it was 10 years ago

I think you might be replying to the wrong part of my comment. You're replying to me responding about operators introducing mileage capped fares, not access to a debit card.

pokemonsuper9 said:
You don't need a smartcard scheme, just agreements with the 3 main card providers.
The traveller just need a debit card connected to a bank account - banks will provide these to pretty much anyone.
Most towns will have a corner store that's a PayPoint where you could get paper tickets sold, or pre-paid cards if someone really refuses to go with the times, let it be their own problem not everyone else's.

Some people can't access a PayPoint or corner store without a bus though. Cash also helps people budget, as do smartcards that they pay into using cash, for travel. It's not the fault of these people that they're using Cash, branding it as "their own problem" ignores that real issues.

DDB said:
People can't get to night school without evening bus services and affordable ones at that.

Access to education during the day can be tricky enough for those in rural areas, especially thinking about post-16 education.

Bletchleyite · 22 Jul 2026

BuhSnarf said:
I don't think this is always the case, look at TfL - buses are cheaper yet many people use the Tube/National Rail etc.

And I disagree with that policy most strongly. There should be one price for a journey on public transport in an urban area, or a few prices dependent on distance. The modes used should be complementary - a bus to the station, then a train, then a bus to the destination, for instance. There shouldn't be "bus fares", "tram fares" and "train fares".

The demographic issues are dealt with by offering discount or free travel cards to appropriate groups, e.g. those who are unemployed or medically unfit to work. Not by having rich peoples' modes and poor peoples' modes (this is VERY pronounced in London and I frankly consider it disgraceful that it is).

Germany does it properly, concentrating on the competitor being the car, not other modes.

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
Some people can't access a PayPoint or corner store without a bus though. Cash also helps people budget, as do smartcards that they pay into using cash, for travel. It's not the fault of these people that they're using Cash, branding it as "their own problem" ignores that real issues.

Cash helps *some* people budget, for some budgeting using a debit card is much easier. For a lot of people it's actually harder to budget as cash is many people once they've "split a note" will actually just spend the remaining funds. The whole cash is easier to budget with only works for some people.

Budgeting is just as easy with a debit card as you can actually see where all your money has gone over the month - especially now as most digital banks offer some form of money management solution.

pokemonsuper9 · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
Cash also helps people budget, as do smartcards that they pay into using cash, for travel

It's a shame modern banking apps don't offer any kind of budgeting tools whatsoever (sarcasm).
I don't use any of them because I don't need them. If someone needed help budgeting there are loads of tools available.

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
And I disagree with that policy most strongly. There should be one price for a journey on public transport in an urban area, or a few prices dependent on distance. The modes used should be complementary - a bus to the station, then a train, then a bus to the destination, for instance. There shouldn't be "bus fares", "tram fares" and "train fares".

The demographic issues are dealt with by offering discount or free travel cards to appropriate groups, e.g. those who are unemployed or medically unfit to work. Not by having rich peoples' modes and poor peoples' modes (this is VERY pronounced in London and I frankly consider it disgraceful that it is).

Germany does it properly, concentrating on the competitor being the car, not other modes.

So either on that the buses become incredibly expensive to be up to the same price as the train, or the trains suddenly become incredibly cheap even though they cost a lot more to staff / run etc. I can't see this happening unless the whole system is subsidised.

RT4038 · 22 Jul 2026

pokemonsuper9 said:
Dwells with ticket sales are the second biggest problem to bus journey times (the first being traffic). This is a incredibly easy problem to solve.

In my County of residence (a rural county butting up to a metropolitan county), I would suggest the biggest problem to bus journey times is the indirect circuitous journeys that buses take between the stop I get on and the stop I get off, the second (traffic) is only really in the peak periods for schools. Passengers paying cash (only 9%) is way down the list, much to do with the capped flat fare requiring two or three coins only and much less faffing with selecting the ticket required. Not that there are huge quantities of passengers travelling in the first place.

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
How does making people paying cash pay a full fare reduce dwell times? If anything it could increase times. A low income household is more price conscious than time conscious.

Experience in London and everywhere else in the world where cash fares are/were strongly discouraged before cash was totally withdrawn shows that almost everybody stops using cash. The vast majority of people who currently pay in cash have a bank card. The same bank card that they use to withdraw cash out of a machine or at a post office or bank.

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

RT4038 said:
Passengers paying cash (only 9%)

You have to add passengers paying for paper tickets with bank cards.

Bletchleyite · 22 Jul 2026

BuhSnarf said:
So either on that the buses become incredibly expensive to be up to the same price as the train, or the trains suddenly become incredibly cheap even though they cost a lot more to staff / run etc. I can't see this happening unless the whole system is subsidised.

One challenge is indeed getting from one state to another. The £2 cap doesn't make this any easier. It results in the state subsidising people to travel by bus instead of by rail where rail runs parallel, and is thus double subsidy and a gross waste of money.

The issue is the same with concessionary passes to be fair, but the £2 cap opens the issue to far more people.

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

I think we're verging on having two separate conversations happening here, maybe we should break the conversation about paying cash etc. out in to a new thread and use this one to concentrate just on the bus cap itself?

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

Bletchleyite said:
One challenge is indeed getting from one state to another. The £2 cap doesn't make this any easier. It results in the state subsidising people to travel by bus instead of by rail where rail runs parallel, and is thus double subsidy and a gross waste of money.

The issue is the same with concessionary passes to be fair, but the £2 cap opens the issue to far more people.

I don't think bus replaces rail, though. Take for example Northampton to MK - the bus is £3 but the train is £12.60. Taking it as a return that's £6 versus nearly £25. Yet most people will still take the train as it's quicker, more comfortable and reliable.

Statto · 22 Jul 2026

BuhSnarf said:
I think we're verging on having two separate conversations happening here, maybe we should break the conversation about paying cash etc. out in to a new thread and use this one to concentrate just on the bus cap itself?

Yeah, this thread is about the bus fare cap itself, not how you pay, someone should start another thread if they want to discuss how you pay.

Deerfold · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
You have to add passengers paying for paper tickets with bank cards.

And crap apps. I always make sure my ticket is ready when I've got a day or longer ticket. And then, having waited five minutes for the bus, the app has decided to close the ticket and I have to reopen it asi approach the driver (some apps are great, some a pain).

Bantamzen · 22 Jul 2026

Snow1964 said:
It is also macroeconomically poor (discourages people from needing to better themselves, learning, night school, studying, skills courses, setting up own business etc), in blunt terms allows people to be stay on little money, and not improve their pay by ambition and growth. Not helping to grow the economy is bad overall long term.

I'm a little unsure as to how making public transport systems more expensive and less accessible incentivises people on low incomes. It's not always possible to access such things without cheap and accessible transport in the first place. This sounds like it should be filed under the "Why should my taxes be used for someone else's benefit" category. Public transport should benefit the public, and all of the public not just those that can afford it but choose not to.

YorkRailFan · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
Experience in London and everywhere else in the world where cash fares are/were strongly discouraged before cash was totally withdrawn shows that almost everybody stops using cash. The vast majority of people who currently pay in cash have a bank card. The same bank card that they use to withdraw cash out of a machine or at a post office or bank.

As I've said to you many times, London is economically different to the rest of the UK. As is the rest of the world. Comparing "the rest of the world" to economically deprived regions of the UK is inappropriate in this instance.

pokemonsuper9 said:
It's a shame modern banking apps don't offer any kind of budgeting tools whatsoever (sarcasm).
I don't use any of them because I don't need them. If someone needed help budgeting there are loads of tools available.

People who need to budget with cash are the most economically deprived in society. They will be punished for the sake of ideology and because "the rest of the world" does.

People should be able to access the £2 fare cap no matter their financial circumstance. The last thing the Government should be doing is placing barriers to entry for those who need the cap the most. Some regions in the UK are simply not ready to switch to cashless, London was but rural areas might not be and the most economically deprived areas (where the £2 cap will have the biggest impact on cost of living) certainly aren't ready.

We are going round in circles about cashless fares, the truth is that there is no "one size fits all" for it. The fare cap will help the cost of living for those who are the most impacted. That is the main priority of the cap, not removing cashless fares. Going cashless on buses should be region by region when said region is ready. Not for the sake of ideology.

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2026

BuhSnarf said:
I think we're verging on having two separate conversations happening here, maybe we should break the conversation about paying cash etc. out in to a new thread and use this one to concentrate just on the bus cap itself?

I can see your point but the fare cap impacts on boarding times and makes it a lot easier to remove ticket selling from the driver.

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

YorkRailFan said:
As I've said to you many times, London is economically different to the rest of the UK. As is the rest of the world. Comparing "the rest of the world" to economically deprived regions of the UK is inappropriate in this instance.

Even people in deprived areas have bank cards.

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

YorkRailFan said:
We are going round in circles about cashless fares, the truth is that there is no "one size fits all" for it. The fare cap will help the cost of living for those who are the most impacted. That is the main priority of the cap, not removing cashless fares. Going cashless on buses should be region by region when said region is ready. Not for the sake of ideology.

The poorest people are impacted by slow boarding times. Slow boarding times means more buses required and fewer passengers which might mean the bus company reduces or even cancels the service.

YorkRailFan · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
Even people in deprived areas have bank cards

Yes but low income households disproportionately use cash

johncrossley said:
The poorest people are impacted by slow boarding times. Slow boarding times means more buses required and fewer passengers which might mean the bus company reduces or even cancels the service.

As I said before, the poorest people are more price conscious than time conscious. Are boarding times really so bad that companies are having to add more buses to maintain the frequency?

johncrossley said:
I can see your point but the fare cap impacts on boarding times and makes it a lot easier to remove ticket selling from the driver.

Then why did you propose for there to be a full fare for cash payments? Surely that increases dwell times even more?

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

Is slow boarding times really that much of a problem? Surely just general traffic accounts for the majority of delays...

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

Again, I feel this needs to be a separate thread if it wants to be discussed further (would enjoy doing so.)

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
Yes but low income households disproportionately use cash

But they could use bank cards if they wanted.

YorkRailFan said:
As I said before, the poorest people are more price conscious than time conscious. Are boarding times really so bad that companies are having to add more buses to maintain the frequency?

Buses are (or at least should be) primarily a means to get people out of cars and cut congestion. Hence making the journey time as attractive as possible is crucial.

YorkRailFan said:
Then why did you propose for there to be a full fare for cash payments? Surely that increases dwell times even more?

A discount for people not paying the driver will reduce the number doing that. Of course, the ideal is to paper ticket sales entirely (including by card).

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

BuhSnarf said:
Is slow boarding times really that much of a problem? Surely just general traffic accounts for the majority of delays...

Traffic is the biggest problem but boarding time is an issue where the driver sells a lot of tickets, like on most Stagecoach buses.

pr1 · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
You have to add passengers paying for paper tickets with bank cards

I bought a paper Solo day-rider by card yesterday, I hope that doesn't frustrate you too much!

Magrar · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
johncrossley said:

The vast majority of people who currently pay in cash have a bank card. The same bank card that they use to withdraw cash out of a machine or at a post office or bank.

Click to expand...

Even people in deprived areas have bank cards.

tbh it doesn't sound like you even know any poor people.

It's still very common to be paid in cash (likely the real reason the government wanted to introduce a database of all those legally allowed to work).

People use cash to stick to a budget, and in extremis, you (or more likely the partner) ensure the bank card only leaves the house for a very good reason.

This is all irrelevant anyway - the thing almost everyone has, even poor people, is a phone. And so if you have a bank account, you can pay using your phone. And of course, you can have a phone on PAYG even if you don't have a bank account.

But once we get to a place where having a phone is manadatory to be part of UK society, and we're nearly there, the government will be very very happy.

YorkRailFan · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
But they could use bank cards if they wanted.

You can't say that for definite.

johncrossley said:
Buses are (or at least should be) primarily a means to get people out of cars and cut congestion. Hence making the journey time as attractive as possible is crucial.

Well yes, but punishing poor people is not the way to do this.

johncrossley said:
A discount for people not paying the driver will reduce the number doing that. Of course, the ideal is to paper ticket sales entirely (including by card).

Charging a full fare for cash payments will take longer than a £2 fare cap paid by cash. Many operators already offer discounts for using Tap On Tap Off on short journeys over cash. There is no reason to punish people for using cash (again disproportionately low income households) accept for your ideological dreams.

If someone has the exact fare (£2 or right now £3) in cash, it can be quicker than people trying to use their phone or watch to pay by card. It's not consistently quicker to use card than cash, it depends on circumstances. Sometimes, I've waited on a bus for a pensioner to find their ENCTS pass, or for someone to find their card. What do you plan to do then?

The exile · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
I don't see how Metrolink is very different to the Wimbledon to Croydon tram line which accepts the £1.75 Hopper Fare.

It is just another example of how the UK doesn't understand or appreciate fare integration compared to other countries.

Let’s be fair - compared to some other countries.
In terms of this cap, I’d like to see it limited to a year (or maybe two) and all local authorities /travel to work areas given that time to introduce compulsory integrated ticketing systems (which can then be capped on a daily basis). Only exemptions permitted being taxis and heritage / special tourist-y type operations.

markymark2000 · 22 Jul 2026

derbybusdepot said:
Is it? Has it really helped increase bus usage that much? Is it good use of tax payers money? Would promotion/discounts of weekly/monthly tickets not be better, and save people more money, encouraging people to use the services regularly? Anyone working all week may be better off buying a full price weekly ticket, so will be no better off with the £2 singles.

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.

mangad · 22 Jul 2026

All this talk of cashless buses, and not once have I seen the elephant in the room mentioned.

Children.

Under 16s are not guaranteed to have any debit card (and certainly don't have credit cards). There are teenage current accounts that still come with the option of a cashcard, not a debit card. Children going to high school at the age of 11 will likely be travelling independently and whilst they can get bank accounts at 11, they may not be responsible enough to give them a debit card. Yes there are prepaid debit cards for children but these are not free. We've only recently got our son a debit card at the age of 13.

London solves this easily by making public transport free for children and teenagers. But unless you have free travel for children, you have one absolute guaranteed use case for cash on buses. And that's children. And everyone can argue and debate the pros and cons of cash free but it's irrelevant whilst you have a significant group of bus users who may only be able to pay by cash.

Oh and to pre-empt someone suggesting a phone based solution - cos I know someone is thinking it - remember phones are going to be banned from schools in September by law.

TheGrandWazoo · 22 Jul 2026

YorkRailFan said:
You can't say that for definite.

Well yes, but punishing poor people is not the way to do this.

Charging a full fare for cash payments will take longer than a £2 fare cap paid by cash. Many operators already offer discounts for using Tap On Tap Off on short journeys over cash. There is no reason to punish people for using cash (again disproportionately low income households) accept for your ideological dreams.

If someone has the exact fare (£2 or right now £3) in cash, it can be quicker than people trying to use their phone or watch to pay by card. It's not consistently quicker to use card than cash, it depends on circumstances. Sometimes, I've waited on a bus for a pensioner to find their ENCTS pass, or for someone to find their card. What do you plan to do then?

Absolutely this. For people to blithely suggest that people can "just use cards" really isn't addressing the issue of disproportionately impacting the poorest in society.

Reliance on cash acceptance is widespread, with 3.1 million adults in the UK relying on cash for most or all purchases, according to the FCA’s most recent Financial Lives Survey. Further FCA analysis suggests groups that disproportionately rely on cash are those who:

● have low digital capability or poor digital access (4 times as likely)
● are in a low-income household (3 times as likely)
● are not employed (twice as likely)
● have poor health

I repeat this - the objective of the fare cap is to help the poorest people and those struggling most with the cost living crisis. It isn't to try and influence customer behaviour about removing cash sales and that isn't what this thread should be about.

BuhSnarf · 22 Jul 2026

mangad said:
All this talk of cashless buses, and not once have I seen the elephant in the room mentioned.

Children.

Under 16s are not guaranteed to have any debit card (and certainly don't have credit cards). There are teenage current accounts that still come with the option of a cashcard, not a debit card. Children going to high school at the age of 11 will likely be travelling independently and whilst they can get bank accounts at 11, they may not be responsible enough to give them a debit card. Yes there are prepaid debit cards for children but these are not free. We've only recently got our son a debit card at the age of 13.

London solves this easily by making public transport free for children and teenagers. But unless you have free travel for children, you have one absolute guaranteed use case for cash on buses. And that's children. And everyone can argue and debate the pros and cons of cash free but it's irrelevant whilst you have a significant group of bus users who may only be able to pay by cash.

Oh and to pre-empt someone suggesting a phone based solution - cos I know someone is thinking it - remember phones are going to be banned from schools in September by law.

I would say many children who are travelling on their own to / from school will still have a phone, I know my kids do even though it's banned in school and use their phone for boarding the bus.

Farigiraf · 22 Jul 2026

johncrossley said:
The poorest people are impacted by slow boarding times. Slow boarding times means more buses required and fewer passengers which might mean the bus company reduces or even cancels the service.

The cash v no cash debate is an interesting one where I think any solution that's short of a full national oyster/Rejsekort/OVPay-style system (and all the associated subsidy), valid on all buses, will have many people who lose out. Discussion to explore scenarios where the least amount of people on the lowest income levels lose out are welcomed, however I don't have much to add to that.

What I do have to say though, regarding the quoted section, is that on the average rural bus route, minor journey time increases don't really make a difference - having the bus turn up in the first place is the main hurdle. On urban bus routes, traffic congestion contributes far, far more to the slowness of a particular bus service than the 1-2 minutes it takes for everyone to board at a busy stop. With the limited (compared to other high-GDP European countries) amount funding that bus transport gets in this country, I'd suggest that in most non-London/Manchester towns and cities, every pound spend for bus priority measures would bring far more returns than a move to cashless payment.

Bus Fare Cap will be £2 from January

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member