Should public transport be free?

[PIDD]

I don't understand why it should be free?

If you want to go somewhere and you own a driving license you pay for your car, insurance, road tax and fuel.

If you want to go somewhere but do not have your own means of transport and want to use a service in place for public use, you pay for it.

If you don't want to pay, walk or get a bike.

I agree that rail/bus travel can be expensive but in no way should it be free for everyone. It's just unsustainable.

 

[bnm]

I cannot see why many people on benefits get free public transport, many of them need more exercise

Using a smiley doesn't make that an any less a crass or incorrect statement, with it's subtext that many benefit claimants are lazy scroungers.

The vast majority of people on benefits do not get free public transport. For a free bus pass you have a severe enough disability to qualify, and the eligibility criteria is:

-are blind or partially sighted
-are profoundly or severely deaf
-are without speech
-have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term effect on your ability to walk
-don’t have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms
-have a learning disability

Rail travel only offers at best a discount if you are disabled. Wheelchair users and the blind/partially sighted can get discounts on Anytime Fares. Eligible disabled can also apply for a (paid for) Disabled Persons Railcard for 1/3 off nearly all types of ticket.

Those who are unemployed and receiving Jobseekers Allowance are not entitled to free travel. At best they can get a Jobcentre Plus Travel Discount Card for discounted rail travel. They won't get any entitlement to free or discounted bus travel.

So, the only benefit claimants that have an automatic entitlement to free public transport are those profoundly disabled who can get a bus pass. And you think those people need to get more exercise? :roll:

 

[sevenhills]

In my local area a 13 yr old girl died from asthma, if free public transport resulted in cleaner air, then yes. But there needs to be a link with lower car usage. Perhaps if we had a comprehensive train network, it would be ok if that were free.

 

[DJ737]

G'day

This topic gets a piece in this mornings (sat) Melbourne Age newspaper.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/free-public-transport-not-fair-to-all-20120921-26c9q.html

Cheers
DJ737
Melbourne, Australia

 

[SS4]

I'd not like it if only because at the moment it keeps some antisocial tossers off the bus and nobody likes to travel on a full bus anyway. Make it free and it's less likely you keep your personal space even off-peak.

It could certainly be cheaper though, I know that Birmingham is cheap relative to other parts of the country that aren't London but it still hurts to spend £3.80 when I'm making two journeys.

 

[12CSVT]

There are some circumstances where I'd be in favour of certain people being entitled to free passes / travel warrants etc.

For example,
1. Unemployed people travelling to job interviews or training schemes.
2. Employees of emergency services and medical profession, on condition of assisting railway staff with incidents / emergencies on trains and stations. (Some police forces already have agreements with TOCs and other transport operators regarding this).

 

[sevenhills]

There are some circumstances where I'd be in favour of certain people being entitled to free passes / travel warrants etc.

For example,
1. Unemployed people travelling to job interviews or training schemes.
2. Employees of emergency services and medical profession, on condition of assisting railway staff with incidents / emergencies on trains and stations. (Some police forces already have agreements with TOCs and other transport operators regarding this).

I would like to see some logic behind free travel passes; people that are receiving an income dont need a free pass. So that rules out those that work, receive a pension and those on benefits.
Who does that leave, children and maybe some stay at home parents.

 

[SS4]

There are some circumstances where I'd be in favour of certain people being entitled to free passes / travel warrants etc.

For example,
1. Unemployed people travelling to job interviews or training schemes.
2. Employees of emergency services and medical profession, on condition of assisting railway staff with incidents / emergencies on trains and stations. (Some police forces already have agreements with TOCs and other transport operators regarding this).

1. They generally do albeit in the form of short term passes, usually a day pass issued upon request.
2. Sounds good but impractical really, especially off peak. Might work for uniformed staff so apologies if that's what you meant.

I would like to see some logic behind free travel passes; people that are receiving an income dont need a free pass. So that rules out those that work, receive a pension and those on benefits.
Who does that leave, children and maybe some stay at home parents.

Perhaps but one has to consider the general situation, especially where public transport is expensive or even impractical. Means tested bus passes would certainly be interesting although probably too difficult to administer.
The Personal Allowance of benefits is the minimum amount someone needs to live on, it's acceptable to expect someone to budget going to sign on every fortnight but if someone is getting a lot of interviews then it's counter-productive for everyone to have to turn them down because of being unable to afford travel.

Free bus travel for children has been tried in London iirc so it'd be interesting to see what effect that has had on London buses. Are stay at home parents expected to live on their partner's income?

 

[Greenback]

Children may not have an income themselves, but their parents may have a very high income. Then again, they may have a very low income!

Just to play devil's advocate a little, if taxpayers (whoever they are) should not have to contribute to public transport, why should taxpayers contribute to paying for other people's children? Particularly if they are well able to afford paying for thier offsprings travel costs themselves?

 

[northwichcat]

They trialled free public transport in Gibraltar - 4 bus routes offering free travel and a paying bus route to the Airport/Spanish border as a way of reducing road traffic.

http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=21831

Four months later they changed this to make it 'free' for residents if they purchased a £5 annual pass and visitors without the pass have to pay.

http://www.7daysgibraltar.com/article.php?id=5389
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you don't want to pay, walk or get a bike.

Question for you: why should it be free to park a bike but a charge to park a car? The bicycle storage isn't free to install.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

not sure how you pay the staff and stuff like trains or track but we can sort something out

Same way the NHS is paid for?

 

[radamfi]

Question for you: why should it be free to park a bike but a charge to park a car? The bicycle storage isn't free to install.

But it might encourage motorists to cycle instead of driving, meaning lower traffic congestion and pollution and less need to provide car parking facilities.

Given the extremely low level of cycling in the UK, there is little demand for cycle parking so a few cycle stands here and there tends to suffice. However in the Netherlands they require huge parking facilities which don't come cheap. Some of these, such as at stations, are chargeable, although they come with manned security. However, there are other secure parking facilities that are free, which clearly requires subsidy.

 

[MattRobinson]

Same way the NHS is paid for?

Exactly: we run the trains for the good of the people, was my suggestion. Very few in this country moan about the NHS.

Re freight, mentioned higher up in the thread, I think that it should be put on the railways and ban lorries that aren't making local deliveries (employ the displaced lorry drivers on the railways).

I originally thought that, perhaps, we should implement a nominal fee for travel, but if you're going to do that, you may as well make it free to use.

The whole congestion thing doesn't wash, either, with a system run for the good of the people, more buses/trains would be put on the busiest routes. Once the novelty of being able to get from one place to another for free wears off, the congestion will ease anyway.

 

[transmanche]

Perhaps but one has to consider the general situation, especially where public transport is expensive or even impractical. Means tested bus passes would certainly be interesting although probably too difficult to administer.

It depends how you administer it; e.g. you can base it on entitlement to other benefits.

TfL offer a Bus & Tram discount card which gives half-price travel for those on certain benefits and a JobCentrePlus discount card for the longer term unemployed. And they offer free travel for certain Armed Forces Veterans too.

Free bus travel for children has been tried in London iirc so it'd be interesting to see what effect that has had on London buses.

Just to play devil's advocate a little, if taxpayers (whoever they are) should not have to contribute to public transport, why should taxpayers contribute to paying for other people's children?

And to play it even further, you could make the same argument about taxpayers paying for other people's children to be educated!

Part of the rationale behind free bus transport for children in London is to encourage parents to send their children to school by bus, rather than driving them - thus reducing overall traffic levels and local congestion. Zip card holders have to follow TfL's Behaviour Code, or face losing their free travel concession. (Those who lose it can earn it back by doing volunteer work.)

 

[radamfi]

The whole congestion thing doesn't wash, either, with a system run for the good of the people, more buses/trains would be put on the busiest routes. Once the novelty of being able to get from one place to another for free wears off, the congestion will ease anyway.

I remember when free Scottish bus and coach travel for over 60s started, there were massive queues for the Glasgow to Edinburgh coach service. But that was only temporary.

 

[sevenhills]

So, the only benefit claimants that have an automatic entitlement to free public transport are those profoundly disabled who can get a bus pass. And you think those people need to get more exercise? :roll:

Pensioners do get some free travel; and the "profoundly disabled" get, I believe £56 per week, so do they really need free travel?

Higher rate = £54.05

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/informati...d_disability/disability_living_allowance.aspx

 

[SS4]

Pensioners do get some free travel; and the "profoundly disabled" get, I believe £56 per week, so do they really need free travel?

Higher rate = £54.05

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/informati...d_disability/disability_living_allowance.aspx

In the interests of fairness let's quote some of the criteria for DLA mobility

• because of a physical disability, you are unable or virtually unable to walk without severe discomfort, or at risk of endangering your life or causing deterioration in your health by making the effort to walk
• you have no feet or legs
• you are assessed to be both 100 per cent disabled because of loss of eyesight and not less than 80 per cent disabled because of deafness and you need someone with you when you are out of doors
• you are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and qualify for the highest rate of care component
• you need guidance or supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places
• you are certified as severely sight impaired by a consultant ophthalmologist, and you were aged between 3 and 64 on 11 April 2011; you must also have a best corrected visual acuity of less than 3/60, or you must have a best corrected visual acuity of 3/60 or more but less than 6/60 together with a complete loss of peripheral visual field and a central visual field of no more than ten degrees in total

I'm not disabled so can't say for sure but would an extra £54.05 per week (next year subject to medicals and the precedent isn't good) really go that far with the adaptation needed? I reckon few DLA recipients use the bus and it's simply too impractical but I stand to be corrected.

 

[6Gman]

Same way the NHS is paid for?

The comparison with the NHS is faulty on two grounds:

1. With very, very few exceptions people only use the NHS in cases of need. This effectively controls demand. Very, very, very few people would regard a trip to A&E as a leisure activity! A rail journey to London, Bournemouth, Llandudno etc on the other hand ....

2. Most access to the NHS has a 'gatekeeper' in the form of a need for 'permission' to use e.g. your GP decides whether you need a blood test; he will refer you to a consultant who may - or may not - agree to surgery etc
This would not apply to 'free' public transport. Unless you're suggesting that free travel would be subject to approval in advance

 

[transmanche]

Unless you're suggesting that free travel would be subject to approval in advance

But you can always choose to pay extra to 'go private'... or 'first class'

I don't think there's a case for nationwide free public transport. But there is a case for free local public transport in urban areas; to reduce congestion, pollution and eliminate the need for additional capacity in new roads/car parks etc.

We already see limited examples of this such as the free Metro Shuttle buses in Manchester, or larger examples such as the Free Transit Zone in Perth, Australia.

Another changing model could be to adopt something similar to the 'BorisBike' scheme, with a small 'access fee' for a day/week/etc and then short trips are free, with longer trips being chargeable.

 

[radamfi]

Hasselt, a medium sized town in Belgium, has had free local buses for a number of years now. Wholly urban buses within the town itself are free to everyone. Inter-urban buses are free to residents within the town. They claim it means that they didn't need to build an extra ring road.

 

[sevenhills]

I reckon few DLA recipients use the bus and it's simply too impractical but I stand to be corrected.

I assume that you mean very few DLA recipients use public transport, so what is your point, why do they need free public transport? Since they get free transport via their local council, and could pay for a vehicle; if they needed one.

 

[SS4]

I assume that you mean very few DLA recipients use public transport, so what is your point, why do they need free public transport? Since they get free transport via their local council, and could pay for a vehicle; if they needed one.

For those who can't/don't drive? The last post was really meant to show that higher rate mobility isn't that much considering the barriers to movement.

 

[northwichcat]

The comparison with the NHS is faulty on two grounds:

1. With very, very few exceptions people only use the NHS in cases of need. This effectively controls demand. Very, very, very few people would regard a trip to A&E as a leisure activity! A rail journey to London, Bournemouth, Llandudno etc on the other hand ....

2. Most access to the NHS has a 'gatekeeper' in the form of a need for 'permission' to use e.g. your GP decides whether you need a blood test; he will refer you to a consultant who may - or may not - agree to surgery etc
This would not apply to 'free' public transport. Unless you're suggesting that free travel would be subject to approval in advance

I was merely responding to the question of how a 'free' service could be funded.

One thing you've overlooked is not all health services are provided by the NHS. If you want to use Bupa you have to pay, there's no reason why free journeys by public transport could be restricted on Intercity/Regional services so that you can only make a free journey on an Intercity/Regional service for a short distance should no local service be available e.g. Liverpool to Runcorn or Warrington to Crewe.

 

[Greenback]

And to play it even further, you could make the same argument about taxpayers paying for other people's children to be educated!

Indeed! Not that I would seriously put forward such an argument, but I have used it down the pub when someone says why should my taxes pay for trains and buses I don't use!

I don't think there's a case for nationwide free public transport. But there is a case for free local public transport in urban areas; to reduce congestion, pollution and eliminate the need for additional capacity in new roads/car parks etc.

That would certainly help to encourage more and more people into the urban areas, while the rural economy continues to collapse!

Those who are left in the country areas won;t have any public transport in the first place, free or otherwise!

I was merely responding to the question of how a 'free' service could be funded.

One thing you've overlooked is not all health services are provided by the NHS. If you want to use Bupa you have to pay, there's no reason why free journeys by public transport could be restricted on Intercity/Regional services so that you can only make a free journey on an Intercity/Regional service for a short distance should no local service be available e.g. Liverpool to Runcorn or Warrington to Crewe.

Who would be the gatekeeper for transport as mentioned earlier in the thread? Who would decide what the restrictions would be? How much would it cost to administer?

I'm sure there are more questions than these, but they leap immediately into my mind. It may turn out to be cheaper to have free travel everywhere for all by the time all the bureaucracy to run limited schemes is installed.

 

[Train jaune]

FREE!!! It can't be free as its got a cost and someone has got to pay. Think we're not talking about "free" rather getting someone else to pay fir it instead of paying yourself

 

[6Gman]

FREE!!! It can't be free as its got a cost and someone has got to pay. Think we're not talking about "free" rather getting someone else to pay fir it instead of paying yourself

Spot on!

 

[SS4]

FREE!!! It can't be free as its got a cost and someone has got to pay. Think we're not talking about "free" rather getting someone else to pay fir it instead of paying yourself

OP mentioned free to use in the body of the post: a subtle, but important difference.

Essentially it's the age old argument of does the taxpayer/someone else pay or does a passenger pay at the point of use and where you lie depends on one's attitude towards taxation.

I personally would support better subsidies making it cheaper (at the expense of the taxpayer) but not free both to reduce the burden and to reduce congestion on the buses.

 

[Greenback]

FREE!!! It can't be free as its got a cost and someone has got to pay. Think we're not talking about "free" rather getting someone else to pay fir it instead of paying yourself

But only because we have a system that is based on money!

 

[sevenhills]

I personally would support better subsidies making it cheaper (at the expense of the taxpayer) but not free both to reduce the burden and to reduce congestion on the buses.

The system at the moment where people can pay hundreds for a ticket, and others can travel free is not right.
Is there any need for anything to be be free? It is a luxery to be able to travel around for free; you could certainly argue that those with disabilities and pensioners should able to do normal things, travel to the shops; but to say it should be free just means you think they dont get enough money.

 

[northwichcat]

Who would be the gatekeeper for transport as mentioned earlier in the thread? Who would decide what the restrictions would be? How much would it cost to administer?

I think there's a simple solution to that. Trains need to be classed as local, regional and intercity (they effectively are already) then only local trains would usually be free. However, if there is no local service e.g. Warrington-Crewe then Intercity/Regional can be used. Maybe issue zero fare tickets to prevent over travelling.

 

[Greenback]

I think there's a simple solution to that. Trains need to be classed as local, regional and intercity (they effectively are already) then only local trains would usually be free. However, if there is no local service e.g. Warrington-Crewe then Intercity/Regional can be used. Maybe issue zero fare tickets to prevent over travelling.

Just out of interest, how would the Llanelli services be classified? Many of them travel quite long distances, but carry a lot of local passengers who travel only a few stops.

Also, how far would or should I be able to travel for free, when setting out from Llanelli?