Labour to offer free bus travel to Under 25’s

[Bletchleyite]

Oh! Dear. Can't have that, what a reversal of 30 years Transport policy that would be.

It doesn't make any sense to favour any one mode of transport. They need to be combined in an effective way playing to their own strengths within an integrated transport system, particularly in cities, with one fare set and seamless integration.

 

[Dentonian]

And results in way more passengers than all other buses in the UK put together, thus meaning the net subsidy per passenger journey is about 2/3 the level of other metropolitan areas in England. And a fair chunk of that subsidy comes from the Congestion Charge, none now comes from Central Government.

It all depends on whether you consider local bus transport to be a socially beneficial public service or not.

A bit generalised though, given that 80+% of services in Met counties are Commercial and therefore Adult passengers are net contributors to the tax system through Corporation tax, VED, Fuel tax, DDA farce*.

Yes, local bus transport is DEFINATELY a socially beneficial public service, but what about 25-68 (by 2026) year olds? And what happens when the under 25s get to their 25th Birthday and suddenly find they are having to pay over 100 hours of annual wages to use the same levels of service?
The answer is reduced/equalised fares for everyone. None of this; you're 31 so you should pay for 24 year olds, or your from a low car ownership captive market so you should pay £1.20 a mile on an ever reducing service, whilst someone in a better off area only pays 30p a mile for an increased level of service.


* The farce is NOT the concept of DDA, it is that apart from some early pump priming, full fare paying passengers have paid for the investment in Low Floor buses, but wheelchair users and other less ambulant people STILL won't use buses because they can't reach he stop or can't guarantee the stop won't be illegally obstructed.

 

[Dentonian]

It doesn't make any sense to favour any one mode of transport. They need to be combined in an effective way playing to their own strengths within an integrated transport system, particularly in cities, with one fare set and seamless integration.

Yes it does, because buses are far and away the most easily accessed mode without a car/taxi/cycle. As I've mentioned before there are numerous problems with the concept of integration, ranging from the massive taxpayers' cost of excrutiatingly uncomfortable Light Rail to the simple cliche: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes it does, because buses are far and away the most easily accessed mode without a car/taxi/cycle. As I've mentioned before there are numerous problems with the concept of integration, ranging from the massive taxpayers' cost of excrutiatingly uncomfortable Light Rail to the simple cliche: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Which system are you referring to as 'excruciatingly uncomfortable Light Rail' ?

 

[transmanche]

And results in way more passengers than all other buses in the UK put together, thus meaning the net subsidy per passenger journey is about 2/3 the level of other metropolitan areas in England.

A bit generalised though, given that 80+% of services in Met counties are Commercial and therefore Adult passengers are net contributors to the tax system through Corporation tax, VED, Fuel tax, DDA farce*.

Not at all. That's from the DfT's own figures and relates to the total net government support for every passenger journey, that includes commercially-operated journeys.

The DfT defines 'net government support' as comprising Public Transport Support, Bus Service Operators Grant and Concessionary Travel Reimbursement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which system are you referring to as 'excruciatingly uncomfortable Light Rail' ?

Metrolink. And it's no more relevant than the fact that I don't like the Class 800 seats, and others don't like ironing boards - seating is subjective.

 

[HSTEd]

This would leave something like half the population actually eligible to pay bus fares.

At what point would it be better to simply abolish bus fares entirely?
That way you could do away with the entire fare associated infrastructure.

 

[radamfi]

Which system are you referring to as 'excruciatingly uncomfortable Light Rail' ?

Dentonian has posted about having a specific medical condition which means that he finds sitting on modern public transport seats, for example the ones on Manchester Metrolink, very uncomfortable. However, this does not seem to be a particularly major issue for passengers using urban transport in cities across the world. Cities with particularly high public transport usage typically have a large proportion of passengers standing up, so the comfort (or lack of comfort) of the seat is considered less important than actually being able to get on the vehicle. In such cities, seats may not even be upholstered and you get to sit on solid plastic. Having a soft, upholstered seat does not appear to correlate with high usage of city transport. I suppose if your vehicles are so quiet that you always get a seat then that's probably an indication that your system is not doing particularly well in terms of modal split.

 

[radamfi]

The key question should be, does free public transport mean that you achieve significant modal shift from the car which wouldn't be possible if the money was spent on improved services instead?

Some countries well known for high public transport usage in cities don't have particularly cheap fares, for example Switzerland and Germany.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dentonian has posted about having a specific medical condition which means that he finds sitting on modern public transport seats, for example the ones on Manchester Metrolink, very uncomfortable. However, this does not seem to be a particularly major issue for passengers using urban transport in cities across the world. Cities with particularly high public transport usage typically have a large proportion of passengers standing up, so the comfort (or lack of comfort) of the seat is considered less important than actually being able to get on the vehicle. In such cities, seats may not even be upholstered and you get to sit on solid plastic. Having a soft, upholstered seat does not appear to correlate with high usage of city transport. I suppose if your vehicles are so quiet that you always get a seat then that's probably an indication that your system is not doing particularly well in terms of modal split.

And there is no reason as such why trams can't be fitted with the same seats as buses, in any case. The Edinburgh trams have, if I recall, a design of seat which is often selected by Stagecoach for their buses.

"I don't like the seats in a particular type of tram" does not justify a lack of integration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would leave something like half the population actually eligible to pay bus fares.

At what point would it be better to simply abolish bus fares entirely?
That way you could do away with the entire fare associated infrastructure.

That was exactly my point. And in the provinces where cash is still king, it'd have driver safety benefits, too.

The big downside of it is that the market stops dictating provision, only politics which arguably doesn't do it anywhere near as well.

 

[The Ham]

Straying way off topic here, but student funding is a long-time professional expertise of mine.

Students are charged interest at RPI+3% from the day they start studying, but they cannot repay until the April following their leaving the course. That can be three years of above-inflation interest charges. After that, interest is charged at RPI.

Repayments are set as a percentage based on your income, not on your loan amount. Interest is compounded. Student loans are cancelled after 30 years, with any outstanding balance written off.

There is a bell curve of repayment levels. Those who earn little will repay little, and will have barely make a dent on the capital, never mind the interest, before the 30 years are up. Those who earn megabucks, or have substantial wealth behind them, will clear the loan within a few years, saving themselves a fortune in interest. There is, however, a really toxic spot for people earning about £40,000-50,000/year (current wages) where they will repay all the capital AND 30 years of compound interest just before the 30 years are up. These upper-middle earners are getting absolutely rinsed under the current scheme.

Martin Lewis' calculator makes the point very clearly. With a starting wage of £25,000 (and with assumptions about inflation, promotion, etc) you'll repay about £20,000 before the 30 years are up. Do well for yourself, start with a wage of £40,000, and you'll repay £110,000. Earn £47,000 and you'll repay £151,000. But earn £60,000 and you'll repay £100,000. It drops off quickly from there.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-finance-calculator

I continue to be astounded and amazed that the people who are the ones getting absolutely and shamelessly rinsed under this mess of a scheme are the ones who are most loudly shouting down Corbyn for the suggestion. It won't make much difference to the poor- they either don't repay at all, or are paying £20 a month back. It's neither here nor there. But for those on 40-50 grand a year, it will literally save them a hundred grand in today's money. Corbyn is offering them the money to literally buy a house, yet they shout him down as a rich-hating Trot Commie *******.

Take for instance you earn £40,000 a year, over 30 years that's £1.2 million, compare that to £47,000 a year and that's about £1.4 million. That's a pay difference of £210,000 but with a pay back difference on the loan of £41,000. By the time you deduct one from the other that's still a £159,000 or £5,300 a year extra.

As such the more you earn the more you patty back (to a point) but you also are earning more. You also have to take into account that these payments are before tax and so once you start earning over the higher tax rate you start being better off because of that (in that you don't start paying higher rate tax and so you get a 40% saving).

It's probably better to see it as a graduate tax rather than a debt as that's a closer description for the majority of people who are subject to it (given that most people aren't likely to be earning over £45,000).

 

[transmanche]

The big downside of it is that the market stops dictating provision, only politics which arguably doesn't do it anywhere near as well.

Seriously? The market has completely failed to provide a useful, comprehensive and integrated bus service in England, whereas 'politics' in London has.

 

[Robertj21a]

Dentonian has posted about having a specific medical condition which means that he finds sitting on modern public transport seats, for example the ones on Manchester Metrolink, very uncomfortable. However, this does not seem to be a particularly major issue for passengers using urban transport in cities across the world. Cities with particularly high public transport usage typically have a large proportion of passengers standing up, so the comfort (or lack of comfort) of the seat is considered less important than actually being able to get on the vehicle. In such cities, seats may not even be upholstered and you get to sit on solid plastic. Having a soft, upholstered seat does not appear to correlate with high usage of city transport. I suppose if your vehicles are so quiet that you always get a seat then that's probably an indication that your system is not doing particularly well in terms of modal split.

Thanks, I wasn't aware that a medical condition was a contributory factor. Having said that, it hardly deserves what appeared to be a sweeping generalisation. I've travelled on Metrolink quite a lot ever since it opened and can honestly say that I've never considered the seats to be uncomfortable. As you say, there are many systems all over the world using far more basic seating and even those only become uncomfortable (for me) if it's an unusually long journey. Clearly, we're all built very differently !

 

[Robertj21a]

How is it 'guaranteed' to mean fewer bus services? Bearing in mind it will only happen when route contracting schemes are in place, you might want to consider that bus mileage operated in London has increased by over 60% over the past 25 years.

Isn't it actually now declining ?

 

[Martin2012]

I do personally think that at least those up to 18 should get free bus travel.

The reason being the government forces this age group to be in education or training and for some this will mean traveling by bus in order to access it. Under 17s cannot drive, and at that age it is harder to gain employment and earn a decent wage due to the fact this age group will likely have had less workplace experience to enable them to access well paid jobs.

If over 65s can work full time and still obtain free bus travel, why shouldn't younger people who are just starting out be given similar assistance as a means of ensuring they can access education and training so they don't have the barrier of the cost of travel standing in the way of them gaining meaningful employment?

 

[Dentonian]

Which system are you referring to as 'excruciatingly uncomfortable Light Rail' ?

Metrolink

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's probably better to see it as a graduate tax rather than a debt as that's a closer description for the majority of people who are subject to it (given that most people aren't likely to be earning over £45,000).

I'd agree. It also doesn't usually affect creditworthiness because if you earn, you can't avoid paying, and if you stop earning you can stop paying.

 

[Dentonian]

Dentonian has posted about having a specific medical condition which means that he finds sitting on modern public transport seats, for example the ones on Manchester Metrolink, very uncomfortable. However, this does not seem to be a particularly major issue for passengers using urban transport in cities across the world. Cities with particularly high public transport usage typically have a large proportion of passengers standing up, so the comfort (or lack of comfort) of the seat is considered less important than actually being able to get on the vehicle. In such cities, seats may not even be upholstered and you get to sit on solid plastic. Having a soft, upholstered seat does not appear to correlate with high usage of city transport. I suppose if your vehicles are so quiet that you always get a seat then that's probably an indication that your system is not doing particularly well in terms of modal split.

Whilst my specific condition is relatively rare (4000 diagnoses per year in the UK) surely other people with various other, more common bone diseases such as Arthritis have trouble with poor seating. As regards standing up - which I do on Metrolink, given that I only ever use it in the city centre - how long is an acceptable period for standing on public transport?

 

[Dentonian]

The key question should be, does free public transport mean that you achieve significant modal shift from the car which wouldn't be possible if the money was spent on improved services instead?

Some countries well known for high public transport usage in cities don't have particularly cheap fares, for example Switzerland and Germany.

But what are incomes like, and general costing of transport?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously? The market has completely failed to provide a useful, comprehensive and integrated bus service in England, whereas 'politics' in London has.

But the market has not been completely removed from TfL. TfL gets fares income, so sometimes that will help influence where routes go.

The problem with removing fares is that Councils will set up wandery routes that serve every tree and lamp post so the Councillor for that area doesn't shout too much as that (and saving money, so fewer routes) is the only motivator. Meanwhile those wanting a quick journey drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst my specific condition is relatively rare (4000 diagnoses per year in the UK) surely other people with various other, more common bone diseases such as Arthritis have trouble with poor seating. As regards standing up - which I do on Metrolink, given that I only ever use it in the city centre - how long is an acceptable period for standing on public transport?

The problem with the concept of "poor seating" is that it's subjective. Many people prefer very hard seats shaped to their back. As I've said before I am quite a fan of the Fainsa "ironing board", whereas many on here hate it. It could just as easily be the case that Stagecoach specified a bus seat your back couldn't handle but Metrolink a seat that it could.

 

[Dentonian]

Not at all. That's from the DfT's own figures and relates to the total net government support for every passenger journey, that includes commercially-operated journeys.

The DfT defines 'net government support' as comprising Public Transport Support, Bus Service Operators Grant and Concessionary Travel Reimbursement.

Those figures are flawed. BSOG is a tax rebate, it isn't a subsidy. As I've just said to someone elsewhere. If I give you a pound to invest and I simply ask you to give me 64p back next April; I am subsidising YOU by 36p (plus interest) not the other way round. Public Transport support is being cut every year and Concessionary Travelo reimbursement (under ENCTS) will also reduce as the gap between eligibility and death narrows - especially in areas where people (of all ages) need and use buses.

 

[duncombec]

There are so many (rhetorical) questions that could be asked about this policy to find the problems. Why 25? Why free? Why only if a political aim is followed? Why only bus? Why take the money from the roads budget... or do buses fly? Has the party actually checked whether people of any age have a bus service to use - especially in the evenings and at weekends, which is when they are most likely to be able to benefit!

Even leaving aside the question of earnings between people in an age bracket, what about those who will be disenfranchised (pardon the pun) from such a policy by virtue of their local council choosing not to adopt franchising? One young person visiting their friend (a reason Mr Corbyn gives for the policy) in another council area finds themselves having to pay in one direction but not in the other? And that's just on simple single and return fares, let alone day tickets and other such complexities. Frankly, it's not even council areas, but provision pure and simple. Northamptonshire or Lancashire (for example) could franchise tomorrow, but how many bus services are there for young people to use?

I know our politicians are notoriously incapable of using joined up thinking, but the concept of free-vs-pay seems to be at the root of the problem. Discount seems a better proposal.

A far more logical approach (to me) would be to offer half-fare to the end of the school year in which they turn 18 [given education is compulsory to this point, why expect Adult fares from 16... or younger?], then three-quarter fare to those who continue in education (of academic or vocational variety), which given good enough provision you would hope might encourage a few fewer drivers, especially in congested cities. The same could also apply at the other end of the scale, with a discounted fare for those over 60 (say) but not yet qualifying for a bus pass (which in any case should be half-fare, but that's another argument entirely). Rather than give out large amounts of money just to "fund" the scheme, encourage operators to provide services (commercially or in conjunction with councils) and provide funding for improvements to benefit everybody: offer reduced fares to 18-21-year-olds costing x, and claim y portion of x money back for new buses, funding for evening services, etc.

I've prepared my bunker...

 

[Dentonian]

That was exactly my point. And in the provinces where cash is still king, it'd have driver safety benefits, too.

The big downside of it is that the market stops dictating provision, only politics which arguably doesn't do it anywhere near as well.

And how is (commercial) services cuts and fare hikes on long established well used routes in poor areas, in contrast to cheap fares and overbussing in other areas, an upside? And yes, I am talking about he same company in the same conurbation.

 

[Dentonian]

And there is no reason as such why trams can't be fitted with the same seats as buses, in any case. The Edinburgh trams have, if I recall, a design of seat which is often selected by Stagecoach for their buses.

"I don't like the seats in a particular type of tram" does not justify a lack of integration.

Notwithstanding the seating point raised elsewhere - you are ignoring my previous points about unreliabiity (weakest link), and poor transfer & waiting environments.

 

[Dentonian]

I do personally think that at least those up to 18 should get free bus travel.

The reason being the government forces this age group to be in education or training and for some this will mean traveling by bus in order to access it. Under 17s cannot drive, and at that age it is harder to gain employment and earn a decent wage due to the fact this age group will likely have had less workplace experience to enable them to access well paid jobs.

If over 65s can work full time and still obtain free bus travel, why shouldn't younger people who are just starting out be given similar assistance as a means of ensuring they can access education and training so they don't have the barrier of the cost of travel standing in the way of them gaining meaningful employment?

The problem with under 18s getting free/subsidised travel is the increase in anti Social behaviour, whether on the bus itself or easier access to gang inspired targets (eg. turf wars). This is of course, complicated by Policing "priorities", which will be even more politically inspired against law abiding bus users, because the industry will be seen to be getting more "subsidy", so why should it get police protection as well?

Your argument about employment is stronger though. The point here being that whilst it is more difficult for an inexperienced 18yo to get a job, that isn't necessarilly the case in your early 20s with minimum wages etc. Similarly, the old fashioned idea of climbing the career ladder naturally with age, doesn't apply any more, so you are likely to still be low paid in your thirties as in your early 20s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how is (commercial) services cuts and fare hikes on long established well used routes in poor areas, in contrast to cheap fares and overbussing in other areas, an upside? And yes, I am talking about he same company in the same conurbation.

I wasn't saying full commercial operation was preferable, I was saying that Councils under a regulated system still need a *bit* of motivation based on fares income of what the passenger wants rather than fulfilling solely political goals.

Notwithstanding the seating point raised elsewhere - you are ignoring my previous points about unreliabiity (weakest link), and poor transfer & waiting environments.

Unreliability is not inherent in tram systems, they are inherently more reliable than buses because they are far less affected by traffic and ticket sales delays.

I don't agree with you on transfer and waiting environments. Metrolink now very much looks up to the standard of a proper German Stadtbahn, while Greater Manchester's bus stations are improving all the time. What do you want? Indoor, heated waiting rooms with deep sprung armchairs for you to wait an average of 6 minutes?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

so let's get Mr Corbyn's latest idea straight shall we? he wants to scrap bus fares for under 25's free does he? for what purpose? to make society fairer? ok so a 24 yr old earning 35k a year can travel free.... but a 26 yr old on minimum wage will still have to pay... how is that fair?

also I wonder who costed this daft idea? Dianne Abbott?

 

[Dentonian]

There are so many (rhetorical) questions that could be asked about this policy to find the problems. Why 25? Why free? Why only if a political aim is followed? Why only bus? Why take the money from the roads budget... or do buses fly? Has the party actually checked whether people of any age have a bus service to use - especially in the evenings and at weekends, which is when they are most likely to be able to benefit!

Even leaving aside the question of earnings between people in an age bracket, what about those who will be disenfranchised (pardon the pun) from such a policy by virtue of their local council choosing not to adopt franchising? One young person visiting their friend (a reason Mr Corbyn gives for the policy) in another council area finds themselves having to pay in one direction but not in the other? And that's just on simple single and return fares, let alone day tickets and other such complexities. Frankly, it's not even council areas, but provision pure and simple. Northamptonshire or Lancashire (for example) could franchise tomorrow, but how many bus services are there for young people to use?

I know our politicians are notoriously incapable of using joined up thinking, but the concept of free-vs-pay seems to be at the root of the problem. Discount seems a better proposal.

A far more logical approach (to me) would be to offer half-fare to the end of the school year in which they turn 18 [given education is compulsory to this point, why expect Adult fares from 16... or younger?], then three-quarter fare to those who continue in education (of academic or vocational variety), which given good enough provision you would hope might encourage a few fewer drivers, especially in congested cities. The same could also apply at the other end of the scale, with a discounted fare for those over 60 (say) but not yet qualifying for a bus pass (which in any case should be half-fare, but that's another argument entirely). Rather than give out large amounts of money just to "fund" the scheme, encourage operators to provide services (commercially or in conjunction with councils) and provide funding for improvements to benefit everybody: offer reduced fares to 18-21-year-olds costing x, and claim y portion of x money back for new buses, funding for evening services, etc.

I've prepared my bunker...

No bombardment from me. I agree totally in principle. Just two caveats;
There would need to be an increase (sorry, there would need to be the very existance!) of policing to weedle out the 17 year olds using free transport to get to their drugs market or turf war without borrowing Daddy's BMW, from the decent hard working/studying teenager.
The "funding" in terms of commercial (as against franchising) services won't catch on with Operators. The funding aspect has to be addressed though as the "populist" lobbyist or tax payer is quite happy to pump their taxes into rail, but protests to the media about every penny spent on bus users. And the timing, with Potholes currently the number one local issue, stinks.