Make rail travel free

[PlexiDriver]

So bare with me. All rail travel, across the country free at the point of use, for everyone.

Benefits include a spreading opportunity further from cities, levelling up areas, reducing CO2 use and so on.

Worth the costt with tickets only making up about 8-9 billion. It is far less than other national expenses.

Discuss!

 

[AlterEgo]

Where would the capacity come from?

 

[Arkeeos]

Can't manage demand.

People are willing to pay for transport, why wouldn't you take the money and use it to improve the railway.

I don't think cheaper fares significantly effect ridership.

 

[SteveM70]

I don't think cheaper fares significantly effect ridership

Is there any data yet from the Scotrail off peak all day thing?

 

[yorksrob]

They could make rail travel less extortionate. A national railcard would be a good start.

 

[Irascible]

What percentage of system costs comes from managing fares?

 

[Topological]

Regulating the capacity would be an issue.

I could see an argument for making local travel free, with the clear statement that the timetable and allocations are what they are. Intercity travel should remain charged. For journeys where intercity is the only option (like Wigan to Warrington) local options would have to be provided.

London journeys would continue to be operated as part of the London pricing system, such that non Intercity services within London carry TfL zones as presently.

 

[Magdalia]

So bare with me. All rail travel, across the country free at the point of use, for everyone.

Benefits include a spreading opportunity further from cities, levelling up areas, reducing CO2 use and so on.

Worth the costt with tickets only making up about 8-9 billion. It is far less than other national expenses.

Discuss!

Let's compare the railway with the National Health Service, which is already free at the point of use.

When demand exceeds supply here are some options for managing the excess:

• queue - like a waiting list for surgery, a passenger waits in a queue until a seat for their journey becomes available
• triage - like A+E, someone at the starting station decides if each journey is urgent or important enough to happen now not later
• lottery - like GP appointments, who gets through on the phone first wins a seat

Managing any or all of those is not without cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'd be hard to justify rail being free, though I'd like to see it cheaper.

There's plenty of precedent for free local travel, particularly bus, though, not least because most car journeys are short and more local journeys are essential. It'd be interesting to know how much subsidy would need adding to make £2 bus fares into £0.

 

[PlexiDriver]

So the justification to my mind is as follows.

One of the biggest problems we have as a nation is spreading opportunity. An example is that London is 41% more productive than Manchester and Birmingham. While in Europe, Paris is only 20% more. The London housing market is overheating and there is plenty of excess space on some more rural lines (thinking Cumbrian Coast etc)

Communities in local areas could be better connected to larger cities allowing people to live in their communities without having to buy expensive and sought after housing in areas they feel forced to buy in.

The reason I say free rather than hugely discounted is two fold. Firstly, economies of scale. At some point cutting the price gets to a point it is more effective to rid yourself of complicated card schemes and barriers. Considering, at the moment the railway takes more from commercial and subsidies than it does from ticketing shows that making people pay is a mostly tocken gesture.

Secondly is a social one. Housing a major problem in the UK and allowing people to commute for nothing or rent and buy in expensive city suburbs or centres, is a no brainer for most. I think it would be a very effective way to spread the benefits to the rest of the country. For example, reconnect communities and create a situation where the vast majority of the country is within 1 hour of a large employment hub, for free.

Of course capacity would need to be increased, whether that is quad and double tracking some lines, building HS2,3,4,5 or whatever is a different discussion.

 

[JonathanH]

Considering, at the moment the railway takes more from commercial and subsidies than it does from ticketing shows that making people pay is a mostly tocken gesture.

Does it? I don't think subsidy should be on the opposite side in a comparison about passenger revenue in any case.

 

[6Gman]

Of course capacity would need to be increased, whether that is quad and double tracking some lines, building HS2,3,4,5 or whatever is a different discussion.

Given how long it takes to get any infrastructure built how would you keep demand and capacity in step?

And it's not just a matter of building some extra tracks - there's stock to build and maintain, staff to be recruited and trained etc. etc.

 

[Arkeeos]

So the justification to my mind is as follows.

One of the biggest problems we have as a nation is spreading opportunity. An example is that London is 41% more productive than Manchester and Birmingham. While in Europe, Paris is only 20% more. The London housing market is overheating and there is plenty of excess space on some more rural lines (thinking Cumbrian Coast etc)

The biggest barrier to higher rail ridership and transport connectivity is not the price of trains, it is the lack of investment in infrastructure in those areas, I do not think that ticket prices would significantly the ridership. Money is better off being pumped into new infrastructure than subsidy.

Japan has relatively expensive train yet they have the highest rail ridership in the world (per capita) because of their excellent infrastructure.

 

[PlexiDriver]

Does it? I don't think subsidy should be on the opposite side in a comparison about passenger revenue in any case.

It is indeed.

UK: national railway passenger revenue 2023 | Statista

Passenger fare income, adjusted for inflation, rose nearly consistently between 2000 and 2019, peaking at over 12 billion British pounds in 2018/19.

www.statista.com

Fares are about 8.7bn while subsidies are in the 11bn range, obviously with additional from commercial use of the lines by freight.

In reality though, despite massive fares it doesn't bring in too much... Nationally speaking anyway!

The biggest barrier to higher rail ridership and transport connectivity is not the price of trains, it is the lack of investment in infrastructure in those areas, I do not think that ticket prices would significantly the ridership. Money is better off being pumped into new infrastructure than subsidy.

Japan has relatively expensive train yet they have the highest rail ridership in the world (per capita) because of their excellent infrastructure.

Absolutely investment is important. As the UK has some of the lowest investment in the developed world. So for example the roll of our of ETRMS level 3 onto the UK rail network and the optimisation of scheduling under a nationalised system, it would allow for additional capacity even without expanding lines or new lines (which I do believe should be done as well!)

Given how long it takes to get any infrastructure built how would you keep demand and capacity in step?

And it's not just a matter of building some extra tracks - there's stock to build and maintain, staff to be recruited and trained etc. etc.

Of course..there is a lot of moving parts. Literally! If it's a case of increasing capacity, that's something that should be done anyway, not a barrier to the success of an idea.

In fact I would argue that once people have access to it, they would demand better services which would put pressure on the government to provide.

 

[87 027]

Absolutely investment is important. As the UK has some of the lowest investment in the developed world. So for example the roll of our of ETRMS level 3 onto the UK rail network and the optimisation of scheduling under a nationalised system, it would allow for additional capacity even without expanding lines or new lines (which I do believe should be done as well!)


Of course..there is a lot of moving parts. Literally! If it's a case of increasing capacity, that's something that should be done anyway, not a barrier to the success of an idea.

In fact I would argue that once people have access to it, they would demand better services which would put pressure on the government to provide.

The problem is that in the current financial climate this is one of many competing "mouths to feed" from the public purse and there are many other priorities that are at least equally deserving of funding. Indeed some of them face so-called "cliff edges" of service collapse if this is not attended to in the medium term (for example legacy IT system replacement) which I respectfully suggest is not the case to the same extent for the national rail network.

I also agree with posters above that we should be careful what we wish for and the inevitability of demand outstripping supply is some sort of rationing for so long as that continues to be the reality.

 

[Killingworth]

Make rail travel free? I made a return journey on Cross Country yesterday. I shopped around for cheapest prices and it was still expensive. Both trains were full and standing for sections of the journey.

Without capacity to satisfy current demand how would we manage any more?

Users of other lines can relate portions of journeys where capacity is already stretched without free fares.. Managing capacity with some almost free travel at less busy hours may be helpful but blanket free fares would totally choke services and facilties across the nation.

 

[yorksrob]

The biggest barrier to higher rail ridership and transport connectivity is not the price of trains, it is the lack of investment in infrastructure in those areas, I do not think that ticket prices would significantly the ridership. Money is better off being pumped into new infrastructure than subsidy.

Do you have any evidence for this ?

This sounds like the sort of thing that the rail establishment tells itself.

Railcards, advanced purchase tickets, affordable walk-on fares (where they exist) clearly bring punters in, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

The problem is that they are often inconvenient to the user (advanced purchase) or patchy in coverage (railcards/cheap walk on fares).

Perhaps what the railway needs to do is more of what it does well, but filling in the gaps.

The problem is that in the current financial climate this is one of many competing "mouths to feed" from the public purse and there are many other priorities that are at least equally deserving of funding. Indeed some of them face so-called "cliff edges" of service collapse if this is not attended to in the medium term (for example legacy IT system replacement) which I respectfully suggest is not the case to the same extent for the national rail network.

I also agree with posters above that we should be careful what we wish for and the inevitability of demand outstripping supply is some sort of rationing for so long as that continues to be the reality.

The £2 bus scheme is supporting a service, which while struggling, wasn't on the brink of collapse, so things can be done where there's a political will.

I agree though, that there needs to be some element of charging. It's just that we don't need to do it so badly.

 

[6Gman]

Incidentally, would the OP suggest that other forms of public transport should also be free?

Buses?
Trams?
Long distance coaches?
Ferries?
Air travel?

 

[PlexiDriver]

Incidentally, would the OP suggest that other forms of public transport should also be free?

Buses?
Trams?
Long distance coaches?
Ferries?
Air travel?

Buses would probably be under control of the local authority so that would be their call.

Teams, same applies for them really!

The last three, not really as they don't use established infrastructure they're likely to be private.

 

[The Planner]

Absolutely investment is important. As the UK has some of the lowest investment in the developed world. So for example the roll of our of ETRMS level 3 onto the UK rail network and the optimisation of scheduling under a nationalised system, it would allow for additional capacity even without expanding lines or new lines (which I do believe should be done as well!)

Timetabling already is nationalised, it all has to go through NR.

 

[6Gman]

Buses would probably be under control of the local authority so that would be their call.

Teams, same applies for them really!

The last three, not really as they don't use established infrastructure they're likely to be private.

So you'd pretty much destroy the long-distance coach market because ... well, why?

And why do you think buses would be "under control of the local authority"?

 

[Mikw]

For me all public transport should be free.
It does my head in that my parents get free travel on the bus (which they hardly ever use) and i have to pay a not insignificant amount on a daily basis.
In our city we have a free bus service running a short loop around the town centre, you just turn up and go, no questions asked, no tickets, it's done rather well.

 

[Killingworth]

For me all public transport should be free.
It does my head in that my parents get free travel on the bus (which they hardly ever use) and i have to pay a not insignificant amount on a daily basis.
In our city we have a free bus service running a short loop around the town centre, you just turn up and go, no questions asked, no tickets, it's done rather well.

It's fairly easy to put on a few extra buses at quite short notice to cope with extra demand - but a nationwide blanket programme of free buses would run into big difficulties procuring buses, drivers, garage space, mechanics - and cash. Plus bus stop space.

Free buses have been tried in some places like Estonia, see; https://ruralsharedmobility.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SMARTA-GP-Fare-free-Public-Transport-in-Tallinn.pdf Interesting to note the consequent reduction in walking.

 

[6Gman]

For me all public transport should be free.
It does my head in that my parents get free travel on the bus (which they hardly ever use) and i have to pay a not insignificant amount on a daily basis.
In our city we have a free bus service running a short loop around the town centre, you just turn up and go, no questions asked, no tickets, it's done rather well.

In the absence of market forces how would you determine what services would run?

 

[yorksrob]

It is indeed.

UK: national railway passenger revenue 2023 | Statista

Passenger fare income, adjusted for inflation, rose nearly consistently between 2000 and 2019, peaking at over 12 billion British pounds in 2018/19.

www.statista.com

Fares are about 8.7bn while subsidies are in the 11bn range, obviously with additional from commercial use of the lines by freight.

In reality though, despite massive fares it doesn't bring in too much... Nationally speaking anyway!



Absolutely investment is important. As the UK has some of the lowest investment in the developed world. So for example the roll of our of ETRMS level 3 onto the UK rail network and the optimisation of scheduling under a nationalised system, it would allow for additional capacity even without expanding lines or new lines (which I do believe should be done as well!)


Of course..there is a lot of moving parts. Literally! If it's a case of increasing capacity, that's something that should be done anyway, not a barrier to the success of an idea.

In fact I would argue that once people have access to it, they would demand better services which would put pressure on the government to provide.

And presumably that £11bn subsidy includes a fair whack of capital investment, rather than just operating subsidy.

 

[snookertam]

So bare with me. All rail travel, across the country free at the point of use, for everyone.

Benefits include a spreading opportunity further from cities, levelling up areas, reducing CO2 use and so on.

Worth the costt with tickets only making up about 8-9 billion. It is far less than other national expenses.

Discuss!

Interesting one.

I think it’s possible within defined areas (such as city centres etc) and that having tightly regulated (and subsidised) fares is more realistic in achieving the aims you set out.

Although the pessimist in me thinks that we have crossed the rubicon in terms of car reliance, and not even free or very low cost travel would tempt much of the population back to rail now.

 

[JonathanH]

Although the pessimist in me thinks that we have crossed the rubicon in terms of car reliance, and not even free or very low cost travel would tempt much of the population back to rail now.

Yes, and more trouble than that, any sensible attempt to diminish the ability for people to use cars is politically unpopular, even if seen to be important from an environmental perspective.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, and more trouble than that, any sensible attempt to diminish the ability for people to use cars is politically unpopular, even if seen to be important from an environmental perspective.

Even without people switching en mass from cars, there's a great deal of untapped demand for rail travel.

There is always be a cohort of people who can't or don't want to run a car, and times when motorists don't want to use their car

 

[JonathanH]

Even without people switching en mass from cars, there's a great deal of untapped demand for rail travel.

There is always be a cohort of people who can't or don't want to run a car, and times when motorists don't want to use their car

Yes, but the key need is to reduce the number of short journeys by car, replacing them by walking and public transport as appropriate, rather than necessarily longer journeys. This can only partially be addressed by railways.

Modal shift for existing journeys is far more important than meeting demand for new ones, for obvious reasons. That is not delivered by making all public transport free.

Workplace parking charges, ultra low emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods, closing off roads, road pricing are all policies which influence modal shift, without making public transport free. However, they are generally criticised by influential lobbyists as a 'war on the motorist'.

 

[dk1]

Rail travel has been free for me since 1984 and i make good use of it. Always surprised me over the years how so many of my colleagues never do though.