I guess it depends on a number of factors. Some people simply have less cause to travel than others.
They often drove anyway even though rail was an option but couldn't be bothered. Some people are as so attached to their cars and seldom walk anywhere either.
Of course you'll have a few people like that, but the people I tend to speak to say they would take the train if it was a) cheaper and b) convinient - often an hour drive is a 3 hour public transport journey or something like that.
Yes but my point is that a lot of peopel will transition to using trains more if you make trains free. Plus, these people are presumably working on or around the railways, and for a lot of people they don't like to be near/do anything associated with work while they are not working, so this could influence their decisions.
Not sure about lots of people transitioning to trains, more like lots of people making extra journeys that they wouldn't do now - some of them who would not be desirable to be travelling with. Without any of the commercial incentives there would little reason for the train operator to provide convenient or adequate services, or any comfort either. In fact the incentive would be to provide the very least that could be got away with, at the very least cost.
Well, I guess you could make travel free, but then require people to justify why they need to make the relevant journey, and have some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm decide whether the justification was valid, but that sort of authoritarianism would be highly undesirable.
Indeed. To put it in the terms I vaguely remember from A Level Economics almost forty years ago (I'm old, ouch) railway transport is a scarce resource (only so many seats on the train, only so many trains on the track). If the demand exceeds the supply, then some sort of rationing mechanism is required.
Compulsory (zero fare) reservations for each and every journey made, no matter how short? Fairly sure such a system would work! Wouldn't it?
But that becomes first come first served, which doesn't reflect the purpose, or perhaps more importantly the economic worth or other necessity aspect, of the journey.
Rather too easy to game. I commute and always get the 1730 train home - except when I have to work late when I get the 1800. And I don't know I will work late until the day itself. So to be on the safe side, as soon as the reservation window opens I will make my free reservation every day for both the 1730 and 1800. Of course, I won't use half my reservations - but that doesn't inconvenience me. It's someone else who suffers through not being allowed on the train.
Yes, interesting.
My point was that besides single people 30-65 who aren't veterans, disabled or in the Network Area there are pretty much railcards for so many people now it would be simpler just to discount all fares so cheaper overall. With all the admin of providing websites and issuing cards scrapping them and doing a flat fare reduction might have more impact.
It's also not a permanent scheme though (was extended from the original end date of March) so increasing bus service provision that might stimulate more demand isn't something bus companies will do if the scheme ends and people won't pay the higher prices. Why invest in more buses (or keep older ones in service) plus employ more drivers and maintenance staff if you can't guarantee demand won't drop off when the scheme ends?
Psychologically there is an advantage to operating the railcard system, because people feel they are getting a reduction. Also, there are people who demonstrably can afford to pay the non-discounted fares.
Not to get all political, but consider why we are in this situation where taxes are high, and yet almost all public sectors are on the brink of total failure. Perhaps it's that the current government does not have the nation's best interests at hearts, and instead is just feeding as much of that taxpayer money into their own pockets as they possibly can. There's no reason another government wouldn't be able to make better use of the money we have
About as much as thinking there is no reason another government would do any better? Perhaps the high taxes are to do with paying for the historical borrowing for spending on Covid [both health and cushioning the lack of productivity] ?
Maybe, maybe not. But rail will never be top of anyone's agenda before the NHS, Education, Welfare/Pensions and Defence so they would get any serious money ahead of rail. Plus unfortunately HS2 has probably done for significant investment in the short term with the Treasury the same way the Modernisation Plan did 60 years ago.
Yep just blame it all on COVID, oh wait, how come other countries aren't in anywhere near as bad a place as the UK? They went through COVID too
