Make rail travel free

[etr221]

One thing I wonder is are there any figures, or has any study been done, as to the effect of the TfL 60+ Oyster or Freedom Pass, both of which give free rail travel to some, within a certain area. Which might permit a comparison with other people or areas?

 

[mangyiscute]

It's very hard to estimate how much passenger numbers would rise by, but I personally think they'd at least double, and without a lot of investment in rolling stock and infrastructure there is no way the current railways could handle that. I think something like making Railcard fares the standard price, or even halving all fares would be a much sensible short term strategy. Now if they can get the money to invest enough in the railways to triple capacity, then sure, make it free

 

[Killingworth]

It's very hard to estimate how much passenger numbers would rise by, but I personally think they'd at least double, and without a lot of investment in rolling stock and infrastructure there is no way the current railways could handle that. I think something like making Railcard fares the standard price, or even halving all fares would be a much sensible short term strategy. Now if they can get the money to invest enough in the railways to triple capacity, then sure, make it free

But they would quadruple in some places and hardly rise at all in others.

Unfortunately some form of rationing is necessary and that is best done by price. The fine tuning of that will always be contentious.

(Currently travelling on good value advanced ticket for a train that was cancelled and now on following train an hour later!)

 

[Lucan]

you would need extra trains, extra staff, extra depots, etc

... and every train would need an extra coach or two to accomodate the homeless who would live on it. No worry about platform lengths because they would never need to get off.

 

[RT4038]

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

The money is spent, for good or for bad, and the interest has to be paid on it, irrespective of which party is in power.

 

[JamesT]

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

Some countries are in a worse place economically. Consider https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107572/covid-19-value-g20-stimulus-packages-share-gdp/ some G20 countries spent several times what the UK did supporting their economy through Covid.
In terms of long-lasting impact https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=g20 has the debt to GDP ratios, the UK is fairly middling with 97%
Debt interest is forecast to be about 10% of government spending this year. In comparison, that’s double the spending on transport, or about half the NHS.

 

[Meerkat]

If the government has money to burn reducing rail fares is one of the last things it should be spending it on.
It would be regressive. Who travels by train (generalisation for simplicity) - higher earning commuters, business travellers, and those on leisure trips. The poor go to work by bus/walk and can’t afford days out of the sort that need trains. If you want to help the poorer folk get about you put the money into buses and active travel, or you just give them the money to use as they need.
I think there should be a lot more focus on what the rail subsidy is buying, and whether it is during the right things. For example Is it subsidising wealthier commuters to live in nicer houses when that money should be focussed on connecting disadvantaged areas to work opportunities, or getting trucks off the road?

 

[mangyiscute]

If the government has money to burn reducing rail fares is one of the last things it should be spending it on.
It would be regressive. Who travels by train (generalisation for simplicity) - higher earning commuters, business travellers, and those on leisure trips. The poor go to work by bus/walk and can’t afford days out of the sort that need trains. If you want to help the poorer folk get about you put the money into buses and active travel, or you just give them the money to use as they need.
I think there should be a lot more focus on what the rail subsidy is buying, and whether it is during the right things. For example Is it subsidising wealthier commuters to live in nicer houses when that money should be focussed on connecting disadvantaged areas to work opportunities, or getting trucks off the road?

lmao do you even take trains?
Perhaps we should focus on lowering fares so poorer people can travel by train, so that they can go on days out, or use it to get to work etc - that is something everyone in this country should be able to afford to do considering the GDP per capita of the UK - the current inequality is horrific.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps we should focus on lowering fares so poorer people can travel by train, so that they can go on days out, or use it to get to work etc - that is something everyone in this country should be able to afford to do considering the GDP per capita of the UK - the current inequality is horrific.

The previous poster has a point though that affluent people have more disposable income, so why shouldn't the railway be charging them a realistic price for the use of its service.

Then, the country can look at other forms of redistribution to deal with the inequality you reasonably consider to be horrific.

 

[6Gman]

It's very hard to estimate how much passenger numbers would rise by, but I personally think they'd at least double, and without a lot of investment in rolling stock and infrastructure there is no way the current railways could handle that.

Correct.

Let me give a couple of examples.

Travel into our major cities (Manchester, Birmingham etc.) on a Saturday and you'll see loads of teenagers touring the shops and generally meeting up. Numbers are limited by the cost of getting there. Make it free and every* teenager for 30 miles around will be heading "to town"! How do you cope with that?

* OK, not every but a lot more.

Arsenal are at Manchester City. They have an allocation of 4,000 tickets - currently 2,500 drive, 1,000 come by coach, 500 by train. If the train becomes a free of charge option ... Good luck seating 3,000+ out of Piccadilly on a Saturday evening!

And so on.

 

[mangyiscute]

The previous poster has a point though that affluent people have more disposable income, so why shouldn't the railway be charging them a realistic price for the use of its service.

Then, the country can look at other forms of redistribution to deal with the inequality you reasonably consider to be horrific.

And the clear way to charge those people more is to get them to pay more tax, so then they are effectively paying more because they pay for some of the fare through tax and then some of it through the fare charged.

Correct.

Let me give a couple of examples.

Travel into our major cities (Manchester, Birmingham etc.) on a Saturday and you'll see loads of teenagers touring the shops and generally meeting up. Numbers are limited by the cost of getting there. Make it free and every* teenager for 30 miles around will be heading "to town"! How do you cope with that?

* OK, not every but a lot more.

Arsenal are at Manchester City. They have an allocation of 4,000 tickets - currently 2,500 drive, 1,000 come by coach, 500 by train. If the train becomes a free of charge option ... Good luck seating 3,000+ out of Piccadilly on a Saturday evening!

And so on.

Just because there would be potential overcrowding issues doesn't mean that this shouldn't be an aspirational target. Ultimately, with the climate crisis, getting more and more people traveling by train is a big priority in my eyes and the best way to do this is to massively increase capacity and then massively lower fares, just saying oh we can't do that is the wrong attitude. I agree that at the moment, we couldn't just remove fares because the current system couldn't handle it without another system in place, such as queueing for a train like some have suggested but I think is widely agreed is a bad idea.

 

[6Gman]

And the clear way to charge those people more is to get them to pay more tax, so then they are effectively paying more because they pay for some of the fare through tax and then some of it through the fare charged.

Just because there would be potential overcrowding issues doesn't mean that this shouldn't be an aspirational target. Ultimately, with the climate crisis, getting more and more people traveling by train is a big priority in my eyes and the best way to do this is to massively increase capacity and then massively lower fares, just saying oh we can't do that is the wrong attitude. I agree that at the moment, we couldn't just remove fares because the current system couldn't handle it without another system in place, such as queueing for a train like some have suggested but I think is widely agreed is a bad idea.

But people making additional journeys (such as the teenagers heading "into town") do nothing for the climate crisis ...

 

[mangyiscute]

But people making additional journeys (such as the teenagers heading "into town") do nothing for the climate crisis ...

So we should all sit at home and not travel anywhere? Providing travel opportunities for those who can't/dont want to drive is a very important thing for a country to do socially

 

[6Gman]

So we should all sit at home and not travel anywhere? Providing travel opportunities for those who can't/dont want to drive is a very important thing for a country to do socially

That isn't what I said.

 

[AM9]

One thing I wonder is are there any figures, or has any study been done, as to the effect of the TfL 60+ Oyster or Freedom Pass, both of which give free rail travel to some, within a certain area. Which might permit a comparison with other people or areas?

Giving free travel via the 60+ pass is both political (as a social benefit for a demographic where many don't have the means for much travel), and environmentally instrumental (large cities are not suitable for individual road vehicle transport) so there is a partial benefit that effectively reduces costs to the government.
Although I have no entitlement to a 60+ or an ENCTS Freedom pass, I have no problem with those that qualify within the GLA to receive it. The 60+ and a significant part of the enhanced ENCTS scheme is borne by the local authority so there is no justification for the those outside the GLA to complain that it is unfair.

 

[Meerkat]

lmao do you even take trains?
Perhaps we should focus on lowering fares so poorer people can travel by train, so that they can go on days out, or use it to get to work etc - that is something everyone in this country should be able to afford to do considering the GDP per capita of the UK - the current inequality is horrific.

Yes I do actually.
The day out costs - it’s not just the cost of the train that stops them. And people don’t generally commute distance for low paid work (and subsidising commuting is really subsidising employers to underpay).
If you are worried about inequality then you don’t subsidise something that favours the richer people. Just give the poorer railcards, or just give them the money and let them spend it as they need. If you must spend it on transport spend it on buses.
Start with the problem, not a favoured solution.

 

[mangyiscute]

Yes I do actually.
The day out costs - it’s not just the cost of the train that stops them. And people don’t generally commute distance for low paid work (and subsidising commuting is really subsidising employers to underpay).
If you are worried about inequality then you don’t subsidise something that favours the richer people. Just give the poorer railcards, or just give them the money and let them spend it as they need. If you must spend it on transport spend it on buses.
Start with the problem, not a favoured solution.

But why do you think they have low paid jobs? They live in cheaper areas where there are less jobs. Now if there were cheap trains that take them to the areas with the better jobs, suddenly they have access to that job market and may be able to get a better job - it's basic economics.

 

[yorksrob]

If the government has money to burn reducing rail fares is one of the last things it should be spending it on.
It would be regressive. Who travels by train (generalisation for simplicity) - higher earning commuters, business travellers, and those on leisure trips. The poor go to work by bus/walk and can’t afford days out of the sort that need trains. If you want to help the poorer folk get about you put the money into buses and active travel, or you just give them the money to use as they need.
I think there should be a lot more focus on what the rail subsidy is buying, and whether it is during the right things. For example Is it subsidising wealthier commuters to live in nicer houses when that money should be focussed on connecting disadvantaged areas to work opportunities, or getting trucks off the road?

Bus fares have already been addressed by the £2 scheme.

It's also incorrect to suggest that the working classes don't benefit from leisure opportunities by rail. Visiting auntie or taking a picnic to the seaside are not necessarily expensive activities in themselves.

 

[RT4038]

But why do you think they have low paid jobs? They live in cheaper areas where there are less jobs. Now if there were cheap trains that take them to the areas with the better jobs, suddenly they have access to that job market and may be able to get a better job - it's basic economics.

It is also basic economics that if a lot more people suddenly become available for the better paid jobs, then the pay of these jobs will go down (aside from the tax rises on everybody to pay for this free rail travel)

 

[Meerkat]

Bus fares have already been addressed by the £2 scheme.

It's also incorrect to suggest that the working classes don't benefit from leisure opportunities by rail. Visiting auntie or taking a picnic to the seaside are not necessarily expensive activities in themselves.

It’s a generalisation - subsidising leisure travel will benefit the richer far more than the poorer.
It therefore shouldn’t be a blanket policy of those wanting to reduce inequality.
There are of course specific exceptions to rail benefitting the rich more - for example a commuter service connecting a dying post industrial town to its nearby thriving city centre.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s a generalisation - subsidising leisure travel will benefit the richer far more than the poorer.
It therefore shouldn’t be a blanket policy of those wanting to reduce inequality.
There are of course specific exceptions to rail benefitting the rich more - for example a commuter service connecting a dying post industrial town to its nearby thriving city centre.

It's the old "rich man's toy" argument.

If subsidising rail travel does benefit the rich more, how much is that due to high fares acting as a barrier to lower income households ?

The answer must surely be to make rail travel more accessible to those on lower incomes.

 

[Robin Procter]

It doesn't matter how cheap or even free it is to travel by bus or train if you live in the countryside or small town/village. Why? - Because none of them offer a frequent enough public transport service and even more importantly they take at least three times as long to reach your chosen destination and often involve changing buses/trains en route.

Even if you walk wherever it is practical and whenever you can, you need a car!

 

[Killingworth]

It doesn't matter how cheap or even free it is to travel by bus or train if you live in the countryside or small town/village. Why? - Because none of them offer a frequent enough public transport service and even more importantly they take at least three times as long to reach your chosen destination and often involve changing buses/trains en route.

Even if you walk wherever it is practical and whenever you can, you need a car!

Truth is that's much the same in the modern estates of large cities. Housing is too widely dispersed in the outer suburbs to provide the critical numbers for cost effective public transport.

Getting a taxi at short notice is all but impossible in country areas. It takes a long time in outer suburbs.

 

[Meerkat]

It's the old "rich man's toy" argument.

If subsidising rail travel does benefit the rich more, how much is that due to high fares acting as a barrier to lower income households ?

The answer must surely be to make rail travel more accessible to those on lower incomes.

Richer people just travel more - they have more time and more disposable income to spend on leisure, and they have higher paid jobs that justify longer commutes. Spending the money on buses will have far more benefits for the poorer people.
Making public transport very cheap would also be another nail in the coffin of local shops and town centres.

 

[yorksrob]

Richer people just travel more - they have more time and more disposable income to spend on leisure, and they have higher paid jobs that justify longer commutes. Spending the money on buses will have far more benefits for the poorer people.
Making public transport very cheap would also be another nail in the coffin of local shops and town centres.

They travel more because they have more opportunity to ! That is something subsidised public transport can mitigate.

I don't agree with the argument that making public transport cheaper will be a nail in the coffin for town centres. Public transport tends to focus people on town centres, whereas motor transport focuses them out of town, therefore cheaper public transport is more likely to revitalise town centres !

 

[mangyiscute]

Richer people just travel more - they have more time and more disposable income to spend on leisure, and they have higher paid jobs that justify longer commutes. Spending the money on buses will have far more benefits for the poorer people.
Making public transport very cheap would also be another nail in the coffin of local shops and town centres.

The answer is not to give up on trying to allow those poorer people to travel. They should have the opportunity to travel too. The idea that trains are too expensive for poor people is an awful thought.

 

[Meerkat]

They travel more because they have more opportunity to ! That is something subsidised public transport can mitigate.

I don't agree with the argument that making public transport cheaper will be a nail in the coffin for town centres. Public transport tends to focus people on town centres, whereas motor transport focuses them out of town, therefore cheaper public transport is more likely to revitalise town centres !

Why shop in your town centre if you can get a cheap/free ride to a city with much better selection of shops?

The answer is not to give up on trying to allow those poorer people to travel. They should have the opportunity to travel too. The idea that trains are too expensive for poor people is an awful thought.

Lots of nice things are too expensive for poorer people.
The most effective way to help them with transport is to improve the buses and active travel.

 

[yorksrob]

Why shop in your town centre if you can get a cheap/free ride to a city with much better selection of shops?

Ultimately, you're still shopping in a town centre, rather than out of town as might be the case with motor transport.

Growing up in Kent, my family would vary shopping trips between Ashford, Canterbury and Maidstone for a change of scene.

 

[miklcct]

It’s a generalisation - subsidising leisure travel will benefit the richer far more than the poorer.
It therefore shouldn’t be a blanket policy of those wanting to reduce inequality.
There are of course specific exceptions to rail benefitting the rich more - for example a commuter service connecting a dying post industrial town to its nearby thriving city centre.

The reason claimed by the Hong Kong Government to provide subsidised travel to the elderly was precisely to encourage them to travel more. This provides social benefit because it improves the wellbeing of people. The only exceptions are premium services and border services.

It's also the same in London as well. Freedom Passes provide free travel to all modes of transport except premium services.

I can't see why elsewhere should be different to London or Hong Kong. Rail is an integral part of public transport. If they are treated like premium services by denying subsidies, the result is increased class divide because it means that the poor is denied access to an integral part of public transport.

Therefore the £2 bus cap should also be extended to cover all local rail services (with the majority of their journey running in a single metropolitan area) in my opinion. A classification scheme is needed to categorise rail services into long distance or local, where the former is excluded.

 

[PTR 444]

Ultimately, you're still shopping in a town centre, rather than out of town as might be the case with motor transport.

Growing up in Kent, my family would vary shopping trips between Ashford, Canterbury and Maidstone for a change of scene.

Ultimately, it would be better to subsidise public transport for journeys to one’s nearest local town, rather than a better town further away.