Should public transport be free?

[MattRobinson]

Evening. We're often hearing about how much damage cars cause to the environment, and how we should go by train to reduce pollution. But trains are expensive. Should we make them free to use to persuade people, for the main part, out of their cars?

Personally, as a left leaning person, my opinion is that public transport provides a service to the public and as such should be very cheap.

Ok, that means that revenue staff may be out of a job, but with the vast increase in rail users, they will surely be employable in a different part of the rail system (drivers/guards/platform staff/maintenance staff/etc).

Discuss.

 

[DarloRich]

yes make it free. make everything free.

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

 

[telstarbox]

There's no need. The railways already receive subsidy (from taxation) and most lines are well-used with current fare levels. Making them free would mean the service wouldn't be able to cope with the increase in use and also there would be no income for investment in new trains and infrastructure.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It is a question of who you want to be paying for your travel.

1) Yourself. You can pay when you travel and if you don't travel you don't have to pay.
2) The Government. They would pay for you regardless of whether you actually travel, however, as the Government would have to find the money to cover the costs regardless of how much you or anyone else (including non-tax payers) actually travels, the likelihood is that tax would go up by more than you currently pay for train travel.

So, given the options and the fact that most of my travel is currently free (staff pass), I'd rather pay for my own travel when I need to.

 

[Welshman]

Whilst I realise that public transport can never be free [as someone has to pay, somewhere], I do wish we could return to the principle that public transport is a public service, and not a means of lining the shareholders' pockets.

 

[Monty]

The problem with providing free travel to all is you burden the taxpayer to foot the bill, not exactly fair when they may choose not to use the national network. Another side effect is if you do encourage more people to use the train, even more investment is then required for more trains & upgrading infrastructure etc to cope with the ever increasing demand and therefore burdening the taxpayer even more.

I'm sorry but it's unrealistic and unfair to provide a free travel and force others to pay for it.

 

[soil]

Trains on commuter routes provided a premium service compared with driving. People will happily pay £30 a day to go into London, because it's much better/faster than driving.

OTOH, an offer of free travel on a weekend to the seaside say would not attract that many people, simply because the car is so much more convenient, that it's not a pricing issue.

 

[ainsworth74]

I do wish we could return to the principle that public transport is a public service, and not a means of lining the shareholders' pockets.

You know I've often wondered when the railway was a public service? From the start of railways to 1947 they were (excluding the World Wars) a private industry (with heavy state interference) with shareholders and expected to turn a profit. From 1947 to 1997 they were a nationalised industry but one that was expected to 'pay its own way' as far as was practical. BR was expected to do its best to cover its costs. From 1997 onwards it went back to private ownership. At no stage was it ever operated to provide a solely public service as the bottom line of cost was always a significant consideration.

 

[6Gman]

You know I've often wondered when the railway was a public service? From the start of railways to 1947 they were (expecting the World Wars) a private industry (with heavy state interference) with shareholders and expected to turn a profit. From 1947 to 1997 they were a nationalised industry but one that was expected to 'pay its own way' as far as was practical. BR was expected to do its best to cover its costs. From 1997 onwards it went back to private ownership. At no stage was it ever operated to provide a solely public service as the bottom line of cost was always a significant consideration.

I agree!

And to respond to the OP free public transport really doesn't make sense if you think it through. How do you decide on service levels? Do you lay on a bus service to every little village up and down the country? How often?

And imagine school holiday time! Thousands of teenagers heading - free, gratis and for nothing - to patrol the shopping malls of distant towns.

No thanks!

 

[Greenback]

While we have money as a way of paying for goods and servies within a capitalist economic model, there is no way that public transport could ever be free.

Not that ther eis ever likely to be any sort of discussion of possible alternative models in the western world. We are so chained to measuring everything in capitalist terms that a proper debate is probably about as far away as landing people on Pluto.

(Yes, I appear to be a little cynical and depressed this evening!).

 

[sheff1]

The problem with providing free travel to all is you burden the taxpayer to foot the bill, not exactly fair when they may choose not to use the national network. Another side effect is if you do encourage more people to use the train, even more investment is then required for more trains & upgrading infrastructure etc to cope with the ever increasing demand and therefore burdening the taxpayer even more.

I'm sorry but it's unrealistic and unfair to provide a free travel and force others to pay for it.

* 'The taxpayer'. Who is this person, they seem to crop up regularly when it suggested that something should not be paid for by the user. I would have thought that the vast majority of people who travel by train pay taxes.

* Again, why is it that people who choose not to use the service 'pay for it' but those who do use the service somehow do not 'pay for it' ? Would you use the same arguement for, say, fire services i.e. if you do not pay for personal fire insurance your house is left to burn because otherwise it would unfair on those who have bought insurance?

I agree, though, that it is unrealistic to provide unlimited free public transport as the infrastructure could not cope. The only way it could work on the ground would be if all trains/buses etc were fully reservable and once the tickets had gone you could not get on that service. This might be feasible for long distance travel, but would be totally impracticable for short/medium distance travel which forms the vast majority of public trasnport journeys.

 

[Temple Meads]

If not free buses need to become seriously cheaper, a return from Tiverton Town Centre to Tiverton Parkway station (a journey of about 6 miles) is about £4.40 now, which is extortionate!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

* 'The taxpayer'. Who is this person, they seem to crop up regularly when it suggested that something should not be paid for. I would have thought that the vast majority of people who travel by train pay taxes.

People who pay tax, those who don't generally include children and visitors from another country, I'm sure you could label more but you'd have to define which tax was covering the cost (council tax, income tax, fuel duty, etc).

* Again, why is it that people who choose not to use the service 'pay for it' but those who do use the service somehow do not 'pay for it' ? Would you use the same arguement for, say, fire services i.e. if you do not pay for personal fire insurance your house is left to burn because otherwise it would unfair on those who have bought insurance?

The people who travel regularly would still end up paying more as (a) many will have a season ticket currently and (b) not all travellers are taxpayers (see above).

 

[sheff1]

If not free buses need to become seriously cheaper, a return from Tiverton Town Centre to Tiverton Parkway station (a journey of about 6 miles) is about £4.40 now, which is extortionate!

In my view, for local public transport, what is required is a German style system of regional transport boards, accountable to local politicians. These boards then set fares in their area. This is basically what already happens in London and, to a much lesser degree, in the PTE (or whatever they are called now) areas. That way the local electorate can chose between parties who want to keep fares low, or those who advocate realatively lower local taxes and higher public transport fares.

People who pay tax, those who don't generally include children and visitors from another country, I'm sure you could label more but you'd have to define which tax was covering the cost (council tax, income tax, fuel duty, etc).

Indeed, but the quote seemed to suggest that (i) taxpayers and rail travellers are mutually exclusive & (ii) only those who do not travel would 'pay'.

 

[mattyb1405]

Personally, as a left leaning person, my opinion is that public transport provides a service to the public and as such should be very cheap.
Discuss.

Cheap or cheaper than the option of using your own vehicle ?

Additionally in the context of travelling distance to work - in the past did many people live closer to work or is that just how i've perceived things to have been i.e teachers close to their schools, station staff close to stations etc....(last bit in the context of one of the stations near us changing shifts to have a 2 hour opening session in one pm peak and discussing the merits of some one doing a 60-90 minute journey to man it!)

 

[sheff1]

The people who travel regularly would still end up paying more

I don't follow this. If travel was free at the point of use, how would regular travellers pay more ?

 

[34D]

Trains on commuter routes provided a premium service compared with driving. People will happily pay £30 a day to go into London, because it's much better/faster than driving.

OTOH, an offer of free travel on a weekend to the seaside say would not attract that many people, simply because the car is so much more convenient, that it's not a pricing issue.

The car is more convenient for going to the seaside? Not sure upon what basis you postulate this.

I did a recent trip to the east coast and I was happy to take the train both ways.

 

[sheff1]

OTOH, an offer of free travel on a weekend to the seaside say would not attract that many people, simply because the car is so much more convenient, that it's not a pricing issue.

How, exactly, is car so much more convenient if I want to go to Cleethorpes for the day.

 

[Greenback]

Cheap or cheaper than the option of using your own vehicle ?

Additionally in the context of travelling distance to work - in the past did many people live closer to work or is that just how i've perceived things to have been i.e teachers close to their schools, station staff close to stations etc....(last bit in the context of one of the stations near us changing shifts to have a 2 hour opening session in one pm peak and discussing the merits of some one doing a 60-90 minute journey to man it!)

People generally lived closer to their work place in times past. It would have been pretty rare for someone to live in Swindon and work in London a century ago!

We are a lot more mobile now, and a 60 minute commute each way is not seen as overly long by a lot of people (it is by me!)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Indeed, but the quote seemed to suggest that (i) taxpayers and rail travellers are mutually exclusive & (ii) only those who do not travel would 'pay'.

I didn't read it that way, perhaps you saw something I didn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't follow this. If travel was free at the point of use, how would regular travellers pay more ?

Payment for the service would come from tax, but some groups of people don't pay tax (or atleast not those taxes that the payment is likely to come from), therefore, even accounting for the fact many buy a season ticket, one tax paying person will be paying for more than one person in the form of tax. Ergo they will pay more. Granted, a non-tax paying person would be paying less for their travel as they don't pay tax.

 

[sheff1]

Payment for the service would come from tax, but some groups of people don't pay tax (or atleast not those taxes that the payment is likely to come from), therefore, even accounting for the fact many buy a season ticket, one tax paying person will be paying for more than one person in the form of tax. Ergo they will pay more. Granted, a non-tax paying person would be paying less for their travel as they don't pay tax.

Sorry, I still don't get it. No one would be buying a season ticket if all travel was free at point of use. Yes, some people pay more tax than others but, if two people pay exactly the same total amount of tax in a year, the fact that that one travels regularly on the free public transport, and one does not, has no effect on the total amount of tax each pays. Indeed, the regular traveller would be getting 'more' for their tax so, if anything, it could be argued they are paying less.

 

[soil]

How, exactly, is car so much more convenient if I want to go to Cleethorpes for the day.

Well it might or might not be in individual circumstances.

The point however is that workplaces are often, but not always, blessed with excellent transport links. Travel patterns are predictable and can be planned with relative certainty.

Leisure facilities on the other hand may not enjoy any rail access at all, trains may be infrequent, require several changes, etc.

I am quite happy, nay, I WANT, to constrain myself to the same workplace each day, but I'm not going to stick to the same leisure destination each time.

From Woking, with a major station, the nearest tourist attractions might be:

Wisley Gardens - no nearby train station
Polesden Lacey - no nearby train station
Virginia Water - no nearby train station

Beach: Bognor Regis - three trains away

Free train travel is only appealing if the train is a viable option in the first place. Which it isn't much of the time.

 

[eastdyke]

Well it might or might not be in individual circumstances.

The point however is that workplaces are often, but not always, blessed with excellent transport links. Travel patterns are predictable and can be planned with relative certainty.

Leisure facilities on the other hand may not enjoy any rail access at all, trains may be infrequent, require several changes, etc.

I am quite happy, nay, I WANT, to constrain myself to the same workplace each day, but I'm not going to stick to the same leisure destination each time.

From Woking, with a major station, the nearest tourist attractions might be:

Wisley Gardens - no nearby train station
Polesden Lacey - no nearby train station
Virginia Water - no nearby train station

Beach: Bognor Regis - three trains away

Free train travel is only appealing if the train is a viable option in the first place. Which it isn't much of the time.

I am never happy when anything is 'free'. If it is genuinely given free then it has no value and can easily be abused. Clearly the present public transport system in the UK could never cope at point of use if it was offered free.

If by magic it was free, and peeps stopped using their car, and places such as Wisley Gardens, Polesden Lacey and Virginia Water have no nearby station what do you think would happen?

These places, or at least those that ultimately survive, would find a way to get peeps in.

Bognor Regis, OK that's probably a place too far for some of us.

Modal shift is inevitable with every increase in private motoring costs.

But free train travel? No thanks, it certainly has value to me.

 

[Cable Car]

Bus travel is free to all Scottish over 60s.
They can travel from Aberdeen to Ayr if they wish.
Ireland, North and South is the same i believe.
Cork to Belfast and back for nothing.
Public transport should be free to all regardless of age.
It's no big deal unless you believe the present system is better, which it ain't.
Cities clogged with washing machines on wheels.
No thanks.

 

[sevenhills]

We're often hearing about how much damage cars cause to the environment, and how we should go by train to reduce pollution. But trains are expensive. Should we make them free to use to persuade people, for the main part, out of their cars?

2010 was one of the hottest years on record worldwide, the reducing our co2 footprint is a high priority.
But since travelling by public transport uses a lot of co2, making it free is a very poor idea. It may be more efficient than travelling by your own car, but if public transport was free our co2 usage might go up and not down.

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

 

[SussexMan]

Do we have a figure of the actual total current cost of the railways at the moment, not just Govt funding but all fares etc. Might then be able to work out how much extra tax I might have to pay. If it's an extra £100 a year then I might be up for it - until I realise that every train is full and I can't get on any! Wonder what the effect on the economy would be as well.


...also, if the carriage of human cargo was "free at the point of use" then what about freight?

 

[cuccir]

Perhaps a more reasonable approach might be for a few more cities to follow the example of the larger cities on America's Pacific NorthWest. Portland, Seattle and Tacoma all have city centre free transport zones, with Portland's easily the biggest.

The theory is that you encourage: park and ride behavior, easing congestion; more journeys around the city centre, boosting economic activity as people visit more shops/cafes/bars etc; and you make the city more attractive to tourists, particularly making them select hotels from a wider area.

 

[dcsprior]

I don't like the idea of fares paid for out of general taxation - except perhaps for a slow'n'steady expansion of the currently free countrywide travel for people who're elderly or have disabilities.

However, I think it would be a good idea to ringfence taxation from transport (incl Fuel Duty and air taxes - which should also be brought to the same level as motorists pay on fuel) to go back into transport where there's a "public good" - e.g. stopping rural decline, reducing emissions, etc.

This carrot'n'stick approach to get people from cars & planes to less polluting forms of transport would hopefully be better than the current (stick-only) approach

 

[radamfi]

The answer is not to make public transport free, but to make it very high quality and put constraints on car use. Public transport is not particularly cheap in Switzerland but there is a very remarkable level of usage, despite very high car ownership and wealth. They do, however, have a reasonably good value annual pass for all public transport in the country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

stopping rural decline

Does rural decline actually exist? It might exist in areas of poor economic performance such as rural Wales or Cornwall but in much of England people seem to be pouring in to rural areas for commuter use.

 

[90019]

Bus travel is free to all Scottish over 60s.

And when you have a bus full of OAPs using their passes, meaning that fare paying passengers cannot get on the bus, particularly in the peaks, it's a bit of a nuisance.