What Would Be The Impact Of Making Bus Fares Free?

[GusB]

It is always beneficial to get someone else to pay for your lifestyle. Unless you are that someone else of course. The ideological argument.

Presumably there would be, as now, no rights as to whether any particular service is operated or not, so the volume of service provided will only coincidently have to do with passenger demand but all to do with budgets and political considerations of who shouts loudest. In cities and towns with dense bus networks that may not matter too much (but even London, whilst not free, heavily subsidised and lurches from one funding crisis to another) in the provinces away from comprehensive networks there is likely to be more of a problem. In particular 'non-entitled [ to free transport] ' school demand not currently catered for by the public transport network, ( either relatively short distances or parental choice to alternative schools / grammar schools / private schools). This could be very expensive to provide and contribute little to the public transport network as a whole. Perhaps the other countries don't have such a framework of education and so are not quite comparable?

There would likely be a not particularly desirable transfer of patronage from train to bus in some areas (particularly amongst those where cheapness is a consideration above all else), and it would likely threaten the livelihood and thereby upset the taxi industry - at your peril.

It is one thing looking at the existing system/circumstances and the cost of changing from the existing fare structure to free, but the side effects / changed behaviour has to be taken into account as well, which may be far reaching in some areas. These side effects/behavioural changes might not occur immediately, but on a gradual basis and by the time the cost is reckoned may be difficult to reverse, with cuts made elsewhere on the network because they are easier. The OP is rightly thinking of the 'cons' possibility of this.

An entirely predictable response from someone who constantly bangs on about how people fail because they simply don't work hard enough, while ignoring the fact that circumstances in life may prevent them from achieving their full potential.

This is complete garbage. You haven't addressed free bus travel at all; you've just waffled on and on without making any point whatsoever.

 

[Sweetjesus]

I have concessionary pass and I also drive.

I find myself taking a bus more often but since after the pandemic, some of my bus journeys converted to car.

This is because bus frequencies have declined and direct routes have been cut.

Regarding to undesirables using the buses, the one only needs to look at London. I've not had issues with them to be honest. Part and parcel of mingling with the public, anyone who wants to avoid the undesirables, can hide under a rock if they want to.

So, free bus tickets? I think this is a good idea because for a bus network to work well and provide a benefit, it has to be well used and it has to have frequent buses going to various destinations. This is the main obstacle for the most car drivers.

Anything that reduces the number of people using the bus, also reduces the size of the bus network indirectly.

As they say, build it, then they'll come.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I tend to agree with much of what has been said above. Free vs nominal cost does, I think, affect the degree of "respect" shown by users. Slow, meandering indirect routes are a far bigger discouragement, I think, than operators comprehend. And so on.

However, I would suggest that the £2 fare is also flawed as it continues to follow the age-old pattern of "every person boarding a bus pays, every time". By which I mean - using an example - if a fare-paying couple want to make a round trip from here to the big shopping mall 10 miles away, that ramps that subsidised cost up to £16 (2 buses each way x £2 x 2 return x 2 people). And that is far in excess of the cost of driving there and back, to say nothing of the 2 or 3x elapsed time. To bring this even close to being competitive, there need to be two big changes to that age-old practice - regardless of the headline fare. And they are:

(1) A ticket is valid for a journey as distinct from a ride on a bus. In certain parts of the USA the municipal operator will issue a transfer ticket at no extra cost over the fare and that is valid on all other services for 90 minutes (say). Thus, even if you need 2 or 3 buses to get where you are going, the fare is the same. We'd need that across the board and it needs to be cross-operator where several exist. We don't care whose bus it is. We don't care that it crosses a line drawn on a map 30-odd years ago.

(2) Recognition that, in a car, up to (typically) 4 more people can ride along for nothing.

Do these things and a low flat fare would become something to shout about.

 

[RT4038]

An entirely predictable response from someone who constantly bangs on about how people fail because they simply don't work hard enough, while ignoring the fact that circumstances in life may prevent them from achieving their full potential.

Incentivise and help them achieve their full potential then, rather than the unintended consequences with those who do/are.

This is complete garbage. You haven't addressed free bus travel at all; you've just waffled on and on without making any point whatsoever.

Sorry if I am hitting a raw nerve and causing such unprofessional reaction from you - not everyone is going to agree with your outlook on life (or mine!) and maybe this is clouding your judgement.

In precis - there will be unintended consequences which will likely inflate the funding requirement in the future. (with some examples)

 

[ChrisC]

If bus travel were free, would it encourage short hops of two or three stops that would otherwise have been undertaken on foot or by bike? I think this is a relevant consideration given the obesity crisis, and the slow average speed of city bus services.

I think this is a very important point. If bus travel was free would it actually encourage some people, who ought to be walking, getting exercise and maintaining mobility, to use the bus for very short unnecessary journey. I am not sure that these are the people who we should be encouraging to use buses more frequently. I live in a village where the majority of people are wealthy retired people who have ENCTS passes but never use them. They drive in and out of the village in large cars and never consider using the hourly bus. These are the people who ought to be encouraged to leave their cars at home and use public transport, but even though they already have free bus travel, they don’t make use of it.

 

[greenline712]

I've been following this thread with interest . . . time to addd my four-pennorth!! In no particular order:

London . . . compared with the rest of the UK, London bus fares are hugely subsidised by the Mayor; and that means ALL residents of London. That is a political choice . . . all Mayor's do this, whatever political party. It is now accepted by "society".

Non London . . . with the exception of the Manchester "experiment", everywhere else has fares set at a "broadly commercial" rate. In the conurbations, there are sufficient passengers travelling to enable fares to be lowish (1 bus = 75 seats; if more seats are filled, then the unit cost goes down. Simple economics). Outside the conurbations, the sums are more challenging . . . in theory, fewer passengers = higher fares, or it should do. If "society" wants more buses or lower fares, then "society" must pay the difference. We can pretty much discount the "put more buses on and they will be filled" argument now . . . it hasn't really worked that way for a long time (and I speak from a 45-year career).

Non-passengers want a bus from home to wherever, more or less immediately. If they can't have that, they'll get the car out. I've heard this so many times . . . "my BMW is in the garage; what time does the bus run? Oh, only every 30 minutes? But I need to leave now!"

£2 fare cap . . . I'll be honest here . . . when it started (and was only for 3 months), I was agin the concept. It would've been too little for not long enough, and the reimbursement regime was difficult. As time goes along, the reimbursement has become more challenging, but generally the concept has worked, although I would rather have seen a "half-price sale" offer, whereby longer journeys would pay more. HOWEVER . . . what might happen when it finishes? I simply cannot see full fares returning; the market will no longer bear it. Maybe the "half-fare" concept will replace it?
{And remember that the £2 fare was NOT intended to support the industry, but to help those on low incomes after the Covid pandemic}.

Free fares . . .again, "society" must decide how to fund this. We have free travel for seniors, and LTAs fund this, with a modicum from DfT) from council taxes. If ALL bus fares were to be free, then residents taxes must rise, and the "Bromley" effect will occur. {The LB of Bromley brought a court action against London Transport in the 1980s about cheaper tube fares, and forced them to increase fares again because Bromley had no tube line, so its residents would pay more taxes for no benefit}.

I've no problem with free fares per se, but there will be problems along the way . . . a trial is required, maybe several trials . . . take a town with a limited route network, make the fares free, and see what happens. I will point you to Leighton Buzzard, which did exactly this . . . new network in 2023, free for about 8 months, fares charged from January 2024. Did the number of passengers rise? I don't believe so. Did the number of passengers fall after fares were re-charged? The jury is still out.

I'll just finish with a story from the mists of time . . . in London, seniors got free travel after 0930, and as a driver, we saw "the rise of the rabbit" . . . they used the bus for one stop because they could!! I can see free fares for all having the same effect . . .

 

[Ding Ding]

Why should bus travel be free? There is no such thing as free, everything has a cost, it's basic economics. If you want this discussion, then you would have to do a proper costing, surely, otherwise it's someone's pipe dream. Would the next step be, free train travel?
Regarding the under 22 travel scheme in Scotland, it will at some point in the future become unsustainable, the cost is astronomical in a time of cutbacks to basic services. The vast majority of journeys under this scheme are taken by school aged kids using the bus as a glorified taxi service. They normally wouldn't be entitled to free travel to school under the distance criteria, but now go two stops down the road. They cause trouble, vape, open emergency doors, come on, saying, " I've lost my card " and expect to travel free, and when pulled up, give a mouthful of abuse. I'm not saying the majority engage in this, but there has been a huge increase in anti social behaviour since the scheme was introduced. Opening this up to everyone, would without doubt increase this unacceptable trend even further.
If this scheme is to continue, there should be a time cap on it's use for school aged kids, seven o clock is a sufficient time for them to have negotiated their way home from any school activity, after that, it's the parents responsibility, or a cost, like we all had before this scheme.
I understand one person has said it helps his relation with costs, but we all have costs we have to bear, why should it be the tax payers responsibility to cover these? I know he will say that he is a tax payer as well, but that is no answer.
Now I know this might not be palatable to certain people on this forum, and they might say I'm talking garbage, we'll see.
If you ask any bus driver, what is the biggest pain in their job, 99% will say the free travel scheme and the hassle it brings, FACT.

 

[Typhoon]

I think this is a very important point. If bus travel was free would it actually encourage some people, who ought to be walking, getting exercise and maintaining mobility, to use the bus for very short unnecessary journey. I am not sure that these are the people who we should be encouraging to use buses more frequently. I live in a village where the majority of people are wealthy retired people who have ENCTS passes but never use them. They drive in and out of the village in large cars and never consider using the hourly bus. These are the people who ought to be encouraged to leave their cars at home and use public transport, but even though they already have free bus travel, they don’t make use of it.

In defense of your gas-guzzling neighbours, does the hourly bus go to where they want to go at a time they want to go there? In many areas shopping has been built around car use. The bus may go to the town but the town is largely closed - there may be a supermarket, but that is charging convenience-store prices. Even some medical facilities are being built out of town, with big car parks and minimal bus services (4 times a day in the case of one not too far away). There is a retail park not too far from where I live but requires me to change buses to get there; I don't bother (it is like shopping in a tin barn) but neighbours do.

I would rather more people used the bus, for a start I would have more people to talk to, especially now the Metro has gone (locally) but I'm not sure that anything will bring back the numbers of even a dozen years ago and, with marginal services being cut back or disappearing, I can't see anything but gradual decline. If you are young, learn to drive or live in a big city.

 

[ChrisC]

In defense of your gas-guzzling neighbours, does the hourly bus go to where they want to go at a time they want to go there? In many areas shopping has been built around car use. The bus may go to the town but the town is largely closed - there may be a supermarket, but that is charging convenience-store prices. Even some medical facilities are being built out of town, with big car parks and minimal bus services (4 times a day in the case of one not too far away). There is a retail park not too far from where I live but requires me to change buses to get there; I don't bother (it is like shopping in a tin barn) but neighbours do.

I would rather more people used the bus, for a start I would have more people to talk to, especially now the Metro has gone (locally) but I'm not sure that anything will bring back the numbers of even a dozen years ago and, with marginal services being cut back or disappearing, I can't see anything but gradual decline. If you are young, learn to drive or live in a big city.

I agree with so much of what you say. No, the gas-guzzling neighbours are not going to leave their cars at home and use the bus.

In the case of my location I think it’s mainly due to a total change in the type of people who now live here compared to the past. The village has become a place where only wealthy people can afford to live. If I hadn’t have inherited my house from my parents I couldn’t afford to live here. Gone are the days when lots of the cottages were occupied by agricultural workers and their families. There are no families with young children living in the village now and I can’t really think of any teenagers.

In the past on Friday morning, market day in the local town, there would be well over a dozen people waiting for the 9.40am bus into town and they would all return together on a bus late morning. They all knew each other by name, caught the bus together a few times a week, looked out for each other, and above all talked to each other. There used to be a similar number of people going to town in the evening on the 6.40pm bus, many going to bingo, the pub etc. That wouldn’t be possible now because there’s no bus back later in the evening. I don’t think the people who live here now would go to bingo or the town pubs anyway. Now the village is mainly full of very wealthy retired people and a few people who commute by car into Nottingham. Many of them live behind security gates and don’t mix with others in the village. I’m trying to use the bus more now that I have recently received my ENCTS pass but even on a Friday morning at 9.40am I will be the only person at the bus stop. Sad because in the past I knew the names of just about everyone who lived in every house in the village.

Times have changed. The people who live here now have never used buses and probably never will.

 

[stevieinselby]

I agree with so much of what you say. No, the gas-guzzling neighbours are not going to leave their cars at home and use the bus.

In the case of my location I think it’s mainly due to a total change in the type of people who now live here compared to the past. The village has become a place where only wealthy people can afford to live. If I hadn’t have inherited my house from my parents I couldn’t afford to live here. Gone are the days when lots of the cottages were occupied by agricultural workers and their families. There are no families with young children living in the village now and I can’t really think of any teenagers.
...
Times have changed. The people who live here now have never used buses and probably never will.

This is one of the consequences of allowing nimbies to prevent anything except a small number of large detached houses being built in their villages – it allows the hollowing out of entire communities.

 

[Typhoon]

I agree with so much of what you say. No, the gas-guzzling neighbours are not going to leave their cars at home and use the bus.

In the case of my location I think it’s mainly due to a total change in the type of people who now live here compared to the past. The village has become a place where only wealthy people can afford to live. If I hadn’t have inherited my house from my parents I couldn’t afford to live here. Gone are the days when lots of the cottages were occupied by agricultural workers and their families. There are no families with young children living in the village now and I can’t really think of any teenagers.

In the past on Friday morning, market day in the local town, there would be well over a dozen people waiting for the 9.40am bus into town and they would all return together on a bus late morning. They all knew each other by name, caught the bus together a few times a week, looked out for each other, and above all talked to each other. There used to be a similar number of people going to town in the evening on the 6.40pm bus, many going to bingo, the pub etc. That wouldn’t be possible now because there’s no bus back later in the evening. I don’t think the people who live here now would go to bingo or the town pubs anyway. Now the village is mainly full of very wealthy retired people and a few people who commute by car into Nottingham. Many of them live behind security gates and don’t mix with others in the village. I’m trying to use the bus more now that I have recently received my ENCTS pass but even on a Friday morning at 9.40am I will be the only person at the bus stop. Sad because in the past I knew the names of just about everyone who lived in every house in the village.

Times have changed. The people who live here now have never used buses and probably never will.

No gated properties round my way but the nearest bus stop is down an unmade, unlit 'road' (so a no-no in the dark) - no shelter. No pavements at the bottom so once you get to a certain level of immobility, it is a hazard. Otherwise a longish walk (30 mins+) to safer stops, best avoided in inclement weather. It is easier to get in the car, sometimes you can get a lift from someone who is grateful for someone to talk to. Otherwise, organisations for the elderly will drive round and pick people up and take them to a centre, where they can have a hot meal as well as other services, I gather they might even do your shopping. Most might never need to use a bus; I like to get out and about, day trips out planned in the winter months but nothing like as much as I used to. I think the problem is country wide, maybe with the exception of cities.

 

[Trainman40083]

Where I live people are walking away from bus services despite the £2 fare. Unreliable, late, breaking down. Maybe that is down to the fact that usage (in some areas) has not gone up to a level of previous levels of revenue, against rising costs. I think since COVID, "competition" to buses has grown dramatically , but not as bus versus bus. Local shopping, working from home, internet shopping, shopping other than where the bus goes, travel by train, taxi (where one travels less). I actually think that given the bus companies do not get the full difference between the £2 fare and the full fare, if their business doesn't not significantly increase passengers, it might drag more companies down. You add in more people against paying for public transport that never use it (maybe cos there is none where they live) and you wonder where it will end. But which is better? The £2 fare or reliability?

 

[BayPaul]

If additional money was available for bus subsidies then my preference would be for a significant improvement in frequency (and evening services) rather than a reduction in fares. I would suggest that the reason that bus services are more popular in London than elsewhere is much more because of their turn up and go nature, that makes them a practical alternative to cars, rather than because of their low fares. It's certainly the reason I am much more likely to use buses inside the m25 than outside.

 

[johncrossley]

I would rather have better service rather than cheaper fares, but fares have to be seen to be reasonable. A nationwide hopper fare along with service improvements might be better value than free travel with no service improvements. Other than long distance usage, which is headline grabbing but relatively niche compared to the main usage of buses for urban travel, the £2 single is only good if you don't change buses or you only need a one-way trip.

 

[richw]

This was disproved quite a long time ago, when Met Police officers in London were allowed to travel free on buses, just showing their warrant card. Research after introduction showed it had not made a lot of difference to how they travelled compared to previously. The time saving, routing convenience, and other factors completely outweighed any benefit from not having to pay bus fares.

Police travel free on production of their warrant card where I drive. There’s one police officer who regularly uses the bus to commute that I can think of.

 

[Deerfold]

If additional money was available for bus subsidies then my preference would be for a significant improvement in frequency (and evening services) rather than a reduction in fares. I would suggest that the reason that bus services are more popular in London than elsewhere is much more because of their turn up and go nature, that makes them a practical alternative to cars, rather than because of their low fares. It's certainly the reason I am much more likely to use buses inside the m25 than outside.

And also makes switching between routes more reliable. If you're going from an every 10 minute route to an every 10 minute route and your first bus is late, it impacts a lot less than going from a half hourly route to an hourly route and the first bus is late.

Police travel free on production of their warrant card where I drive. There’s one police officer who regularly uses the bus to commute that I can think of.

But would they commute on the bus anyway?

 

[TUC]

The money this would cost would be better spent expanding evening and Sunday services. What's the benefit of free fares on non-existent buses?

 

[WAB]

And also makes switching between routes more reliable. If you're going from an every 10 minute route to an every 10 minute route and your first bus is late, it impacts a lot less than going from a half hourly route to an hourly route and the first bus is late.

Changing buses onto an hourly or half-hourly route is only really the sort of thing you do if you have a large part of the day blocked out - it just adds another time penalty onto the others which afflict bus routes: stopping at intermediate stops, walks to the stops on both ends, early arrival at the stop in case of early running, roundabout routes, buffer for delays/cancellations etc.

 

[johncrossley]

Changing buses onto an hourly or half-hourly route is only really the sort of thing you do if you have a large part of the day blocked out - it just adds another time penalty onto the others which afflict bus routes: stopping at intermediate stops, walks to the stops on both ends, early arrival at the stop in case of early running, roundabout routes, buffer for delays/cancellations etc.

Unless you have carefully timed connections. Some buses in other countries work this way.

 

[Deerfold]

Changing buses onto an hourly or half-hourly route is only really the sort of thing you do if you have a large part of the day blocked out - it just adds another time penalty onto the others which afflict bus routes: stopping at intermediate stops, walks to the stops on both ends, early arrival at the stop in case of early running, roundabout routes, buffer for delays/cancellations etc.

Yes, that was my point.

Although I do do it, I can understand why it puts people off.

 

[Typhoon]

Yes, that was my point.

Although I do do it, I can understand why it puts people off.

Similar. The difference for those of us on this Forum, is that we probably use trackers like 'Bus Times' and have work-arounds in mind if things go awry. Jo/ Joe Public doesn't have that advantage. If they miss the connection, they will wait for the next or give up (tough if its an infrequent service); we are more likely to know that by catching a different route bus, we can meet up with one going in the other direction to our intended destination.

 

[RT4038]

Similar. The difference for those of us on this Forum, is that we probably use trackers like 'Bus Times' and have work-arounds in mind if things go awry. Jo/ Joe Public doesn't have that advantage. If they miss the connection, they will wait for the next or give up (tough if its an infrequent service); we are more likely to know that by catching a different route bus, we can meet up with one going in the other direction to our intended destination.

I notice more and more of 'Joe Public' using Bus Times now. Pity in my area it is a bit ropey. (Not so much Bus Times fault I might add)

 

[Ianigsy]

I'll just finish with a story from the mists of time . . . in London, seniors got free travel after 0930, and as a driver, we saw "the rise of the rabbit" . . . they used the bus for one stop because they could!! I can see free fares for all having the same effect . . .

I suppose it depends how frequent the bus is - how many people are going to wait more than 5-10 minutes for a very short journey? Although on the route that I take every day, I’ve known people do it to avoid having to cross the Leeds ring road on foot at Lawnswood.

I suppose the unanswerable question is how much the £2 fares are distorting travel plans and changing the tickets people use. If (as is usually the case) I’m in the office four days in a particular week, I buy an £18.50 First Flexi 5 ticket, which gives me five days’ travel in West Yorkshire. Next week I’m in all five days, so I’ll buy a £22 weekly ticket, which gives me seven days. But the point is that the £2 single means that First have to price their weekly ticket below £20 or it’s not worthwhile for Monday to Friday commuters.

 

[WAB]

It would be good to have a bus equivalent of DARWIN. Too much conflicting information between information sources. A live arrival time, a timetabled arrival time, and 'cancelled' all mean both running and cancelled. Different apps and departure boards can give wildly differing ETAs. Information on diversions etc. are very hard to come by. Investing in running the buses more like the railway would be a far better use of public money than trying to push fares down further.

 

[RT4038]

But the point is that the £2 single means that First have to price their weekly ticket below £20 or it’s not worthwhile for Monday to Friday commuters.

Unless they are changing buses in their journey.

 

[Simon75]

It would be good to have a bus equivalent of DARWIN. Too much conflicting information between information sources. A live arrival time, a timetabled arrival time, and 'cancelled' all mean both running and cancelled. Different apps and departure boards can give wildly differing ETAs. Information on diversions etc. are very hard to come by. Investing in running the buses more like the railway would be a far better use of public money than trying to push fares down further.

What is DARWIN ?

 

[The exile]

Indeed - when I lived in rural Germany, buses would be timed to meet at hubs and drivers of late-running services would report whether they had any passengers requiring the connection by radio. I never saw a connection not held if anyone needed it. Mind you, significantly late running was also almost unheard of.

 

[GusB]

The thread was set up to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of making bus travel free. Could we please get back to the original topic? Thanks

 

[Class 466]

Whilst free public transport works in civilised countries like Luxembourg, I really don't think it would work at all in the UK...

 

[The Ham]

If additional money was available for bus subsidies then my preference would be for a significant improvement in frequency (and evening services) rather than a reduction in fares. I would suggest that the reason that bus services are more popular in London than elsewhere is much more because of their turn up and go nature, that makes them a practical alternative to cars, rather than because of their low fares. It's certainly the reason I am much more likely to use buses inside the m25 than outside.

Whilst I like them idea of free bus travel, there's certainly a long way to go before we've got a usable system for a lot of people (notable exceptions of the likes of London).

Having said that, increasing bus use (be that free buses or using the same money to expand the service provision) would significantly aid those people who would wish to carry on driving.

Personally I'm not convinced by the argument that undesirables would be a significant issue, yes there could be some problems. However, the numbers are likely to be small. For example for a town with 20,000 people there would be 90 homeless people (on average), however only about 1 would actually be sleeping rough.

Likewise it's those kids that loiter outside shops which are likely to be doing similarly but on the buses. In average there'll be 3,800 people aged 0-16, we can probably half that straight off (as 0-10 year olds aren't likely to be on a bus on their own), so that's 1,900. Based on my experience of school (both as a child and from what my children say) you're typically looking at 3 in a class of 30 being a significant issue, with another 5 causing some issues (the latter mostly just being a high spirited and/or loud), so if you say 12% going to be an issue on the buses that's about 230.

However, most of the time they are going to be in school, so not causing issues. Also a lot of them probably won't be traveling for no reason, and even if they are there's a good chance each one would be on two to four buses a day (even two half hourly bus routes over a 12 hour day is 96 different buses), and whilst they may gang together all that means is that fewer buses will be impacted.

However not all of those 230 would be on buses in any given week, let alone any given day. Again, I suspect the fear is greater than the reality.

Whilst free public transport works in civilised countries like Luxembourg, I really don't think it would work at all in the UK...

Why couldn't the UK?