Would free public transport work in the UK?

[B&I]

In most countries, there would be east west bus routes with few, if any, buses running along Oxford/Wilmslow Road. You would be expected to change onto the tram for the city centre if you are off Oxford/Wilmslow Road. This requires far fewer buses than the current network with the added bonus of making it easy to make journeys within south Manchester that aren't to the city centre. Not everyone wants to go to the city centre. Getting a high modal share for public transport means catering for trips other than those to the city centre.

There are some bus routes round Manchester like that already

 

[Dentonian]

That's simply untrue. I have known quite a number of councillors who didn't have cars.

(And how do you define "well paid"?)

And the new leader of Tameside MBC had FIVE cars parked in her drive (1), front patio (2) and bus stop outside (2). She eventually solved the latter problem by moving the bus stop to right opposite a T-junction. "Invariably" is one of those words in the English language which is mis-used. Perhaps I should have said that in any given area, the number of Councillors with cars will be higher than the ward average; similarly MPs v Constituency average. And it goes even more for the other groups I mentioned, especially if a revise "cars" to read "personal transport".

Well paid is probably £20k a year to most working bus users in this area.

 

[Dentonian]

There are some bus routes round Manchester like that already

And the proportion is increasing, as is the number of complaints, especially in Rochdale/Oldham areas and now North Manchester.

 

[6Gman]

Well paid is probably £20k a year to most working bus users in this area.

Very, very few councillors get £20k p.a.

 

[6Gman]

And the new leader of Tameside MBC had FIVE cars parked in her drive (1), front patio (2) and bus stop outside (2).

So you based your assertion about all councillors on one councillor in your own area?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Trouble is you are talking party politics and public v private.

Of course I am, it goes to the heart of just about any discussion of public transport in this country.

I'm talking OMNIbus (I take it you know basic Latin) v Remote Rail.

Quite apart from "omnibus" being an archaic word you take its derivation far too literally. The idea that buses could be all things to all men might have had some relevance in the days before widespread private car ownership; in this day and age they have to justify themselves rather more clearly. And as long as Deregulation remains in place that is bound to result in them being concentrated on where they are most heavily used. And yes, that's politics for you! If you want to see real changes you need to persuade rather a lot of people to change their voting habits.

What is "Remote Rail"? I take it that it's a comment on the fact that there isn't a railway station within easy walking distance of every sizeable community. Yet in this country aside from London and Glasgow the suburban network around Manchester is the best there is in terms of geographical penetration, though Liverpool doesn't do too badly either. But because it isn't convenient to you it doesn't deserve funding?

Last time I looked Serco, RATP-Dev, Keolis Amey (and yes, Stagecoach) were all private companies, so if its unacceptable to use public money to provide Stagecoach with new buses, why is it acceptable to use it to provide Stagecoach with new trams....or even Trains (EMT)?

Radamfi has already provided the correction to the erroneous assumption behind this question.

The political (NOT party political) answer is because not only MPs and Councillors invariable have cars and are paid well, but the same goes for business leaders, lobbyists, floating voters and of course, the Media.

How can you possibly assert that all floating voters "have cars and are paid well"? Are they deemed deserving of your criticism just because their votes don't produce the results you want? This is a democracy after all. So many of your comments are dripping with the politics of envy so beloved of the hard left. Perhaps you would prefer life under a hard left government. Do China or North Korea look like good places to live? Or could it be more simply you rather regret your decision not to become a car owner? Decisions have consequences...

 

[mpthomson]

And the new leader of Tameside MBC had FIVE cars parked in her drive (1), front patio (2) and bus stop outside (2). She eventually solved the latter problem by moving the bus stop to right opposite a T-junction. "Invariably" is one of those words in the English language which is mis-used. Perhaps I should have said that in any given area, the number of Councillors with cars will be higher than the ward average; similarly MPs v Constituency average. And it goes even more for the other groups I mentioned, especially if a revise "cars" to read "personal transport".

Well paid is probably £20k a year to most working bus users in this area.

How many people live in her house? And how many of them a) work and b) drive? Where's your evidence that MP's have more cars than the constituency average or that councillors do? As others have said there are plenty councillors with no vehicles. Or are you (as I suspect) just making this up? What do you class as personal transport? Cycle? Motorbike? Hovercar? Personal spaceship?.......

I used to live next door to a county councillor, he used to tell me that the amount of time he spent on council duties (inc parish councils/meetings/surgeries/admin work at home etc) and the amount of his recompense, not even anything remotely close to £20k or even close to half that amount, for doing so meant that his council time was at well below minimum wage levels. It's not the large gravy train that many seem to think it is....

 

[B&I]

Of course I am, it goes to the heart of just about any discussion of public transport in this country.



Quite apart from "omnibus" being an archaic word you take its derivation far too literally. The idea that buses could be all things to all men might have had some relevance in the days before widespread private car ownership; in this day and age they have to justify themselves rather more clearly. And as long as Deregulation remains in place that is bound to result in them being concentrated on where they are most heavily used. And yes, that's politics for you! If you want to see real changes you need to persuade rather a lot of people to change their voting habits.

What is "Remote Rail"? I take it that it's a comment on the fact that there isn't a railway station within easy walking distance of every sizeable community. Yet in this country aside from London and Glasgow the suburban network around Manchester is the best there is in terms of geographical penetration, though Liverpool doesn't do too badly either. But because it isn't convenient to you it doesn't deserve funding?



Radamfi has already provided the correction to the erroneous assumption behind this question.



How can you possibly assert that all floating voters "have cars and are paid well"? Are they deemed deserving of your criticism just because their votes don't produce the results you want? This is a democracy after all. So many of your comments are dripping with the politics of envy so beloved of the hard left. Perhaps you would prefer life under a hard left government. Do China or North Korea look like good places to live? Or could it be more simply you rather regret your decision not to become a car owner? Decisions have consequences...

There should be some equivalent of Goodwin's Law which kicks in when someone who expresses anything other than orthodox neoliberal views is accused of 'wanting to live in North Korea' (China hasn't actually been a communist country, in economic terms, for nearly 40 years.) 'Politics of envy' is another right-wing bingo call. Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be concerned about a more equal society without wanting material gain for themselves ?

This is supposed to be a forum about railways. It might be expected that people contributing to it will be broadly in favour of as many people as possible using public transport. Increasingly, however, any suggestion that this country's love affair with private cars and HGVs is environmentally and socially unsustainable, and that transport policy should change to reflect this, attracts derision.

Finally, on what basis do you assume that it anyone who does not drive does so out of choice ? I don't know about Dentonian, but I am one of many in this country who can't drive for medical reasons. Many others can't afford to run a car. Should our transport system cater for people who don't have the choice, or in true Thatcherite fashion should such people be written off, their immutable personal circumstances mischaracterised as poor life choices ?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There should be some equivalent of Goodwin's Law which kicks in when someone who expresses anything other than orthodox neoliberal views is accused of 'wanting to live in North Korea' (China hasn't actually been a communist country, in economic terms, for nearly 40 years.) 'Politics of envy' is another right-wing bingo call. Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be concerned about a more equal society without wanting material gain for themselves ?

Nothing wrong with wanting a more equal society. But Dentonian's posts are very much slanted towards their own personal aspirations with little regard for the wider picture. As such their views most certainly do smack of equality but with some being more equal than others. And the great failing of socialism is the inability to realise that true equality is an illusion as we are not all the same. Equality of opportunity is highly desirable however.

This is supposed to be a forum about railways. It might be expected that people contributing to it will be broadly in favour of as many people as possible using public transport. Increasingly, however, any suggestion that this country's love affair with private cars and HGVs is environmentally and socially unsustainable, and that transport policy should change to reflect this, attracts derision.

Again it's a case of understanding that public transport needs to be seen as part of a wider picture. And that picture includes an electorate that is too easily hoodwinked into believing that the current basically two party system is the best way forward. It promotes division and undermines compromise. No wonder that issues that require long-term solutions are dealt with so poorly in this country.

Finally, on what basis do you assume that it anyone who does not drive does so out of choice ? I don't know about Dentonian, but I am one of many in this country who can't drive for medical reasons. Many others can't afford to run a car. Should our transport system cater for people who don't have the choice, or in true Thatcherite fashion should such people be written off, their immutable personal circumstances mischaracterised as poor life choices ?

Dentonian has previously admitted on this forum that they learned to drive but decided not to buy a car. All those who believe that private motoring is akin to a crime against humanity or the environment should spend a few months in places like the Netherlands or Switzerland: both countries have rather good public transport with wide political consensus regarding its funding but both countries also have higher rates of private car ownership than this country. Campaigning in favour of public transport while at the same time seeking to actively restrict private motoring is, IMO, doomed to failure.

 

[Bill EWS]

I remember way back in the 70's when it was suggested that the railways be run by a tax, where they would be guaranteed enough money to run a maximum service and investment. I recall the sum of around 20p per person would have been workable at the time. That sounds like a better system than trying to run a 'free' service where the money would have to come from somewhere and take away from other subsidised services . Of course if tried today the tax would be whatever equivalent of what 20p would be worth today. A bit like the TV licence!

 

[B&I]

Nothing wrong with wanting a more equal society. But Dentonian's posts are very much slanted towards their own personal aspirations with little regard for the wider picture. As such their views most certainly do smack of equality but with some being more equal than others. And the great failing of socialism is the inability to realise that true equality is an illusion as we are not all the same. Equality of opportunity is highly desirable however.

I am not a socialist, ans do not believe guaranteed equality of outcome is possible. However, nor do I see that as a reason to abandon any attempt to create a better society, which is what it is often used as an excuse for.

How has Dentonian ever said anything to suggest he wants a society which favours some, presumably jncluding him, at the expense of others? His posts on this thread don't suggest that.

Again it's a case of understanding that public transport needs to be seen as part of a wider picture. And that picture includes an electorate that is too easily hoodwinked into believing that the current basically two party system is the best way forward. It promotes division and undermines compromise. No wonder that issues that require long-term solutions are dealt with so poorly in this country.

Not sure what the relevance of the teo party system is. The right is as keen to maintain it as the left.

Dentonian has previously admitted on this forum that they learned to drive but decided not to buy a car. All those who believe that private motoring is akin to a crime against humanity or the environment should spend a few months in places like the Netherlands or Switzerland: both countries have rather good public transport with wide political consensus regarding its funding but both countries also have higher rates of private car ownership than this country. Campaigning in favour of public transport while at the same time seeking to actively restrict private motoring is, IMO, doomed to failure.

So what? Maybe he has other good reasons, or maybe he doesn't want to contribute to the colossal damage whicg unneccesary car and HGV travel causes to this country. And leaving aside the position of people like me who don't have a choice, why should people be forced to choose to use private cars as a result of poor quality public transport? Why is the language of constraint and liberty only ever used in relation to drivers? And why are there so.many people on a rail forum arguing in favour of private car use?

 

[Wivenswold]

This "licence to pollute" is a hidden environmental cost of having kids.

Thank you for that. It's the elephant in the room on most of the world's issues. I remember a documentary following the BNP. One huge guy was shouting, "Britain's full, it can't cope with all these immigrants".

"How many children do you have?" he was asked. "Er, 8" was his reply without any comprehension of the dichotomy he was presenting.

 

[pemma]

I remember way back in the 70's when it was suggested that the railways be run by a tax, where they would be guaranteed enough money to run a maximum service and investment. I recall the sum of around 20p per person would have been workable at the time. That sounds like a better system than trying to run a 'free' service where the money would have to come from somewhere and take away from other subsidised services . Of course if tried today the tax would be whatever equivalent of what 20p would be worth today. A bit like the TV licence!

20p in 1970 is equivalent to £3.13 today. How often would the tax be paid? I can't see everyone paying £3.13 annually being enough to run the railways!

 

[Dentonian]

Very, very few councillors get £20k p.a.

Does that cover both expenses for their time (not for admin costs/staff etc) and their full time job or pension?

 

[Dentonian]

So you based your assertion about all councillors on one councillor in your own area?

No, but she is the new Council leader and the original comment included all politicians. AFAIK, MPs are currently paid £60-65K aren't they?

 

[pemma]

No, but she is the new Council leader and the original comment included all politicians. AFAIK, MPs are currently paid £60-65K aren't they?

The highest paid person in a council is usually an unelected chief executive who is appointed by the councillors. Many councillors don't work full time as councillors.

 

[JohnRegular]

Unfortunately, as the school is at the top of a steep busy hill, they discourage cycling and have no provision for cycles at the school (i.e. no bike sheds, bike racks, etc). If a pupil is seen riding their bike either up or down the hill (1/2 mile long), it's an automatic detention. Hence, barely a handful of pupils go by bike. There are no cycle lanes/tracks along the main A road either.

Sorry to reply to an old post, but this is one of the most disheartening things I have ever seen.
Forget free public transport, one of the best ways to reduce car use is to encourage cycling, and build more cycling infrastructure - if we instil the idea that cycling is not a practical way to get around, the people will continue making many <2 mile trips by car that could much more easily be done by bicycle.

Sorry if I am off topic here.

 

[Dentonian]

Of course I am, it goes to the heart of just about any discussion of public transport in this country.



Quite apart from "omnibus" being an archaic word you take its derivation far too literally. The idea that buses could be all things to all men might have had some relevance in the days before widespread private car ownership; in this day and age they have to justify themselves rather more clearly. And as long as Deregulation remains in place that is bound to result in them being concentrated on where they are most heavily used. And yes, that's politics for you! If you want to see real changes you need to persuade rather a lot of people to change their voting habits.

What is "Remote Rail"? I take it that it's a comment on the fact that there isn't a railway station within easy walking distance of every sizeable community. Yet in this country aside from London and Glasgow the suburban network around Manchester is the best there is in terms of geographical penetration, though Liverpool doesn't do too badly either. But because it isn't convenient to you it doesn't deserve funding?



Radamfi has already provided the correction to the erroneous assumption behind this question.



How can you possibly assert that all floating voters "have cars and are paid well"? Are they deemed deserving of your criticism just because their votes don't produce the results you want? This is a democracy after all. So many of your comments are dripping with the politics of envy so beloved of the hard left. Perhaps you would prefer life under a hard left government. Do China or North Korea look like good places to live? Or could it be more simply you rather regret your decision not to become a car owner? Decisions have consequences...

There is little difference between all the main parties when it comes to public transport. Its just a tiny minority across all parties that "champion" he bus aka the bus passenger. This is partly illustrated by your own comment about people changing their voting practice. Trouble is that buses are not the top of the political agenda for the vast majority, but I suggest are second or third to a significant proportion of the public. De-regulation per se is simple. It doesn't matter if your a motorist or not, or whether you have differing views on Brexit, Immigration, general public spending, the deterioration of the NHS and the Police, you will find virtually NOBODY commenting on social media in/around Greater Manchester who agrees with Bus Deregulation.

Yes, the concept of OMNIbus is being diluted but to answer your question based on local stats rather than national ones; counting each station as two (platforms operating in opposite directions, there are about 130 Heavy Rail stops in GM; 185 Light Rail and 12600 bus stops. The national figure is relevant to "Remote Rail" though I concede they are about a decade out of date and I don't know if they include Light Rail, and especially LUL. That figure was based on average walk from home to public transport stop served at least 60 times a week - and it was 400 metres for Bus and 2.7km for Rail. 2.7 km (1.6 miles) is a considerable distance for all but he fittest in society, especially if undertaken twice every working day, and would take something like 30 minutes to walk.

The thing about "deserving funding" is three fold.
The amounts invested in Rail (especially in the South East) is mind boggling to Taxpayers worried about their bus service being withdrawn; their schools being closed; their waits in A&E (often with genuine life threatening circumstances or just severe pain) growing from 4 hours to 5 hours to 6 hours etc.
We have a stupid attitude in this country (and not just public transport) that Capital spending is always good, and Current spending is always bad. If there is tens of billions of pounds a year floating around for investment, why are existing trains failing due to staff shortages?
Finally, even with the relatively better off benefitting, spending all these billions on Rail (heavy and light) it would be more palatable if it took millions of cars off the road. But at best, the current policy just removes congestion from city centres and places it around local stations. At worst, it isn't the car that is seen as the enemy, it is the bus. Hence off-peak fares heavy rail fares undercutting bus fares and fares on such as Metrolink undercutting buses when the journey doesn't involve entering the regional centre.

 

[Dentonian]

How many people live in her house? And how many of them a) work and b) drive? Where's your evidence that MP's have more cars than the constituency average or that councillors do? As others have said there are plenty councillors with no vehicles. Or are you (as I suspect) just making this up? What do you class as personal transport? Cycle? Motorbike? Hovercar? Personal spaceship?.......

I used to live next door to a county councillor, he used to tell me that the amount of time he spent on council duties (inc parish councils/meetings/surgeries/admin work at home etc) and the amount of his recompense, not even anything remotely close to £20k or even close to half that amount, for doing so meant that his council time was at well below minimum wage levels. It's not the large gravy train that many seem to think it is....

I don't know now as I moved out of the area 12 years ago. The house was a bog standard semi. Her own car was a BMW cabriolet and I think the others were a mix of estate cars, saloon cars and a Land Rover. At this time, car ownership in the ward that she lived in was about 60% of households, but the ward she represents is nearer the average of over 70%.

Personal transport is Car/van, Cycle (motorised or not) and probably Motorhome or similar. I don't think GM has any launch pads for personal Spaceships yet.....

Surely, Councillors have day jobs? You never hear from them except at Election time - and then only by the occasional glossy pamphlet about promising to improve car parking. They never canvass door to door (I've only been canvassed once in 37 years of enfranchisement) and surprise, surprise, meetings are always on weekday evenings at locations in the better off suburbs, not town centres.

 

[6Gman]

Does that cover both expenses for their time (not for admin costs/staff etc) and their full time job or pension?

Does that cover both expenses for their time (not for admin costs/staff etc) and their full time job or pension?

I'm referring to what they get as councillors. If you really want details go on your council's website. It will show what each councillor gets.

 

[6Gman]

Surely, Councillors have day jobs? You never hear from them except at Election time - and then only by the occasional glossy pamphlet about promising to improve car parking. They never canvass door to door (I've only been canvassed once in 37 years of enfranchisement) and surprise, surprise, meetings are always on weekday evenings at locations in the better off suburbs, not town centres.

Some do; some don't (have day jobs).
When I was a councillor I used to distribute around 6 newsletters per annum explaining what was going on. (And on many more subjects than car parking.)
I would "canvass" (i.e. knock on the front door) at least 600 properties per annum. Pretty well every property would have somebody call over a two-year period.
Meetings (do you mean council meetings?) were mostly in the afternoons, sometimes in the evenings; 90% were in the town centre.

 

[Dentonian]

There should be some equivalent of Goodwin's Law which kicks in when someone who expresses anything other than orthodox neoliberal views is accused of 'wanting to live in North Korea' (China hasn't actually been a communist country, in economic terms, for nearly 40 years.) 'Politics of envy' is another right-wing bingo call. Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be concerned about a more equal society without wanting material gain for themselves ?

This is supposed to be a forum about railways. It might be expected that people contributing to it will be broadly in favour of as many people as possible using public transport. Increasingly, however, any suggestion that this country's love affair with private cars and HGVs is environmentally and socially unsustainable, and that transport policy should change to reflect this, attracts derision.

Finally, on what basis do you assume that it anyone who does not drive does so out of choice ? I don't know about Dentonian, but I am one of many in this country who can't drive for medical reasons. Many others can't afford to run a car. Should our transport system cater for people who don't have the choice, or in true Thatcherite fashion should such people be written off, their immutable personal circumstances mischaracterised as poor life choices ?

Ah! The voice of reason. There are (still) something over 5 million households in the UK without motorised private transport (latest figure for GM is about 350,000 to 360,000), and lack of health and/or lack of wealth are indeed by far the two main reasons.

You are of course, completely right about conformism, which is the ultimate irony. Conformism is next to Communism. The Free Market will only provide if everyone wants to "buy" exactly the same things. The attitude in this country is that everyone (over 26) has personal transport; everyone has some kind of family, business or cultural connection to London; everyone has good health until at least retirement age - and those that don't have it due to self-infliction; and everyone commits minor crime regularly - especially in a transport context - and gets away with it, but thinks that no one else should get away with it.

 

[6Gman]

There is little difference between all the main parties when it comes to public transport. Its just a tiny minority across all parties that "champion" he bus aka the bus passenger. This is partly illustrated by your own comment about people changing their voting practice. Trouble is that buses are not the top of the political agenda for the vast majority, but I suggest are second or third to a significant proportion of the public.

I wish you were right, but I fear you're not. I suspect that buses are in the top three political issues for a very small proportion of the public.

 

[Confused147]

How cheap it must be to run a train for 100 miles so yes it could be free but trouble is the rail network has become such a market place it could never be free. Someone at the top wants a lot of your money for transporting you from A to B

 

[6Gman]

How cheap it must be to run a train for 100 miles so yes it could be free but trouble is the rail network has become such a market place it could never be free. Someone at the top wants a lot of your money for transporting you from A to B

Is this a wind-up, or serious?

To run that train you need:

1. The trackwork, signalling and (in some cases) electricity supply to be installed and maintained.
2. You need to pay for signalling staff.
3. Stations need to be maintained and staffed.
4. Rolling stock needs to be provided, maintained and fuelled.
5. Traincrew need to be employed, trained and provided.
6. Throw in all the other on-costs: train planners, employment costs, sickness and annual leave cover etc etc

"Cheap to run a train?"

 

[al78]

Thank you for that. It's the elephant in the room on most of the world's issues. I remember a documentary following the BNP. One huge guy was shouting, "Britain's full, it can't cope with all these immigrants".

The population issue is overblown. The main issue is unsustainable excessive consumption and energy use in Western civilizations. Of course, an unsustainable system has to stop at some time by definition, so this will probably correct itself within a century.

 

[al78]

Ah! The voice of reason. There are (still) something over 5 million households in the UK without motorised private transport (latest figure for GM is about 350,000 to 360,000), and lack of health and/or lack of wealth are indeed by far the two main reasons.

You are of course, completely right about conformism, which is the ultimate irony. Conformism is next to Communism. The Free Market will only provide if everyone wants to "buy" exactly the same things. The attitude in this country is that everyone (over 26) has personal transport; everyone has some kind of family, business or cultural connection to London; everyone has good health until at least retirement age - and those that don't have it due to self-infliction; and everyone commits minor crime regularly - especially in a transport context - and gets away with it, but thinks that no one else should get away with it.

It is a kind of tyranny of the majority. Motoring is the dominant way of getting about so money is thrown at trying to enable more and more drivers to get to their destinations faster, often at the expense of non-drivers.

 

[underbank]

Sorry to reply to an old post, but this is one of the most disheartening things I have ever seen.
Forget free public transport, one of the best ways to reduce car use is to encourage cycling, and build more cycling infrastructure - if we instil the idea that cycling is not a practical way to get around, the people will continue making many <2 mile trips by car that could much more easily be done by bicycle.

Sorry if I am off topic here.

I agree it's disheartening, but it's the reality of many Northern towns which were built on hills or in valleys. We have long very steep gradients on main roads and even steeper in some parts (albeit relatively short distances) where you can barely walk let alone cycle. Think the old Hovis advert with the boy on his bike.

 

[radamfi]

The population issue is overblown. The main issue is unsustainable excessive consumption and energy use in Western civilizations. Of course, an unsustainable system has to stop at some time by definition, so this will probably correct itself within a century.

There is still a significant environmental cost of having children. It was pointed out that once becoming parents, adults typically use cars more compared to when they were childfree. In addition, there is the environmental damage caused by the child and all its descendants throughout all their lifetimes.

 

[6Gman]

At the risk of returning to the original subject of this thread how do we stop the Cornish Sleeper (which I believe includes seated accommodation) turning into a warm option for London's rough sleepers each night?