Fare free London may be a step too far but moving to a single transport zone for London’s tube and train system is certainly worth thinking about. It can be funded by a higher overall fare than the current one for the central Zone 1 and 2 ticket price.
Single city zone works in Paris, Berlin( effectively as it only has a higher zone to cover trips to its airport) and New York and reduces administration costs as there is no need to have staff on exit barriers at tube stations.
As London’s population moves/ is priced out of Zones 1 and 2 the current zonal system is effectively a tax on the poor and average in London and a bonus for tourists who rarely leave Zone 1. We already have a single pricing system for London’s buses and it’s about time we extended it to our tube and train system.
‘Reallocate existing budget to what matters the most to us’ always leads to the question in my mind as to what isn’t ‘our’ priority; and is usually people forgetting about debt interest or social care
It's a bit typical of modern discourse that even in a programme demanding a great new expenditure on average Londoners, there's no question of asking average Londoners to pay for it, just a long list of 'someone elses', most of whom are slated to pay for every bloody thing that people want, and they won't stretch to paying for everything.
It is perfectly fair to say that UK public expenditure on public goods & services should rise significantly. I would agree with that. It is tiresomely childish to demand thst someone other than all people, ordinary as well as rich, pay for this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be having a lively 18 months learning this the hard way
Any of the solutions which involve paying for it from non-London-specific tax revenue raise the question: why should that money be spent on public transport in London (already high quality and relatively cheap) and not, for example, public transport anywhere else in the country (complete shit show).
Also, free public transport will encourage some people to take the Tube or buses for journeys where they currently walk. Cheaper and better public transport would be fantastic, but walking should also be encouraged — so choosing public transport over walking should still involve some resistance, which a small payment achieves.
It needs to be cheaper than driving (or owning a private car), but not as cheap as walking.
Why London, which already has very good and cheap public transport, if only because of the population numbers. If we really wanted to get people using public transport there are much better uses of money elsewhere. London is already favoured by central government funding, how would the rest of the country take this?
I think some of the developments around TfL stations will be perpetually owned by TfL, giving them a continuous rental income stream. So it's not just a one-off capital payment from a land deal.
Is anybody up for asking why London is even discussing the possibility? Does everybody know that outside that city, kids pay full fare at 16 including to get to & from school? That in lots of places the only public transport is by one bus a day in anyway? Or that in loads of rural areas if you're a kid & you miss the school bus that's you unless somebody can come & get you? And what - we're seriously debating whether the most subsidised system in the UK is going to get even more so?
I remain interested to know the relativity size of the cost of fare regulation (barriers, tickets, inspections, etc) to the revenue generated. I assume it is actually much more but I wonder. options like better maximum payments a day or trip address the needs of those who travel a lot but may not earn alot.
I could add that public transport within the strict Melbourne Australia city blocks is free. Well it is for trams, I actually am not sure for a train. Because no one could enforce it and it is often not physically possible to tap on.
Good post. I think there is another risk of making public transport free in that the fares serve an important purpose in maintaining some standards of behaviour.
There is no polite way of putting this - Having to pay for it keeps (most of) the riff raff out. I fundamentally do not want the tube to become a homeless shelter. If it was a complete free for all then then it would feel (and be) less safe, and would push many people back into their cars.
Fare free London may be a step too far but moving to a single transport zone for London’s tube and train system is certainly worth thinking about. It can be funded by a higher overall fare than the current one for the central Zone 1 and 2 ticket price.
Single city zone works in Paris, Berlin( effectively as it only has a higher zone to cover trips to its airport) and New York and reduces administration costs as there is no need to have staff on exit barriers at tube stations.
As London’s population moves/ is priced out of Zones 1 and 2 the current zonal system is effectively a tax on the poor and average in London and a bonus for tourists who rarely leave Zone 1. We already have a single pricing system for London’s buses and it’s about time we extended it to our tube and train system.
Got to love a post that discusses more fiscal devolution - we’ll get there one day!
‘Reallocate existing budget to what matters the most to us’ always leads to the question in my mind as to what isn’t ‘our’ priority; and is usually people forgetting about debt interest or social care
It's a bit typical of modern discourse that even in a programme demanding a great new expenditure on average Londoners, there's no question of asking average Londoners to pay for it, just a long list of 'someone elses', most of whom are slated to pay for every bloody thing that people want, and they won't stretch to paying for everything.
It is perfectly fair to say that UK public expenditure on public goods & services should rise significantly. I would agree with that. It is tiresomely childish to demand thst someone other than all people, ordinary as well as rich, pay for this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be having a lively 18 months learning this the hard way
Any of the solutions which involve paying for it from non-London-specific tax revenue raise the question: why should that money be spent on public transport in London (already high quality and relatively cheap) and not, for example, public transport anywhere else in the country (complete shit show).
Also, free public transport will encourage some people to take the Tube or buses for journeys where they currently walk. Cheaper and better public transport would be fantastic, but walking should also be encouraged — so choosing public transport over walking should still involve some resistance, which a small payment achieves.
It needs to be cheaper than driving (or owning a private car), but not as cheap as walking.
Why London, which already has very good and cheap public transport, if only because of the population numbers. If we really wanted to get people using public transport there are much better uses of money elsewhere. London is already favoured by central government funding, how would the rest of the country take this?
I think some of the developments around TfL stations will be perpetually owned by TfL, giving them a continuous rental income stream. So it's not just a one-off capital payment from a land deal.
Is anybody up for asking why London is even discussing the possibility? Does everybody know that outside that city, kids pay full fare at 16 including to get to & from school? That in lots of places the only public transport is by one bus a day in anyway? Or that in loads of rural areas if you're a kid & you miss the school bus that's you unless somebody can come & get you? And what - we're seriously debating whether the most subsidised system in the UK is going to get even more so?
Give me strength.
I remain interested to know the relativity size of the cost of fare regulation (barriers, tickets, inspections, etc) to the revenue generated. I assume it is actually much more but I wonder. options like better maximum payments a day or trip address the needs of those who travel a lot but may not earn alot.
I could add that public transport within the strict Melbourne Australia city blocks is free. Well it is for trams, I actually am not sure for a train. Because no one could enforce it and it is often not physically possible to tap on.
Good post. I think there is another risk of making public transport free in that the fares serve an important purpose in maintaining some standards of behaviour.
There is no polite way of putting this - Having to pay for it keeps (most of) the riff raff out. I fundamentally do not want the tube to become a homeless shelter. If it was a complete free for all then then it would feel (and be) less safe, and would push many people back into their cars.