[Closed] A Modest Proposal For Furthering Public Transport Use

If it were free I'd still drive as the distance from stations to my destinations are comparatively large and if it became free it would be vastly overcrowded. I'll always own a car (my hobbies are not performed in or near places with public transport) so until I stop doing my hobbies I've no need to scrap the car, so the running costs don't fall into question.

From my current location- a bus would require getting up very early and paying 4 quid for the return trip, taking around half an hour each way, plus a half hour walk at the work-end of the journey. If I drive, at the worst possible time in the worst possible weather it costs me £2 in diesel plus 50p/day in parking. Even commuting daily commuting only forms about 20% of my annual car usage, the rest is driving to cycling and kitesurfing spots and visiting friends and family who live hundreds of miles away.

Public transport works within cities and towns, it rarely makes sense between them unless the distances are very large and tickets booked WAY in advance.

I would use it. When I was in Hong Kong quite a few years back the tram was 10p regardless of distance, and pretty much everyone used it.

However, if every employee had to provide changing/shower facilities I think that, that would make more of an impact.

that's a great idea GrahamS.

Wouldn't work for me. No public transport goes within 2 miles of my workplace, and it's only 7 miles (25 mins cycling, 10 mins on scooter) anyway.
Most other journeys we make are long ones taking lots of stuff with us (Bikes, camping ger etc) so that's a non starter. Most short journeys we cycle or walk unless we need to carry something large

Within cities - maybe

Between cities - no way

I'd use public transport if it was free...I was out for a walk with my daughter on my back (12 months at the time) and went to the next village - about a 2 mile walk...managed to forget something or other and ended up jumping on the bus back as it was a 3 minute bus journey or a 30 minute walk...£2.80 to go 2 bus stops!!!

I don't tend to use public transport mainly as I hvae a car and my travelling times make public transport less convenient i.e. I can't get to where I want to be at the time I need to if I rely on public transport. I don't mind paying for public transport but it has to be convenient for me...

where i currently live, the nearest bus is 20mins walk, down a muddy unlit lane, half hourly service but last bus is at 6pm. hourly on sundays.

If i tried to get to work which would be possible (it would take 2 hours-ish), it simply wouldn't work to get home as the last bus would leave before i could get to it.

I only work 13 miles from home... So not a huge distance. Although this may be changing to being 150 miles for a few months, this wouldn't work either as although there is a train line to Shotton, too many changes and i have to be there by 9am so first train would never get me there.

Car or cycle it is

In the old peoples republic of south yorkshire bus use was extremely high when it cost buttons to use. Perhaps not free but nominal cost - if only they were still nationalised.

To clarify: the aim would not to be to eliminate all car usage. Clearly there are journeys that would still be best made by car. The aim would be to remove one of the obstacles to public transport (relative cost) to encourage its use where possible.

Also I would expect that the capacity and quality if the transport would increase as they would have steady investment from government and would only be required to run at cost.

i would use it all the time.

just been for a weekend in paris, tube and train systems are clean, efficient, not over crowded and cheap.

ill up you proposal one graham.

Free (or very cheap) AND all trains have a carrige for cyclists

easy roll on roll off, big doors and easy securing of bikes.

In the revised conditions where capacity were increased and costs were significantly lower than using a car, and it didnt add more than 25% onto my journey time - yes I'd use it.

Buses are already free for oldies, and all transport in London is. It has massively increased bus use, although it costs a lot to run, what with having to pay all the private companies for all those bus tickets.

One of our local buses in particular is pretty much full of old people nowadays at the weekends - it goes across the Peak District, they all catch it to go walking / go to Chatsworth!

Joe

I travel to work on the bus which is both convienient and cost effective (I guess I'm lucky). The number of over 60s who use the service (is it only in Scotland that they travel for free?) might suggest there would be a significant uptake if the cost was reduced/removed.

It's one of those virtuous circle situations.
One you get lots of people using the system, it becomes worthwhile to add more routes and stops.
CK's objections were partly based around costs - why would it be necessary to book inadvance if rail fares were cheap? Why should a cheap system be overcrowded - all it needs is a more frequent service?

The aim would be to remove one of the obstacles to public transport (relative cost) to encourage its use where possible.

Could you remove the other obstacles too? e.g.:

smelly people
ugly people
rude bus drivers
chewing gum

smelly people: we wouldnt let you on in the first place?
ugly people: as above

😉

(JOKING!!)

Has anyone ever witnessed a bus driver smiling?

Or been on a bus in a city centre that doesn't have a collection of 'yooves' smoking skunk and playing shite R&B through tinny mobile phone speakers?

Has anyone ever witnessed a bus driver smiling?

maybe they're all roadies? 😉

Moses - I was simply pointing out that in general in-city public transport is fine but inter-city it's only a viable alternative if it's cheaper than the car. My point was that when its booked WAY in advance it becomes cheap enough for the benefits to outweigh the comfort, speed, convenience etc of the car. Whereas in cities its often better to go by public transport, if you dont mind the hoards of unwashed, ill, vomiting (and more) people and seating so cramped you can't fit. Or the people smoking when they shouldnt but the bus driver is too scared of them to say anything, or the drunks trying to drag anyone into a fight...

In an ideal world yes public transport would be great, but in an ideal world the public transport would be very local to your start and end destination, small and frequent enough that it didnt get overcrowded and was kept clean and comfy, maybe with your own choice of music... oh no, thats a car again...

Has anyone ever witnessed a bus driver smiling?

We have two types of buses in Nottingham - Trent Barton = smiley drivers, clean buses, give change. NCT = dirty buses, no change, grumpy drivers who are hidden behind a sheet of bulletproof glass.

To be fair to NCT, Trent Barton cherry pick the routes, so they only go to nice places, whereas NCT which is run by the council, they have to go to the dodgy guns and drugs estates, and have had real problems with random people attacking their drivers etc. But they are horrible buses to take.

Joe

While we're at it I see no reason why this scheme couldn't do inter-city travel as well. Free trains for all?

After all [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5559296.ece ]according to The Times, we're currently paying out over £800 million in subsidies to private train companies[/url] so they can keep their shareholders happy.

*notes down Olly's comments for use later*

Has anyone ever witnessed a bus driver smiling?

Yep. It was in Enschede in the Netherlands.

Ok lets face it, train cost me 60 something euro a month. Theoretically I should link my door to the lab door in 60 minutes. So now here is the catch.

Train is always late. They usually stink of beer/urine/sick or something else very bad. You have to put up with rude, smelly, noisy and drunk people. Most of the time there is an idiot interrupting my reading to ask me a silly question about my bike or my helmet (at this point I shall not point the amount of abuse/bullying I get for daring to ride a bike and taking it with me in the train). If I wasn't working in academic I would have had to give up train as simple as that (or I could just keep on going until I get fired).

So yes it's much cheaper than the car or the motorcyle. Yes I can read a book inside. But sometimes I just wonder if it's really worth it.

To get people use more the train you need train where people are not crowded (I know Tj will come along telling me that I am a snob because I wont sit/stand close by someone with the stench of alcohol), that are clean and run on time. That would be a start. Much more efficient than lowering the prices.

Oh and staff that actually give a toss about customers.

I feel I should point out to a couple of people on this thread that the expense of driving doesn't start and end at fuel costs or parking charges. And I've been in quite a few cars that are way filthier than any form of public transport. At least the coach doesn't have oily streaks all over the upholstery from people cramming bikes into it. 🙂

I can't imagine that I would use public transport that much even if it was free, as I just like cycling. However, if I had to rock up to work looking smart instead of getting changed there, or if I was more unwilling to brave the occasional rubbish weather we get in the UK, then I'd definitely use public transport. The few times I've driven into work, I've been stunned by the amount of time you spend sitting stationary in queues of traffic, and been tempted to join the naughty people nipping into the bus lanes.

been tempted to join the naughty people nipping into the bus lanes.

I feel I should point out to a couple of people on this thread that the expense of driving doesn't start and end at fuel costs or parking charges.

There's no need to point it out to me, if you were; I've done the calcs time after time on both my cars. Bear in mind that I'd have the car anyway and commuting takes up a very small % of my car use, any extras are neither here nor there. But all this was covered in the other thread.

There's no need to point it out to me

Yeah but by saying "it costs £2.50 to drive somewhere" you're presenting that information in a slightly misleading way.

I'd have the car anyway

There's the rub... private vehicle ownership used to be much smaller in the UK, people just structured their lives differently as a result. Did they have a lower standard of living, or do fewer outdoor activities? 😕

Could you remove the other obstacles too? e.g.:

smelly people
ugly people
rude bus drivers
chewing gum

To be honest I hadn't really considered ethnic cleansing as part of my bright new transport future. 😯
But I'm sure something could be done about the chewing gum.

That sounds wonderful Graham. I'm really excited about oil running out, and cars becoming less usable. I feel that all the benefits of public transport far outweigh the negatives. I will never have a car. I think that private vehicle ownership is partly what destroys a real sense of community, and a scheme like the one you suggest wound help engender that again.

I'm really excited about oil running out, and cars becoming less usable

have you been waiting long?

i'd use pubic transport before i'd use public transport

So every individual will be equally and proportionally taxed irrespective of their current vehicle usage I assume? It would never work - why the hell should I (family all live within 5 miles, work is 2 miles from my home) pay for other users to travel further and more regularly?

I think that private vehicle ownership is partly what destroys a real sense of community, and a scheme like the one you suggest wound help engender that again.

By isolating people that don't live near a convenient public transport route?

why the hell should I...

Same apparent reason as any tax: for the greater good.
Do you use the NHS regularly? Housing Benefit? Social Services? etc etc

Plus you're paying a part of these proposed costs already as tax-funded subsidies to private, profit-making transport companies.

PC- yes.
Because private vehicles are so common, there are far fewer public transport routes, so those without cars are much more isolated.

And people talk to each other(still) at bus-stops, in buses, in trains. (Except in London) So yes, they destroy social cohesion.

Also, because there are far fewer people around the streets at night, those that are there are more likely to suffer mugging or be afraid to go out. So again, private vehicles are a public ill.

😕

Same apparent reason as any tax: for the greater good.

Mad idea that could never work here.

joemarshall - Have you lived in Nottingham long?

Even the 'horrible' NCT buses (though the 69, 70 etc that I take to the Nottingham Rd are nothing like the ones you describe) are a massive improvement over the complete lack of decent public transport Nottingham used to suffer under.

It wasn't too long ago that buses up the Nottingham Rd on a Sunday ran about once an hour.

BTW, Trent Barton don't cherry pick the routes BTW, their routes are Notts County Council routes whereas NCT cover Nottingham City Council routes. This is the reason Trent Barton buses have limited pick-up/drop-off within the city.

Why not go one step further and have working co-operatives. We all get paid the same and live in identical houses and eat the same food, provided and paid for by the state.

We are all equal.

But some are more equal than others.

It is a very different proposition to healthcare where no individual could ever know if and when they require help.

Ok a bit of a low blow here (sorry mate), but why everyone should subdivise on the NHS service that provides for couple that can't have children the same way? After all some dont want children and some can conceive children in the most natural manner...

A bit of food for thoughts.

So you think there should be a blanket tax on all individuals to get around the country irrespective of whether they actually use public transport?

As other people have pointed out, it's happening already via subsidies.

Transport is an individual choice.

So is housing, healthcare (public or private), and a whole host of other services that have a direct effect on people's standard of living.

Why not go one step further and have working co-operatives.

'Cos you'd be restricting people's freedom. Giving people the choice of using free public transport or their own private transport would increase their freedom. Keep up at the back. 🙂

As other people have pointed out, it's happening already via subsidies.

So is housing, healthcare (public or private), and a whole host of other services that have a direct effect on people's standard of living.

In principal you have a daft idea, which would be impossible to put into practice on a nationwide scale as well.

Ok a bit of a low blow here (sorry mate), but why everyone should subdivise on the NHS service that provides for couple that can't have children the same way? After all some dont want children and some can conceive children in the most natural manner...

That subject has been done to death really hasn't it? But interestingly it does reflect the probability that there would be huge disparity in the supply of a nationalised transport system as there already is in the NHS system.

So you think there should be a blanket tax on all individuals to get around the country irrespective of whether they actually use public transport?

No, I'm suggesting that existing blanket taxes (increased as required) could be used to fund a countrywide public transport system that was not run for profit and was free at the point of service.

Taking your argument, why should non-car users have to fund road maintenance irrespective of whether they actually use private transport?

Why not go one step further and have working co-operatives.

Now you're straying into hyperbole. There is a big difference between socialising public transport to promote important (and necessary) changes in the way people travel, and the adoption full-scale communism.

Mad idea that could never work here.

I am aware of that 🙂

The reality is that most people don't have a choice as to whether to travel or not as it is dictated by where their jobs, friends and family are. For a lot of people the place where they live presents them with a stark choice - spend a substantial part of your time and income getting to your means of financial support, or leave.

Places like the village where I grew up have changed drastically because of this - it used to be a working community of all ages, now it's a dormitory for well-to-do 40 somethings who figure that living somewhere with a view of a field is an acceptable trade-off for commuting for a couple of hours a day.

impossible to put into practice on a nationwide scale

Except that other nations seem to have no trouble offering much more extensive and cheaper public transport than we currently have.

New luxury buses in my area today!
Italian leather handstiched seats,
air con,
free wi fi

makes me want to try it out TBH, getting bored of the commute on the bike

to fund a countrywide public transport system that was not run for profit and was free at the point of service.

So mf basically you are telling me that it's ok for us to pay for you to have babies, but not for you to pay for other people to be able to use public services?

So those that choose to use it can do so and pay directly instead of via an unfair (on those that will never want to use it) taxation system.

Same with NHS then, you pay for your xray, your surgeon etc etc...

Juan, I am not even going to enter into an argument with you about that.

I agree with Juan, scrap the NHS. People will still have the choice to go private (which probably costs less than a decent car) or they can buy a bottle of aspirin and a hammer, and treat themselves.

why not suggest that it is paid for at point of service but still not for profit?

My gut feeling is that ANY cost at the point of service is an obstacle to adoption.

On buses for example, it causes frustration and slows the whole service as people fumble about for money and wait for change and tickets to be dispensed. If people could just hop on and off at stops then the whole thing would run much smoother.

Also remember that charging money, costs money: you need ticket machines, inspectors, paper for the tickets, ink rolls, machine maintenance, security for the cash, accounting costs etc

[i]On buses, for example, it causes frustration and slows the whole service as people fumble about for money and wait for change and tickets to be dispensed. If people could just hop on and off at stops then the whole thing would run much smoother.[/i]

'Chipping' people would fix all this. Quick insertion at the back of the neck, away you go young sir. Or rapid iris scanning like in that Tom cruise film where he uses someone elses eyeballs.

"Welcome to boots Sir, are you back for *more* condoms, what happened to the last gross you bought a week ago?"

Anyway, splendid idea Graham, keep them up.

'Chipping' people would fix all this

True. And it would be a lot more effective than the proposed ID card scheme 😈

Well..........

I recon it's a great idea!

I worked out (based on £800p/a insurance, 33mpg, and a bit more for serviceing/parts/tires/parking etc) that a car would cost (me) exactly the same as public transport (50p/mile), and roughly 3x as much as bikes (10p/mile) (based on a 3 mile commute and taking 3 months to destroy a £35 2nd/h bike with no maintenance).

The only problem would be commuters, the cost of houses near mainline train stations into london in the south east would be astronomical! I recon a comprimise between increaced fuel tax and subsidised bus' and train travel is the best bet.

The problem with making buses free is 'yoofs' using them as a 'yoof' centre. A warm, dry, comfy place to hang wif me homies? Why thank you!

I think buses should be much cheaper, and the price of car parking should be used to subsidies bus usage.

Car parking in Darlington is currently £1 an hour. It costs £1.30 for most people to get the bus into town. So, there's not a lot of incentive to get the bus.

I noticed in Barcelona that they have dealt with the yoof problem on the subway quite neatly, by having them very brightly lit and piping in classical music. The olds can chill out to a bit of Falla and the young people can't wait to get off and start graffitiing alleys. 🙂

Car parking in Darlington is currently £1 an hour.

Robbin' bastids.

Car parking in Darlington is currently £1 an hour.

It's on BOGOF Mike [well nearly] £2 for 3hrs & free on Sundays

It costs £1.30 for most people to get the bus into town.

Does it really? - the last time I used a bus into town it was 2p [truth]

Rhythm & Brews this weekend?

The salient problem with GrahamS's proposal is that it fails to understand what public transport is [i]for[/i].

In Graham's scheme of things, the idea of public transaport is to move people to where they need to be in an efficient manner, in which economies of scale and collaboration produce fast, efficient transport which serves all people for very minor cost.

This central thesis simply cannot be sustained. The actual purpose of public transport, as currently organised, is two-fold:

- firstly, it acts as an indirect tax on travellers who have escaped paying fuel duty, by the system of charging premiums to rpivate companies in exchange for monopolies, whcih the operator pays for by raising fares; and

- secondly, to generate wealth for private companies through the creation and exploitation of monopoly positions. The wealth-creating aspect of the system is enormously important. By redistributing wealth from those who have money (commuters and other travellers) to those who need money (banks, private equity firms, lawyers, accountants and consultants) public transport operates as a re-distrubutive and therefore equitable check on the growing disparities of wealth in our society. To each according to his demands from a position of monopoly, from each according to how far he wishes to travel and whether he booked several months in advance and is travelling through Swindon at 2am. It is a form of capitalism so rarefied that it might usefully be called Marxist. I think. 🙂

Did they have a lower standard of living, or do fewer outdoor activities?

Depends on your definition of standard of living, I guess. Without my car I'd not really be able to go kitesurfing at all, ever, and I'd soon get bored of my choice of trails so I'd stop doing that. I dislike team sports and particularly hate football so that rules out just about every other form of easily available sport. So by curtailing my car use you'll be lowering my standard of living. In the past kitesurfing and MTBing didn't exist, how far in the past are we going? It's like preventing worship because the religion isn't very tasteful to you - you cannot take away the tools by which someone lives their free time, or price them out as evil-doers.

As for misrepresenting the costings, it's not mis-represented at all. That is the ACTUAL cost to me. The cost may differ for you but to me that's how it is. Trains simply cannot compete because of my situation. Sure if you said I could no longer kitesurf or drive my mountainbike to somewhere to ride, or visit my family, it would be financially not worth me having a car for the journey. Though would it...

500 a year, approx still fixed costs. 20 miles a day, averaging 50mpg. Thats 1.88 + 50p per day. Thats 2.38 for parking and fuel. I do that sayyyyy 48 weeks a year, thats 48*5 = 240, so added to the fixed costs per day you're looking at 4.50 a day even if I dont get to drive to the beach/hills/family ever. That's still the same (if not less than) as I'd pay in public transport (bus to the centre 3.70 return, underground 2.40 return to a 15 minute walk from my office IIRC). I'm afraid its a no-brainer, and will remain to be for a long time.

@BigDummy: Top marks! A characteristically insightful critique that sadly isn't far from the mark I suspect.

@coffeeking: I agree. Banning folks from cars wouldn't be fair as some journeys are genuinely better made by private vehicles. The proposal is simply to make public transport more attractive by shifting away from the [i]"I'm not paying £2.80 to go three stops"[/i] to a mindset where the first instinct is to take the "free" public transport.

...you're looking at 4.50 a day even if I dont get to drive to the beach/hills/family ever. That's still the same (if not less than) as I'd pay in public transport

So given your situation, would you still pay that £4.50 a day to use the car, if the bus and underground was free?

CK, the question I'm asking (perhaps a bit too subtly) is whether public transport should really be synonymous in people's minds with a low standard of living. I'm not sure that doing weird exotic sports adds up to a high quality of life. And I'm sure that, if you truly love kite surfing, even if the world's supplies of oil ran out tomorrow you would find a way to do it.

Also I would expect that the capacity and quality if the transport would increase as they would have steady investment from government and would only be required to run at cost.

Really?

Capacity and quality may steadily decline as any investment is used up in red tape and the actual service is stripped to a bare minimum to save money.

Otherwise a great idea. I used to love swanning around London on a 50p day ticket when Red Ken was in charge.

There's the rub... private vehicle ownership used to be much smaller in the UK, people just structured their lives differently as a result. Did they have a lower standard of living, or do fewer outdoor activities?

You mentioned cost at least three times there as a reason you don't use public transport. So would you use it, in preference to your car, if it were free (even with the hooded oikes)?