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.

But what you propose is free transport for all. Very different that having it provided to those in need of assistance such as OAPs.

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.

So your health is your choice? You choose to break a leg or require surgery? You also choose to lose your job so you require benefits towards food and housing?

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.

To make it really work and be fair (as I don't have a problem with it in principal) why not suggest that it is paid for at point of service but still not for profit? 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.

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

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.

'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.

In Harrogate they cleverly price it to extract as much from you as they can. One hour is (say) £1.20 and they don't give change or accept cards. So you end up putting £2 in because you don't have the small change. Why the hell can't they either charge per minute (so £1 gets you 50 minutes or so) or give change?

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 for.

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'm not paying £2.80 to go three stops" 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?

Well, when I was a kid, we didn't have a car, holidays were almost non-existent, my dad had a little motorbike that I would go on the back of for short trips. Hardly anyone in our street had a car, and a holiday might be a rip to the seaside, or a week if you were really lucky. People also never had the leasure opportunities that are available now. Mountainbiking, surfing, kiting, hanggliding, kite buggying, these would have been inconceivable. The nearest was 'dirt tracking' on my BSA Star Rider', with Sturmy three-speed, 650b 'cross tyres and scrambler 'bars.
Public transport where I live is okay, buses to Bath, Bristol, Swindon, trains to Bath, Bristol, Swindon, London, but I never use them, as they are never convenient time-wise or cost too much. I do, however use the coach if I travel to London on my own, a £19 return can't be matched by car, even at 50-60/gallon; the 200 mile round trip uses around half a tank, approx £20, but the car park in Hammersmith would add another £15 for all-day parking. The Oyster card gets used on the Tube. That's where public transport works, but when I can get to Bath in 30 mins by car, but it takes well over an hour on the bus, and costs a lot by train, then car scores every time, plus I don't have to share with hooded oikes reeking of glue, like the last time I used a bus.

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)?