Just before Christmas City Hall LibDems circulated a letter from Boris Johnson dismissing (not for the first time) calls for the introduction of a one hour, transferrable bus ticket.
The thinking behind the idea seems to be that some bus users are disadvantaged by having to pay for more than one bus to get to their destination.
Last April Boris’s spokesperson told me:
“A one hour bus pass has been suggested several times previously but the Mayor does not plan to introduce it in London. This is because it would be an extremely complex and expensive exercise, that would only benefit a small number of passengers as the majority of bus users in London pay for journeys using pre-paid season tickets or concessionary passes.
And approximately thirty three per cent of journeys are made free of charge using Freedom, income support, zip or veterans passes. To introduce a time limited pass would also mean TfL having to cover the expense of doing so by either increasing fares or seeking additional funding from elsewhere.”
Finding little to disagree with in that response I confess I didn’t pay the issue much more attention until December’s circulation of Boris’s latest rejection.
Questioning the premise behind the idea, I got a fairly unseasonal bashing from some Twitter followers who clearly favour the scheme. Admittedly Twitter isn’t the best place to debate complex policies but I’m still unclear which genuinely needy group supporters see as the main beneficiaries of the scheme.
Subsidised travel schemes for pensioners, low income households and disabled people are hopefully something we all agree are necessary but without any means testing I can’t see how we’d avoid people on lower salaries who only need to get one bus from subsidising better paid travellers who get two or more buses. Before we further increase the cost of subsidised travel surely we need to ensure fare payers are only helping those in genuine need?
[UPDATE: A couple of people have been in touch questioning the above paragraph, so here’s an attempt to clarify my meaning:
Let’s say person A earns £12k a year and takes one bus while person B, who earns considerably more, takes 2 buses. Under the suggested one-hour ticket scheme person B pays no more for their two bus rides than person A pays one.
I can see how that sounds nice – everyone’s bus journey suddenly costs the same – but the cost of the second journey has to be met from somewhere and the most likely source is yet another increase on everyone’s bus fare (though some supporters optimistically suggest an increase in bus ridership raise enough revenue to cover any losses.)
Although this would in effect see person B contributing to the cost of their second bus journey, it also sees our less affluent person A contributing to the cost of person B’s second bus journey. To me that smacks of unfairness.]
There could even be health implications in reducing the price of some people’s two-bus journeys. If the distance between the starting point of a journey and the second bus route is walkable we should be encouraging people to take this option wherever possible.
Anyhow, it seems the LibDems aren’t going to let the idea drop any time soon. A press release on the Richmond Council website reveals that local cabinet members are going to write to Boris Johnson to “explain the idea” to him.
I suspect it’s fair to say he already understands the scheme. Unless Richmond’s councillors have some exciting new angle from which to sell the idea perhaps their colleagues on the London Assembly could get in touch and save them (and whoever answers letters on Boris’s behalf) some time?
Simon Billinton says
I see the issue of a 1 hour bus ticket as trying to bring the system in line with the tube system.
Within a tube zone you can change as much as you like to get to where you want to get to for the price of one journey. The distance and range you can reach within zone 1 is incredible.
To attempt the same on bus would be prohibitivly expensive especially with the recent fare rise.
I’m not passionate about the issue but I can see some issues from personal experience where a ticket like this would be helpful. For instance, sometimes a bus will terminate unexpectedly before it’s original destination. We all pile off and wait for the next bus. If the next driver is aware of the situation he might let us on without paying but many times not.
In the scheme of things it’s not a huge issue but if it could be achieved cheaply then I think it would be worth pursuing.
Fred says
Timed tickets, and even multi-modal timed tickets, are pretty much standard in much of the world, and the sky hasn’t fallen in yet.
Turn your example round. Why should the merchant banker who can afford to live on a direct bus route get a cheaper trip than the one-legged single mother who has to change buses on the way to wherever her minimum-wage job sends her?
Alternatively, maybe we need to do something about the underground and mainline trains, where people can change trains and lines all they want without paying extra.
Ed says
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that wealthier people make journeys requiring more 2 or more buses, but the poor go from A to B without ever needing to change!
To even consider the means of those making pay-as-you-go bus journeys seems like socialist mentality gone mad. The really rich would rarely use a bus anyway, they’d get a Taxi. Convenience is the key, and if you can reduce congestion by improving teh convenience of the busses, that’s got to be a good thing.
I’ve long thought that it’s off how I have to buy a second ticket to get from A to B even if it requires a change of bus. A single bus route rarely conincides with the actual journey I want to make. To take it further, consider this situation which I’ve experienced first-hand at least twice: Bus stops at an intermediate stop, driver flashes the lights and everyone has to get off. Either it’s tea-break, end-of-shift, or something. We all have to get back on the next bus (with the same number, same direction) and pay again. Is that fair for _anyone_?!