The last time, in 2008, it was bendies. The battleground for the next London regional mayoral election looks set to be fares. Specifically bus fares. This seems to be the significant gulf between the two mayoral candidates.
When last Labour’s Ken Livingstone used fares as a major policy plank it was incredibly popular. Like Boris Johnson’s NB4L, it got the capital—and the nation—talking. That was 31 years ago, under something called “Fares Fair”. (We’re not sure whether that should be Fare’s Fair—fare is fair—as it looks uncomfortable without an apostrophe). Fares Fair wasn’t specifically aimed at the buses; indeed, underground charges were very much in Livingstone’s sights, too. But it was also something that the Conservative government of the time felt was unlawful and, through the courts, was able to scotch.
Now we have “Ken’s Fare Deal” where Livingstone promises to reduce fares by seven per cent, freeze them to 2013 and then increase them by no more than inflation. Livingstone claims Johnson will increase fares by two per cent p.a. There’s what appears to be a nine per cent gap opening up.
Livingstone also claims fares have risen at a rate twice that of provincial England. He’s no doubt right: pay as you go single Oyster fares are up from 90p in 2008 (the year Johnson got in) to £1.35 this month. That’s a 50 per cent increase and not even the greedy provincial private sector can claim that sort of escalation. London cash singles are £2.30 but really no one uses them.
On the other hand, there are very few commercial networks that can boast as low a fare of £1.35 for any single journey in an area of 600 square miles. Bournemouth’s long hop is one of the Yellow Buses’ fares that *didn’t* increased this week but it’s still £2. You get a short hop in Bournemouth for the price of a London single. Oh, and yes, of course, single fares don’t tell the whole story. The Oyster PAYG bus cap is £4.20 per day as opposed to £3.80 from this week in Bournemouth and, for a better comparison in terms of area covered, Wilts & Dorset’s Dayrider Plus at £5.40.
Johnson, on the other hand, can trumpet several significant bus-related successes. On board crime is down by 30 per cent, he states, and he’s introduced a major real time mobile bus information system. More noticeably, he vowed to withdraw London’s artics—achieved early—and bring in the NBfL. All at a cost, admittedly but there’s also been significant & transformational investment in buses since 2000, during both the years of the first & second elected mayors, the likes of which has been beyond the rest of England. Then again, “Fair’s Fare”, in spite of its 1980s popularity, was only possible owing to a supplementary rate rise, one that was high enough to bring government intervention.
Will Livingstone’s campaign prove equally as popular as in 1981? Or does Johnson still hold the aces? We’ll see in May. Whatever the answer, as I’ve said before, it’s good to see public transport—buses especially—in the spotlight as it was in 2008, for things other than reliability, punctuality and grumpy drivers. It’s nice for Londoners to have such a real choice and may the best man win assuming, that is, that it really is a two horse race.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Fares Fair Deal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I seem to remember it was Bromley Council who were at least the public face of the legal opposition, based on the premise that Bromley did not have any Underground services and so should not subsidise the boroughs that did. Now that rail fares within Greater London are much more part of the 'system' then this would not be such a strong argument.
Inevitably politics will get in the way of running transport in London with a clear head this year. I have already had a letter from Boris telling me what he has done. However, I do hope that NB4L gets tested properly in service and is not rushed through just for the sake of vanity. Having got so far it would be crazy to rush things. I still have memories of dead Merlins and Fleetlines littering the streets because things were done in a hurry without the concensus of all involved.
Sitting out here in the provinces, it never fails to amaze me that Londoners think that they have a bad deal. Especially when you look at the levels of subsidy in London compared to out in the provinces. £2700 per head is spent in London; £5 per head is spent in the North East.
Perhaps one of the better comparisons is with West Yorkshire, which is of a similar size (at least in terms of geography) to London. Bus fares are lower in London (£4.20 daily price cap versus £5.20 MetroDay ticket) but when you factor in rail services London is slightly more expensive (£8.50 Z1-6 off peak travelcard vs £7.20 Metro Day Rover).
The immediate question is: who will pay for fares freezes? I can't imagine Bob Crow's militant nutters will settle for pay freezes and I can't imagine the private bus companies will settle for contract payment freezes. So who will pay? I'd hazard a guess that us out in the provinces will pay, as usual.
Perhaps Ken should campaign using the acronym NMFL.
Oyster was revealed by recent evidence presented to the London Assembly to cost 14% of the revenue collected, so perhaps Ken has stumbled on a way of reducing that to something more in line with other systems.
Of course, there is no reason why every fare on every bus has to be the same. In Hong Kong, each route has its own flat fare, so it might cost more to travel on one than making the same journey on another.
That's not ideal, but there is a question why a limited stop route (although there are very few in London) such as X26 from Heathrow to Croydon or 607 along the Uxbridge Road shouldn't charge more than the parallel stopping services.
Ken has form when it comes to his fares promises. All that time as mayor when fares were frozen just before elections and then vastly increased afterwards. He does not have credibility. Why should anyone believe him now.
Anyone have the data for what percentage of operating costs London fare revenue actually raises?
@ Invicta. It's not strictly correct that HK routes have flat fares. Some urban routes and MTR feeders are flat fare throughout their length. Many other routes have a coarse graduated scale which presents a flat fare when you board but the fare reduces the closer you board to the terminus. This typically does not apply to long distance express routes which will charge a high fare all the way in to HK Island to deter short hop riders near the central area terminus. However they will offer graduated fares for local trips when off their express sections in the New Territories or parts of Kowloon. Finally the Stanley routes have "section" fares which rely on people validating their card when they alight and not when they board! All very entertaining when trying to work out which bus you can catch where and what price.
It works in HK because people understand the hierarchical service structure and that it helps to distribute demand across capacity. London doesn't really have the same service structure although you cite two of the three honourable exceptions. I can't see higher fares being very popular on the "X" routes even if there might be an economic justification.
Until recently we might have had a similar number of methods of how and when you pay for a bus journey (cashless bendy, conventional, crew, central area cashless zone).
The immediate question is: who will pay for fares freezes? I can't imagine Bob Crow's militant nutters will settle for pay freezes and I can't imagine the private bus companies will settle for contract payment freezes. So who will pay? I'd hazard a guess that us out in the provinces will pay, as usual.
I'd say it would be yet another hike on the London area ratepayers. I have some family out in the far suburbs (so no tube line anywhere closer than 12 miles) but still a big 'surcharge' to pay for the fares and also the Olympics as well!
@plcd1. Thank you for the fuller explanation of the Hong Kong system - I was trying to give just a brief overview and had over simplified. There is, as I'm sure you know, yet another feature, which is a discount on the second fare when you change buses at selected points.
@anonymous at 1225. It's about 60%; see this blog for 14 January 2011. http://www.omnibuses.blogspot.com/2011/01/value-for-money.html
@plcd1. Thank you for the fuller explanation of the Hong Kong system - I was trying to give just a brief overview and had over simplified. There is, as I'm sure you know, yet another feature, which is a discount on the second fare when you change buses at selected points.
@anonymous at 1225. It's about 60%; see this blog for 14 January 2011. http://www.omnibuses.blogspot.com/2011/01/value-for-money.html
I'd rather see a true Verbundtarif, with one set of fares across all modes, than any of that complicated Hong Kong stuff.
One possible exception - a bus single fare and bus-only cap are probably worth keeping to avoid too much Tube overcrowding. But it should definitely not penalise people for changing buses as it does now, and charging more for the X routes would be counterproductive as they mainly exist to avoid overcrowding on the non-X routes.
Neil@1523
My last trip on the X26 was quite the reverse - horribly crowded because it was faster than the alternatives.
TfL can't see the value of the X26 despite the public loving it! The operation is hampered by the luggage volumes,and associated security risk for those wishing to take items which are not their own.
It was supposed to be the first of many orbital routes,but that plan seems to have died. A premium fare would reduce the number of short-hop local users,but there is obviously a need for limited stop services in parts of London.Still, when did TfL last spot any potential in what it runs,or listen to operator feedback? Good ops. just lose routes to a slightly cheaper tender,despite all the performance stats one can wave at TfL. Cheap is best...or is it ?
Limited Stop routes should charge a higher fare and probably should have fewer stops. A small charge for Concessionary passes would also help.
The purpose of the Limited stop routes should be faster journeys for longer distance travelers but the current system tends to clutter themupwith short distance travelers and pass holders going a short distance
@ neil / @ invicta - The HK experience is largely reflective of history / practice going back quite a long way. The other issue is that rail is not dominant as the MTR is still growing although each new line does dent bus patronage. The Octopus Card has facilitated some clever rail - bus through fares and also the bus / bus through ticketing at defined network points. This saves customers money and reduces bus operating costs by removing the need for through services. Odd as it may seem the bus in HK is the mode that is more vulnerable whereas in London the bus "helps out" the tube because capacity increases take so long and cost so much.
A further variant is what happens in Singapore and there the smartcard system calculates your through fare regardless of mode and the need to change. The fact that exits are always recorded allows the system to join journeys together and you only get one charge for each overall journey. Worked fine when I used it a couple of weeks ago. Such a system would refine PAYG for London but there is the obvious challenge of exit validation on London's buses.
It would cost money for extra validators but would give TfL flexibility to move back to distance fares which you could argue is warranted given the howls about the flat fare level. Enforcement is the other concern but it does work in the Netherlands and obviously in Singapore.
I think the X26 and 607 differ from the X68. The latter is peak direction only, M-F. The others are daily services and both busy in their own ways because of the long, strategic through journeys offered. Speed is an element but not the sole factor IMO. Recent use of the 607 showed it to be horribly busy with deckers full and standing. My use of the X26 is more limited but again buses were full and standing.
I see in a recent edition of Passenger Transport that their "mystery shopper" used the X26 and considered it to be not very busy and "below par". Not sure when he used it but it needs more capacity and frequency before it gets distinct branding and promotion by TfL. To try to promote usage on a route that can resemble a sardine tin would not be popular with any new passengers!
The 'mystery' shopper is hardly incognito is he ? Always an interesting read,but take his opinions/views with a pinch of salt.He obviously doesn't understand operators have very little authority or permission to market TfL routes...the X26 would be branded and marketed by now if the operator had been allowed .
"The purpose of the Limited stop routes should be faster journeys for longer distance travelers but the current system tends to clutter themupwith short distance travelers and pass holders going a short distance"
Why should people not use the fastest service for their chosen journey? If there are particular pinch points, perhaps it needs some short journey extras.
@Neil: it's interesting that you talk about Verbundtarif. One of the German cities with the most "English" bus network is probably Hamburg- there's no trams and the S and U bahn don't go everywhere. They run a network of Schnellbus (express bus) services from the outskirts into the city and they charge a premium for travel on these services. It works and people (other than hapless tourists) know that only certain types of travelcards are valid and cash fares are a bit higher.
@plcd1:
I don't think that your idea would take too much alteration to the Oyster system to implement. Oyster already recognises some out-of-station interchanges as being a "through journey", e.g. changing between Dalston Junction and Dalston Kingsland on the Overground. The only issue is that the driver would probably have to go back to setting fare stages on the machine, so that the system would recognise people boarding at recognised interchange points.
"It works and people (other than hapless tourists) know that only certain types of travelcards are valid and cash fares are a bit higher."
Or you can buy a supplement ticket for not very much.
I'm very familiar with Hamburg's system, which is one I generally hold in very high regard. You'll note that other than that there is no such thing as single-modal ticketing there - and a single is a single - a single journey from point A to point B with as many changes of vehicle or mode as you like.
But the Schnellbusse are intended as a premium, direct service. Mostly, other journeys are connectional, and ticketing recognises that. And there are the supplement-free Eilbusse where you want to shift a large number of people quickly.
The things I find most stupid about London's system are:-
1. You are penalised for changing buses. I know this is often due to resale of tickets in paper ticket situations, but this does not apply to Oyster.
2. You are penalised for using the Tube and having to connect using a bus.
3. You are penalised even more so for going Tube->bus->Tube.
These are nonsensical. I understand in a London context why you need a bus-only fare lower than the Tube fare. But why isn't that connectional, and why isn't the "other" fare simply a multi-modal one?
Neil, I completely agree about Hamburg's system. It does what London's system should do, and singularly fails to do.
I think what annoys me is that many areas have the facility to offer multi-modal singles, they just don't. Take where I live in Newcastle. We used to have Transfare tickets where you could from any place to any other place, using the quickest form(s) of transport, for one fare. They've gradually been whittled down as the bus operators pulled out and now you can only use Transfare for one change between bus and Metro/ferry.
Post a Comment