In message
,
thedarkman writes
On 5 Jan, 11:52, "Recliner" wrote:
"thedarkman" wrote in message



So go on, please give us a quick summary of what money is saved. Yes,
you won't need the Oyster card system, barriers and ticket machines, but
are you suggesting they cost more than the fares raised?

And would you give free travel to all the tourists and other foreign
visitors to the UK?


Have you read my letter and the associated mathematics? No ticket
staff, no revenue protection and therefore no prosecutions for
fraudulent travel, which costs millions in court time and stuff. If
all the money comes from one source - Central Government - you cut
out the costs associated with the other two. All of them.

Free travel will lead to greater use of public transport, less petrol
imported, less expense, less air pollution. As for the bloke who said
if you use it, you pay for it, he misses the point that the taxpayer
is already subsidising travel, ie the privately owne train companies.
Wouldn't you rather see the public subsidised directly?

As well as the other arguments stated against free travel, in high
density areas there would also be safety issues. Too many people would
want to travel causing impossible strain the system (unconstrained
wants, in economic terms, I think it's called). Various stations in
central London already get closed in the rush hour on a daily basis
(some with permanent peak hour access restrictions) due to them being
overcrowded despite people having valid tickets. This is one of the
reasons why buses are priced less than the tube, to persuade people to
use them instead (as the tube is already full). Off-peak free travel
would mean that more services would be required, at a cost, and someone
would have to pick up that cost.


--
Paul G
Typing from Barking