[original thread at uk.railway & cam.transport]
[crossposted to uk.transport.london]


Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Bush wrote:

Peter Masson wrote:
[snip]
The way things are going the day can't be far off when it may be in the
interests of operators (and local authorities which have become the main
funders) for fares to be abolished on local buses. Over 60s are now
entitled to free passes, and this will soon go nationwide. Under 16s
travel free on London buses, and other local authorities are moving in
this direction, e.g. Kent County Council will soon start a pilot scheme,
and expect to go county wide. These two groups generate a very high
proportion of bus journeys, and to go fares-free for the rest would save
the time taken in collecting fares, and the costs involved in cash
handling.

The question is whether such a move might generate demand with which the
operator cannot satisfactorily deal.

In the early 70s, one of the London rail studies came to the conclusion you
could actually save money on the UndergrounD by abolishing fares, as the
money collected was less than the cost of collecting and handling it. It was
though that this would lead to too high a demand for travel and was never
seriously proposed. Instead they went for automation of the system amd
higher fares.


Wow, I'd not known that a fares free Underground was ever given such
serious consideration. Nontheless the first thing that comes to mind
when I consider this is that of a very steep ramp up in demand - not
only would people not think twice before embarking on journeys, I think
the public would also make many more simply because they could ("hey,
it's free!") - and the second thing I invisage is overcrowding
problems.

One should also note that this was a study from the early 70's when
ridership was on a downward trend. AIUI patronage of the Underground
has been going upwards since the 1980's. Plus of course new
computerised ticketing systems cost less to run than previous
arrangements.

In message
Bush wrote:
In the early 70s, one of the London rail studies came to the conclusion you
could actually save money on the UndergrounD by abolishing fares, as the
money collected was less than the cost of collecting and handling it.

This is entirely in keeping with a long held British tradition of
building follies or otherwise using (public) money to pay people to
perform tasks which are not economically viable. The most recent example
of this is the Child Support Agency which cost 70 pence for every pound
collected. There are many publicly funded activities which would not
survive a cost-benefit analysis but which are perpetuated because they
redistribute wealth and keep people employed.

ESB

Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
In message
Bush wrote:
In the early 70s, one of the London rail studies came to the conclusion you
could actually save money on the UndergrounD by abolishing fares, as the
money collected was less than the cost of collecting and handling it.

This is entirely in keeping with a long held British tradition of
building follies or otherwise using (public) money to pay people to
perform tasks which are not economically viable. The most recent example
of this is the Child Support Agency which cost 70 pence for every pound
collected. There are many publicly funded activities which would not
survive a cost-benefit analysis but which are perpetuated because they
redistribute wealth and keep people employed.

Surely it's a bit more complicated than that. In the Underground
example, the collection of fares plays a significant role in keeping
vagrants out of the system and in suppressing demand for trivial use -
I imagine children and teenagers would find the Underground a great
place to 'play' without price controls in place.

Steve Adams