Eight years and more ago I sent the letter at the following url to
Mayor Ken Livingstone:

http://infotextmanuscripts.org/ken_l...ne_letter.html

Although one bloke made all sorts of noises about refuting it, he
never did because its central proposition can't be refuted. Now that
all so-called public transport has long privatised, it is more true
than ever. The so-called private companies that run the transport
system receive massive subsidies. It would be far better to take them
over, to abolish fares in London and other large cities if not the
entire country and charge it all to central government. The overall
cost would be massively reduced.

On 2 Jan, 10:19, thedarkman wrote:
Eight years and more ago I sent the letter at the following url to
Mayor Ken Livingstone:

http://infotextmanuscripts.org/ken_l...ne_letter.html

Although one bloke made all sorts of noises about refuting it, he
never did because its central proposition can't be refuted. Now that
all so-called public transport has long privatised, it is more true
than ever. The so-called private companies that run the transport
system receive massive subsidies. It would be far better to take them
over, to abolish fares in London and other large cities if not the
entire country and charge it all to central government. The overall
cost would be massively reduced.

Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:55:50 -0800 (PST), Chris
wrote:

Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

You could put it on Council Tax, and thus have it charged to the
people that use it.

However, it misses one major point - fares are a useful way of
controlling demand. Without them, how do you spread loadings across
peak/off-peak times?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

This is a non-argument, if you do the mathematics you will find the
money saved is simply enormous, which will mean more money to spend in
Cornwall and elsewhere.

Similar to the tragedy of the commons, but the argument is not quite
the same. There would undoubtedly be increased use of public travel,
but by the same token there would be far fewer cars on the roads,
which must be a good thing.

Also, free travel is not quite the same as free consumer goods because
the number of passengers can never exceed the number of people. Most
of the arguments opposed to this are "moral" arguments such as people
shouldn't have the right to free travel or the even more stupid
argument that it will put people out of work. Do the mathematics and
I'll be you can't refute it.



On 4 Jan, 14:38, (Neil Williams) wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:55:50 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

You could put it on Council Tax, and thus have it charged to the
people that use it.

However, it misses one major point - fares are a useful way of
controlling demand. *Without them, how do you spread loadings across
peak/off-peak times?

On 5 Jan, 02:04, thedarkman wrote:
Similar to the tragedy of the commons, but the argument is not quite
the same. There would undoubtedly be increased use of public travel,
but by the same token there would be far fewer cars on the roads,
which must be a good thing.

Also, free travel is not quite the same as free consumer goods because
the number of passengers can never exceed the number of people. *Most
of the arguments opposed to this are "moral" arguments such as people
shouldn't have the right to free travel or the even more stupid
argument that it will put people out of work. Do the mathematics and
I'll be you can't refute it.

On 4 Jan, 14:38, (Neil Williams) wrote:



On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:55:50 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

You could put it on Council Tax, and thus have it charged to the
people that use it.

However, it misses one major point - fares are a useful way of
controlling demand. *Without them, how do you spread loadings across
peak/off-peak times?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rubbish - there is the very fair presumption that if you use it, you
should pay for it....

"thedarkman" wrote in message

Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

This is a non-argument, if you do the mathematics you will find the
money saved is simply enormous, which will mean more money to spend in
Cornwall and elsewhere.

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?

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?

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

On Jan 6, 7:57*am, Paul G wrote:
Off-peak free travel
would mean that more services would be required, at a cost, and someone
would have to pick up that cost.

Agreed 100% with the stuff I snipped about the impossibility of
offering on-peak free travel. But off-peak free travel seems like
something that could be beneficial.

The vast majority of the railway's cost is fixed and capital-based do
deal with peak hour demand. Once you've got a Tube line and a fleet of
trains able to run the peak-hour service, the marginal cost of running
them the rest of the time (subject to decent maintenance windows) is a
very small part of total spending.

So if you could encourage people to shift a certain proportion of peak
journeys onto off-peak by offering free travel, thereby reducing the
need for new trains and new lines, it's quite possible that the
savings you'd get from delaying major capital projects would outweigh
the small cost of running extra services during the off-peak.

For this to work, a significant proportion of the new off-peak
journeys would have to be displaced on-peak journeys. It also ignores
political concerns like perceived fairness (given the rancour seen
against schoolkids for having the temerity to not have to pay on
buses, it's likely that such a plan would make the commuting
population /very/ grumpy indeed) and antisocial behaviour (enforcing
fare collection tends to reduce levels of bad behaviour).

But, unlike the abolition of peak hour fares, it's something whose
benefits are worth investigating in more depth.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org