Fares fair

www.bilderberg.org/farefare.htm

Somewhat relevant I think...

In simple terms:

1. because it was seen as favouring the north and inner London boroughs, but would cost the ratepayers in the outer boroughs a lot. (It was also seen as part of the (Labour) GLC's thumbing its nose at Thatcher - along with stunts such as a prominent banner on County Hall, facing the Houses of Parliament, which displayed the number of Londoners unemployed - and was kept updated week by week! The government eventually had enough, and abolished the GLC (and the metropolitan counties such as Blunkett's "People's Republic of South Yorkshire", (where the standard bus fare was 2p - a tenth of those in London, even under Fares Fair! - or even free on the new Bendybuses for legal reasons).

2. Because one of the outer boroughs (Bromley) challenged it as not being within the rules under which the GLC was obliged to operate.

3. In the short bterm, huge fare increases (100% in many cases, more than cancelling out the original reductions) to bring the funding of London Transport into line with the courts' interpretation of how much subsidy the GLC was allow to give it.

One day Travelcards were introduced in 1984 after "Fares fair" had been defeated in court and were originally off peak only. LT resisted their introduction tooth and nail but since then I've read them claim it was one of the best ideas they've ever come up with. Cheeky……

Sadly I have to agree with you, while a cheap, reliable transport system seems to be recognised as a benefit economically and socially elsewhere it would appear that here all parties have failed to acknowledge this.

I agree that the subject is complex, I disagree that it is unfair for those outside the capital to subsidise transport within it on the grounds that although I agree in principle it is exactly what happens anyway. I believe the tax system is incredibly divisive and unfair to the vast majority.
In London commuters using the Underground are paying thrice, firstly through income tax which is used in part to fund London's Transport, secondly through council tax with annual above inflation increases which also in part subsidises London's Transport and thirdly through fares which also rise annually above inflation.
Outside the capital transport is run on shoestring budgets or not at all in many areas and particularly in rural areas.

What is unfair is that the whole country does not benefit from London's Transport but that it all contributes towards it. This would be fine if transport in the rest of the country was as well funded and taxes and fares smoothed the wrinkles so to speak but the balance is completely wrong. It might be said that there is too much transport in the capital, there is certainly too much private transport and it is ludicrous that London's streets are clogged up with traffic jams when the public transport system is so good. Londoners should be discouraged from private vehicle ownership and usage within the capital in favour of public transport.

Speaking as an ex-Londoner and rural Lincoln resident for the past six years I have to say that public transport around here is minimal but the roads are also poor, a double whammy! More attention should be paid to rural areas than cities in terms of public transportation but it won't happen while public transport systems are privately owned and operated. In London there is the ridiculous situation where the public transport system is very much a fallacy in that shareholders are the real winners rather than commuters.

Yes a complex multfaceted problem with no easy answers but also it seems an unwillingness to tackle in so many ways. London would benefit from a total ban of private vehicles within 10 miles of the centre. It would benefit from an end to NIMBYism. It would benefit from a fully integrated approach to a publicly owned and operated transportation system as would the whiole country.

Only the government can solve the issues with committed long term planning and implementation to certain fixed but flexible commonsense national standards. There is no sense whatsover in a lack of standardisation although there are as there must be some limits as to how condensed such standards need be to be economically and practically viable.

The government, therein lies the real problem with its short term approach ideology necessitated by the five year tenure which neither demands nor requires ongoing commitment to a national plan and which in reality holds no-one to account for the waste of endless reverses and diversions of policy from decade to decade.

Fix the government to force all parties of whatever political persuasion to agree on a national plan, do the same for local authorities and you have the basis for a modern affordable and easily maintained integrated transportation system, in fact the same should be applied for all public utility infrastructure ...........
didn't we used to have something of the sort when I was growing up in the 1950s!

I agree that 'Fares Fair' was the GLC's low-fare (and surely zonal system?) that was introduced headed by Ken Livingstone. I was commuting from Hounslow West to Piccadilly Circus at the time and borrowed money from my firm to pay for an Annual season. Suddenly, with the subsidised fares coming in I was entitled to a massive refund on my season...which I think was about £375 at the time when I was earning, oh, £2500 pa as a trainee?

Of course we had Rover cards prior to Travelcards. We have discussed this before on this Forum. I used to use Red Rovers to travel the red bus network all over London when I was a lad.

IIRC the system was initially for buses. I do remember that a lot of traffic virtually disappeared from the streets when Fares fair was introduced and that was in Romford, an outer suburb. However the advantages were ignored for political reasons, if it had not been strangled at birth what would things be like today?

Initially, the outer zones were called 3a, 3b and 3c.