- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Free Bus Travel For Under 25s Will Relieve ‘Chronic Congestion’ In Town Centre Says Guildford Labour Party
Published on: 20 Apr, 2018
Updated on: 20 Apr, 2018
By Will Parsons
A policy of free bus travel for under 25s, like that proposed by the Labour Party last week, will help significantly to alleviate traffic in Guildford town centre, Guildford Labour believes.
Guildford bus company Safeguard Coaches recently introduced a “Kid for a Quid” fare deal on its Route 4 and 5 buses, for five- to 16-year-olds on one way and return journeys.
The proposal, which was officially announced by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn last Thursday, would see free bus passes for young people funded by allocated money from road tax. It is hoped the scheme could also incentivize local authorities to bring bus services back into public ownership.
Andy McDonald, the shadow transport secretary, said: “Buses are vital for easing road congestion and air pollution, but for too long private bus companies have run our services for profit not people.”
Mr Corbyn said the policy would make a “huge difference” to young people and families with children, who tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on travel.
In a press release, Guildford Labour said that only a massive rise in the use of buses would stop “chronic congestion” in Guildford town centre. The group noted that passenger bus journeys are at their lowest in 10 years.
Guildford bus company Safeguard Coaches recently introduced a “Kid for a Quid” fare deal on its Route 4 and 5 buses, for five- to 16-year-olds on one way and return journeys. The new fares, which started on April 7, also include young adult tickets for 17- to 24-year -olds, with maximum fares of £1.50 on one way and £2.50 on return journeys. The company hopes the fares will encourage more young people and families to use public transport.
Guildford Labour said that Safeguard recognises the need to attract and retain young bus users, but that while the group fully supports Safeguard’s efforts, only a national initiative like the one proposed by Labour could ensure the change in bus use necessary to ensure towns are not “choked” by cars.
Share This Post
Responses to Free Bus Travel For Under 25s Will Relieve ‘Chronic Congestion’ In Town Centre Says Guildford Labour Party
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.
See: E-Bikes for Hire Arrive in Guildford
Bernard Parke
April 20, 2018 at 6:53 am
The cost would also put a great strain on the council tax payer.
It would not solve the problem of through traffic, as would the introduction of a congestion charge.
Shelley Grainger
April 21, 2018 at 9:17 am
The national scheme would be funded out of road tax, it says.
I very much hope that road tax rises, to pay for this and also to improve our roads.
Surrey County Council clearly feel they can’t afford to fix our potholes. With local authorities currently starved of cash, lots of public services are declining and jobs being left undone. It’s a fact that taxes will have to rise in the future.
As to a congestion charge, that is a good idea but in a small town? Isn’t it technically quite difficult to put in place?
Sally Parrott
May 6, 2018 at 5:28 pm
The current traffic chaos puts a great strain on those, especially children, who have to breathe the air of our heavily polluted roads.
The A281 has stationary traffic at morning peak outside Bramley Infant School, even before thousands of extra houses are built in Cranleigh and Dunsfold.
I doubt if the air breathed by the children of Sandfield Primary School, at the junction of York Road and Stoke Road, is very pure either. No wonder childhood asthma rates are soaring.
A congestion charge would be very expensive to install, penalise tradespeople like glaziers and window-cleaners who need a vehicle for the tools of their trade, but yet not force the wealthy to use public transport.
An innovative integrated public transport system is desperately needed in Guildford.
Sean Jenkinson
April 20, 2018 at 7:54 am
When I was young we walked into town.
I drive around Guildford all day for work and see many elderly people driving in to and out of town.
I guess they get free bus travel but most people would rather use their cars.
Regardless of how many people take up this offer it will not sort out Guildford town center’s traffic problems.
It’s just another crackpot idea.
Sally Parrott
May 6, 2018 at 5:31 pm
This measure alone will not solve Guildford’s traffic problems, but since one bus can replace 20 or 30 cars, it will greatly reduce the number of vehicles on our roads.
How crackpot is that?
Jim Allen
April 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Not a crack pot idea, but sadly in 15 years the estimated need for travel will increase to a level where ‘profit’ from public transport will become a major factor in people choosing other methods.
To solve ‘Guildford problems in people movement’ there is a great need to ask the community, not guess what the community wants.
First question is where are your major journeys to and from (post code to post code)?
Second question, how far are you prepared to travel off your route from A to B to get to your destination?
And question three, what level of comfort would you expect if you left your personal travel method at home?
Once these three simple questions have been asked and responded to by the majority of the population (compulsory response) will it be known where everyone is going to and where from and if they are prepared to use public transport or insist on unrealistic expectation to change from their private transport.
Unless the survey is carried out no-one actually knows how implication of any scheme will succeed.
For attempting to force change will never work in the long term it must be the travellers own ideas to use other options.
David Wragg
April 20, 2018 at 12:19 pm
Sean is right. It could also mean higher fares for those who have to pay.
Many local authorities pay less than half the fare for pensioners and this has led bus companies to raise fares for other passengers and has also led to a reduction in late evening and Sunday services.
It would have been better if bus operators had offered pensioners reduced fares off-peak, but the only operator that I discovered dong this was a small independent in Windsor called Imperial.
Guildford has never had a council-owned bus service, which is something it has in common with other towns on the edge of the old London Passenger Transport Area.
We once had a large nationalised transport operator called the National Bus Company, which inflicted heavy overheads on the passenger and also introduced one of the worst buses ever, the Leyland National.
Safeguard is highly regarded in the industry and seems more sensitive to local needs and opportunities than a remote nationalised concern, and seeing the comments in the Dragon about Guildford Borough Council, I wonder if they would be any better.
Brian Creese
April 20, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Few people would dispute that Guildford has a major problem of traffic in its town centre.
Few people would dispute that bus travel is expensive in Guildford – and Surrey generally.
Few would dispute that it would be good for more people to use buses for getting into and out of town and their cars less.
Go to London and see how young people barely think of using any other form of transport, buses now being so cheap and reliable.
I am not sure how offering such a service to the rest of the country outside of London is “just another crackpot idea” myself, surely simply giving a better service to more people.
As for the cost, no-one ever seems to consder the huge costs that arises from car travel. Motorists don’t cover a fraction of what it costs to keep the roads moving – when they are, of course!
Amanda Creese
April 20, 2018 at 2:36 pm
People will use buses when there is an incentive to do so.
When I first lived in London the buses were ancient Routemasters and you never knew when they would appear.
The congestion charge, bikes, night buses and trains, discounts for students and older people, decent bus lanes, parking charges and payment sytems that mean you can move from bus to tube at the swipe of a card are all part of an integrated and efficient transport system.
Cheaper fares, not just for under 25s are part of the answer but we also need buses that are modern, comfortable, run on time and frequently and parking policies that discourage the use of cars if we are to relieve the congestion in Guildford.
In short we need an integrated transport policy that puts public transport at the centre, not private car use.
Trevor Harris
April 20, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Yet more age discrimination which will be paid for by all who pay council tax.
C Nicholls
April 20, 2018 at 3:41 pm
I am in my 50s and still walk into town to work each day, it takes me 40 minutes each way.
I am on the minimum wage and its [bus fare] almost £5 a day return.
Is that justifiable for a 10-minute ride?
Reduce the fares to a realistic price and people of all ages might be more encouraged to use them.
Brian Holt
April 20, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Who is going to drive these extra buses?
I had 33 years as a PSV driver and I know that every bus company in the country is always short of drivers, and has been for years.
Due to very early morning starts and buses start going out as early as 6am and last buses are out to about 11.30pm, in all weathers.
It’s shift work, you get moaning passengers because the bus is late even though it’s not the bus driver’s fault, it could be road works or a accident even traffic jams that has made the bus late.
The public moan now about waiting for buses that do not turn up in the Guildford area, but if you do not have enough drivers, plus any that go sick who is suppose to drive these buses?
If I have a appointment, I would not wait for a bus that may not turn up.
If all these drivers coming into Guildford give up their cars how are they all going to get on the buses then?
Howard Smith (Labour Party's parliamentary prospective candidate for Guildford 2017 election)
April 20, 2018 at 8:48 pm
I agree with the comment above that we need to listen to bus users and in fact to non bus users too to find out what they want and how it can be provided.
But cost and reliability seems to be the issue first and foremost and I think Labour’s policy to encourage young people on to public transport is the great first step.
As said above, it works in London why not here?
Sean Jenkinson
April 21, 2018 at 8:24 am
Road tax was abolished in 1937 and replaced by vehicle excise duty. I am not sure if the use of the term road tax was a direct quote from Mr Corbyn, and maybe the money from vehicle excise duty should be used to fix the roads we all have to use.
Most young people, once they pass their driving test, will not use public transport anyway.
They spend a small fortune insuring their cars so they are going to use those cars.
After I passed my test I never set foot on a bus or train again as I’m sure many others did the same.
And why is it just free transport for students? Why not lower fares for everyone and have a better bus service for all.
Ben Paton
April 21, 2018 at 10:57 am
Most of the buses I see travel around empty.
Perhaps Guildford Borough Council can tell us what the capacity utilisation of the buses is currently?
How about data on the number of passenger bus miles sold by the bus operators for each of the bus operators on each of the major routes for the past five years? Then we would see whether usage is rising or falling.
What share of market do the buses have over other means of transport ie walking, cycling, cars and trains?
Is that share growing or shrinking over time?
If there is massive unused capacity on the bus routes from the university into Guildford or Woking, then the cost of giving students free tickets probably would not amount to much.
But will it reduce congestion? Presumably only if students are currently using cars. If they can afford to travel by car they’re probably not likely to switch to buses even if they are free.
The biggest cost of bus travel is time and inconvenience rather than the fare. It is the time wasted waiting for the bus and the uncertainty about whether it will arrive on time that has a real cost.
But this cost is not counted because it is not a cash cost.
Karen Lowe
April 21, 2018 at 1:31 pm
What about areas with limited bus services?
No good having free travel if there are no buses running.
Then you need to ask why they are not running: high diesel prices, insurance, etc.
In my area the bus often has four people on it. None of whom are paying, having concessionary passes.
Even with the council paying for these passes I doubt it makes a profit or in some cases breaks even.
The result is: those who do pay are paying high prices to balance the books.
I’m not denying the concession bus passes by the way, but it will get worse if more people have free travel.
In addition, how does this sit with Labour London Mayor Sadiq Kahn’s campaign on diesel transport?
Dave Middleton
April 22, 2018 at 10:25 am
Nothing more than a political ploy to try to gain extra votes from the under 25s; a group notoriously poor at voting.
If they get into power, it will, as usual, either be quietly shelved and forgotten about, along with lots of other pre-election “promises”, or if it does happen, it’ll be funded by Government borrowing from the IMF, along with all the other stuff that they are promising to do.
Of course it won’t affect the Politburo in their state funded luxury cars.
David Wragg
April 22, 2018 at 12:23 pm
It is about time that the electorate grew up and realised that not everything can be free, and of course it never is as while it may be free at point of use, it has to be paid for out of taxation.
There is no such thing as ‘government money’, it is taxpayers’ money.
In any case, in the wonderful Marxist paradise that Corbyn has planned for us all, the unions will be in charge and on strike as often as not.
Bibhas Neogi
May 2, 2018 at 6:07 am
No single measure would be effective in solving Guildford’s complex traffic problems.
The size of Guildford town is small compared with major cities, so what works in those cities will not work for Guildford.
Guildford has a large area of rural and semi-rural villages and towns that need to be served by an adequate public transport if travelling by private means of transport is to be reduced enough to make any difference to congestion. The problem is that running such a service effectively and profitably is not possible.
The biggest factor on reducing congestion is obviously to make traffic flow better but the question is how?
Surrey County Council has gone down the road of rather unrealistic approach of modal shift that expects more people to walk, cycle and take bus rides.
Walking and cycling are limited to those who live within a couple of miles. Road network is generally not wide enough to include safer dedicated cycle lanes. Those on powered bikes can travel longer distances but all are vulnerable to inclement weather. When facing adverse conditions, most would probably revert to private means of transport for comfort.
Buses need to be reliable for commuters and more frequent, however, they cover routes only on main roads and so getting to bus stops require private means of transport from deeper rural areas.
More buses would help but the problem has been mentioned of shortage of bus drivers. Out of hours services are not convenient for the users if getting home later because of infrequent service intervals or no services at all.
So, to solve the problem, primarily the road network needs to be improved. All other initiatives are welcome and are ‘green’ but unfortunately they would only have a marginal effect on Guildford traffic.
Guildford Vision Group is promoting a scheme to take all north-south traffic on the west of the tracks on a re-aligned replacement of Farnham Road Bridge and modifications to Town Bridge and a new east-west bridge.
However, Surrey County Council with Network Rail plan to strengthen Farnham Road Bridge at a cost of £4.5m and claiming to extend its life by 60 years.
So it is unlikely that more money would be found by Surrey County Council to rebuilt this bridge.
Moreover, Surrey County Council has shown no inclination to improve traffic by building more roads or bridges nor safeguarding even the route for the new bridge further north.
Solum’s regeneration plan for the railway station blocks this route anyway. So, unless private initiative from the developers are forthcoming, there is little hope for improving the road network.
An alternative to GVG’s scheme, the stretch between Quarry Street junction and York Road roundabout could be put underground using a method that does not require tunnelling.
The surface road would be reinstated for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and emergency vehicles. This way the town centre could be made pedestrian friendly but the new east-west bridge would still be required albeit for two lanes only.
If the developers as in GVG scheme carry out the development along this route west of Woodbridge Road, the work could be partly funded by them.
Guildford gyratory had been identified as requiring improvements and some £29m was allocated a few years ago but then funding was scrapped by the central government.
So a business case is there already and it needs to be updated. It could include the underground route for the A281 and together with a new east-west route connecting Guildford Park Road with Woodbridge Road improve the network.
For the longer term a tunnel carrying traffic bypassing the town centre altogether could be considered. It could be a toll-paying route. All these ideas are shown on my website that could be accessed by clicking on my highlighted name.