it's just because "tax" is seen as bad whilst paying for something is seen as good
maybe there needs to be a change in perception that some taxes are paying for services (just on an ability to pay basis)

the mad thing is, the costs of public transport is a figure of circa £1,000/tax payer (vs average government spend of £32,000/tax payer)
the average cost of car ownership £3,600
in theory we could have free public transport for less per person than nearly everyone pays to own a car

That's before you look at the impact of reducing immigration on the ratio between working aged population and those of pension age:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

Indeed, and even 1 of the regions in the north do better than the southeast!
Of course the other thing to note is this is infrastructure spending, so doesn't include other transport spending (like support for railways)
Although, I do agree that there's should be more spending across the UK

Nationally, the cost to provide all the buses for free in the country works out at about £300 per tax payer (to include trains as well it's about £1,000) - note that's not extra as there's already subsidy being paid to provide public transport

The mad statistic is that nationality if every home which pays council tax paid £500 per year that would likely be enough funding for all buses to be free for everyone (to put that in perspective the average cost of car ownership is £3,600 per year, so most could be better off)

The first chart isn't that surprising given that the average cost of car ownership is £3,600 per year (requires extra income of £5,000 for basic rate tax payer)

On the buses - Magazine Austerity has had a negative impact on bus services across the country, which has heavily affected women in particular. But hope is coming, as Amanda Kendal discovers

Transport is a gendered issue. Great to see our work - showing that in England, women made over a third more bus journeys than men - featured by @unison.org.uk. The severe cuts to bus routes have disproportionately affected women, especially in rural areas. magazine.unison.org.uk/2025/02/11/o...

Warmer homes and healthier people: what’s not to like about a low-carbon future? Challenges of hitting net zero emissions are often discussed, but little focus is given to the gains of living in a low-carbon world

Cost savings of £405 million a week to the NHS, what's not to like?

If only there's a bus we could write that on

As that's a possibility if we meet our home net zero emissions by 2050, with a further £175 million a week if we meet our traffic net zero targets:
www.theguardian.com/environment/...

Predicted total UK population growth from 2022 to 2042 is expected to 4.6 million
Predicted >65 population growth for the same time period 4.7 million
Ratios between working age & >65 are falling (2008 it was 3.2 to 1, by 2050 it's due to be 2.0 to 1)
Without immigration it'll be worse

15% of £42,500 (to allow for general inflation from £4,000 in 1973) would be £6,375
That same home would be worth £165,000 (using national home price inflation) so to pay the same value of interest the rate would be 3.9% (there are currently no interest rates available at less than 4%)

20% interest on £54,000 home (allowing for inflation) is £10,800
2% interest on a £540,000 home is also £10,800
Just because the interest rate is higher doesn't mean that you are necessary paying more if the overall value has increased

Thing is, 20% (don't think they ever got that high) of £220,000 (if house prices had matched wage increase) is £44,000, to be paying the same amount in interest for a £2 million home interest rates would have to be 2.2%
It's why comparing the percentage when the value has changed is problematic

One thing to be aware of, initially traffic volumes will reduce, however over time they will return to where they are currently
However, don't let people confuse this with traffic levels being worse than without the charges as there would have been traffic growth anyway

It depends, whilst population estimates have the UK population growing (2022 to 2043) by 4.6 million people, however the overall 65 population is due to grow by 4.7 million people

In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for each person over 65, this has already fallen to 2.4 and by 2050 is expected to reach 1.7
Without any immigration the fall in the ratio between working aged and over 65's would be far faster

Of course, if you (Larry) got him you'd deal with Feathers swiftly and finally, by doing what you did to most of those Christmas gifts from your true love and your Christmas Eve breakfast (of a mouse) - eating him

Table showing growth in rail use between regions from 2008/09 to 2018/18 with London to West Midlands, London to North West and London to Scotland seeing growth of around 72%, note that these are regions (so removes the risk of double counting of split tickets) which would have benefitted from HS2 first and with more than half of the expected services

Part of the issue is people not understanding some of the numbers
HS2 was based on the assumption of 2.5% growth year on year, but due to growth in the early years of over 4% by 2019 instead of having 131 passengers for every 100 in 2009 there were 171, the expected numbers for 2033

Even when looking at the years where net migration when it increased the population over 50 years would have only needed 3.5 million more homes
As such, whilst migration is a factor in needing more homes it's not even the largest factor

Why's that relevant?
Well, as people age, they live in smaller household sizes, between 1970 and 2020 the average household size shrunk by enough that even with a static population there would have been a need for 8 million more homes

UK population up 13% over the last 20 years, however the working population (18-64) has risen by only 10%, the extra growth isn't from children (0-18 is up about 6%), rather those over 65 where it has risen by 35%

TfL have some food guidance on this (and the provision of shelters):
content.tfl.gov.uk/the-planning...

Just look at the tube to see how willing people are to change if the frequency is high, then compare that to services with an hourly frequency where connections are poorly timed (even if they aren't, a small delay can result in a much longer journey)

Even a near empty bus with just 8 people on board will typically remove 5 cars from the road but only take up the space of 2 cars

Population and geographic spread could both be a factor
Cornwall is the right population but runs the risk of officers not knowing all the areas
Also try merging smaller ones & it'll cause issues; Rushmore - does it go with Basingstoke or across 3 counties so it's urban area is 1 authority (not 6)

Investment in public transport benefits everyone, even those who remain using their cars (as there are fewer vehicles on the road)
One of the barriers to people using public transport is the infrequent nature of the service (see how people are willing to change in the tube) making journeys too long

For example linking a cycle route to a quiet residential street could create a route when currently the gap acts as a barrier, likewise better crossing provision (looking to see the potential user not only recording what is there, as people may find the provision unsafe so drive)

A policy to aim for:
Streets for 6 year olds (access to public open space)
Neighbourhoods for 9 year olds (access to local schools)
Towns for 12 year olds (able to go anywhere)
Would not only benefit them but the whole of society
As would dealing with gaps in active travel provision

Surrey: Esher headteacher opposes decision to axe free school bus Surrey County Council says the move will save about £180,000 per year.

Looks like @surreycc.gov.uk have been taking lessons from @hantsconnect.bsky.social about inappropriate walking routes:
Surrey: Esher headteacher opposes decision to axe free school bus www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
At least they are not trying a LOTR remake:
youtu.be/rBjVV9Ij7oE?...

It's not even just that though, step out into a road 9m from a car don't 30 and the driver would have only just got round to reacting, do the same with a car doing 20 and the driver had not only rejected but has got halfway through their breaking distance