Should child fares be reviewed?

[northwichcat]

Child fares costing 50% of the adult fare really exist for the benefit of a reduced financial burden for parents. This is a bit like the Student Loan debate the government wanted to increase tuition fees because they said taxes from people on the minimum wage shouldn't be funding students. In the same way rail passengers earning the minimum wage are partly funding child travel and adult fares could increase significantly over the coming years.

I would have thought the government should consider the following options:

1. A full fare is paid unless the child is small enough to sit on a parent's/guardian's knee.

2. Under 5s travel free. 5-10yr olds pay 50% of adult fare, 12-15yr olds pay a higher rate.

3. Everyone pays the same rate. The 16-25 railcard becomes an under 26 railcard offering 1/3 off off-peak fares.

Possibly there's more options that other people can think of.

 

[Anvil1984]

Nah I agree with a half fare for 15 and under, just wish there was an easier way to prove a child's age with out the rigmarole, there should be a half fare pass just like on buses in quite a few areas.

I personally think it should be the concessionary disabled and elderly fare should be looked at in PTE areas, everyone should pay at least half fare in my opinion, or a token amount in there area. Not free travel from Hull to York or Scarborough on a Hull Council pass

 

[dave_wm]

My problem with the Goverment's argument there is that yes, some tax from minimum wage people does go to subsidising tuition fees or child train fares, but a vast amount more comes from the rich. That argument could equally be applied to roads or schools - why should rich people be able to use those services which tax from those on minimum wage have funded.

I think the child fares should remain as they are, for encouraging parents with children to use trains (typically during off-peak hours) and to encourage young teenagers to take their first journeys alone - and potentially become a passenger for life.

 

[telstarbox]

Child fares aren't just a good idea for getting teenagers to town/the cinema on weekends. I used to get the train every day to school and so did many others at all the schools in the same town - for many of us it was the most convenient and quickest way to get there. However, without child fares it would have been twice the cost to parents who might have instead chosen to drive their kids to school, causing extra rush-hour congestion, pollution, etc.

 

[northwichcat]

Let's not forget that transport costs of getting to/from school are paid for by the council unless the child lives within 'walking distance' or doesn't attend the nearest suitable school with places available.

 

[WestCoast]

Having been eligible for child fares a few years ago, I disagree that they should be scrapped. It does encourage early use of trains, helps families pay for rail tickets and makes young people more confident travelling on them. Like dave_wm says, it could make 'passengers for life'.

The system of "half fares" has been around for a very long time and I don't see the need to change.

What does seem to need changing is the enforcement and proof-of-age situation. London and many of the PTE areas have something that teenagers must (or can) use to proove their eligibility for child fares.

Outside these areas, there is often nothing bar a passport (or one of these easily faked cards) that can be used, and not many people are likely to want to carry one of them around. This leads to the difficult situation for ticket office staff, guards and RPIs, how do you make sure that people 16 and over don't get child fares? Above that, many staff don't want to get involved in arguments, it can also be embarrassing for the (legitimate) ticket purchasers and also the staff.

I know a few people 17-19 years old who still buy child tickets, because often you aren't questioned. There is a need for a national 11-16 railcard, which would be issued for free (or a very small fee) upon proof-of-age at a station or online. Only then would the 50% discount apply to over 10s.

 

[moggie]

One could make an argument that the under 16 threshold was set at a time when many 'children' went into full time paid employment at 16 hence there being no need for reduced fares. Nowdays the number of people of this age going into any sort of paid employment is pretty small I would suggest, hence any proposal to remove / reduce the amount of discount would be a further move to pricing folk off the trains other than those with above average incomes.

 

[telstarbox]

IIRC you get a Photocard marked "child" for weekly/season tickets if you're under 16 at the time ofp purchase?

 

[Bittern]

I think all fares need to be reviewed. The railways are getting very, very expensive to travel on. This causes concern from me about the New Monkland Line where fares from Airdrie - Edinburgh are quite expensive (an off-peak return is £11.10). Can anyone confirm the prices of this before the direct line reopened?

 

[WestCoast]

IIRC you get a Photocard marked "child" for weekly/season tickets if you're under 16 at the time ofp purchase?

You certainly do, but that doesn't solve the problem of ineligible people buying child singes/returns/advances. Plus, a ticket machine can't question people either!

 

[All Line Rover]

I completely disagree!

Child fares make rail travel significantly cheaper when travelling as a family. (Especially with a Family Railcard!) It encourages families to travel by train, which they probably wouldn't do otherwise.

I, for one, travel by train A LOT because, since I qualify for child fares, travelling by train is very cheap. Very! If I didn't get reduced fares I would travel by train much, much, much less. Less revenue would then go to TOC's. (And most of the time I'm filling quiet First Class carraiges anyway, so it's not as if I'm using seats which other people need!)

I do agree that a child Railcard should be introduced, as many people (including me) always get questioned about our age. I'm picking up a Zip card (child Oyster card) from Euston this Saturday, because as well as using it as an Oyster card I will use it as an "ID" card (to prove that I'm young) enough, as it will have my photograph on it.

 

[pmgarvey]

Surely its not in the TOCs interest to raise child fares? It's standard business tactics of charging people the maximum they might pay you. As nearly all their costs are sunk and not related to how many passengers get on any train, it's in their interest to charge less for those who can afford less.

 

[northwichcat]

My problem with the Goverment's argument there is that yes, some tax from minimum wage people does go to subsidising tuition fees or child train fares, but a vast amount more comes from the rich. That argument could equally be applied to roads or schools - why should rich people be able to use those services which tax from those on minimum wage have funded.

As the government attempts to cut tax funded subsides to the railways it'll be the annual season ticket holders who'll subside the child fares the most not the 50% tax payers.

Let's also not forget that most child trips at weekends and during school holidays are non-essential trips, while expensive peak time adult trips are a case of travel at that time or lose your job and income.

 

[SS4]

I'd much rather keep child fares discounted and somewhere between 50%-60% of the adult fare (a flat rate that is). Instead lose the 0-4 free travel (how many parents encourage their children to lie and say 4 instead of 5? The child doesn't know better at that age) and make it standard child fare.

Lose the free concessionary travel for the elderly (possibly maintain it for the disabled) and introduce fares at the same rate as the child fare - the amount of extra people I've seen on the bus has increased massively since they were introduced. It even messes about with the timetabling - the 9:00 takes 15 minutes whereas the 9:20 takes 20-25minutes on a 20 minute timetable

Proof of age is always going to be a problem, London's zip card works but only really because it's a smart card in the same way Oyster is. Applying for a pass still requires proof of age and I would imagine some sort of stamp from the school or college is needed who would be swamped.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Nah I agree with a half fare for 15 and under, just wish there was an easier way to prove a child's age with out the rigmarole, there should be a half fare pass just like on buses in quite a few areas.

I personally think it should be the concessionary disabled and elderly fare should be looked at in PTE areas, everyone should pay at least half fare in my opinion, or a token amount in there area. Not free travel from Hull to York or Scarborough on a Hull Council pass

we do have the accompanied child fare in GMPTE zones tho, I agree should have a bus pass type I.D. there are more 15 year olds on the railway than anywhere in the country lol

 

[Chapeltom]

I agree about a pass or railcard, some people can seriously blag it. A lot of people are also shocked that at 16 and 17 you have to pay full fare and are put off going by train at all.

 

[STKKK46]

Got to agree with WestCoast. Provide a free 11-16 railcard with proof of age. Thing is, if you're a young looking 16/17/18 year old, you may get away with a Child ticket and there isn't really a way that their age can be proven as 15 or under by staff. I get really annoyed with some mates of mine when we go to the Football, and they try getting their tickets on this cheaper rate, whilst I've paid for my YP Railcard.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I agree about a pass or railcard, some people can seriously blag it. A lot of people are also shocked that at 16 and 17 you have to pay full fare and are put off going by train at all.

Then they should get themselves a railcard, admittedly it is useless at Peak times (except July and August) but they can still save alot of money, same with the family railcard, when I get a family travelling I always tell them the savings with one, they are amazed.

 

[radamfi]

Adult fare in the Netherlands starts at age 12, and the discount is 40% for 4-11 year olds. However an accompanied child can travel for €2.50 per day and there are discounted season tickets for people going to school/college/university.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it would be a serious mistake to remove/reduce the child concessions. If families had to pay anything like the full fare, most simply wouldn't bother as the cost of everything is so huge once you get into multiples. This would lose the railway a large amount of revenue from what are often relatively short distance off-peak trips on local routes which the railway would otherwise have more difficulty filling.

 

[185]

16yr olds cannot drive a car, they should have compulsory child fare on buses and trains. A UK wide 11-16 ID card should be mandatory, and free.

 

[ainsworth74]

A UK wide 11-16 ID card should be mandatory, and free.

Mandatory ID cards no thanks.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Mandatory ID cards no thanks.

if you are 16 and in full time education yes (alot of pte's pay for this) however why should you get half fare if you have a job? 16 = the real world for most

 

[gnolife]

personally i think that the age that a person ceases to pay child fare should be increased to 18, as a lot of people in the 16-18 bracket (based on my own observations only), so should not be taken as fact) choose to attend college rather than get employed, therefore, the needs of the majority should be taken into consideration. GMPTE (or whatever they call themselves now) offer a concessionary permit, that, for many at my college in Marple, is not valid to anywhere near their homes. With the fact that 16-25 Railcards do not give Peak discounts (which is something else that I disagree with, it feels like its punishing us for needing to travel before Off-peak tickets are available), it makes the cost of getting to college stupidly high, and with EMA stopping next year, thats going to price many out of college.

BTW I know that this is probably just a little bit biased

 

[me123]

Families already struggle to use the train with fares as they are. Scrapping child fares isn't going to help matters. I reckon a huge proportion of travellers are children (or, rather, under 16s) who have no other independent mode of transport.

 

[northwichcat]

personally i think that the age that a person ceases to pay child fare should be increased to 18, as a lot of people in the 16-18 bracket (based on my own observations only), so should not be taken as fact) choose to attend college rather than get employed, therefore, the needs of the majority should be taken into consideration.

If you're proposing raising the age based on when people leave education then shouldn't you do like free NHS dental treatment and say under 19s in full time education (not including university education)? Why should someone with a birthday of 1st Sep have to pay full price for travel in their 2nd year of college while someone who's 17 and does two days college and 3 days work gets half price travel?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This would lose the railway a large amount of revenue from what are often relatively short distance off-peak trips on local routes which the railway would otherwise have more difficulty filling.

Not on a lot of routes in the North West on Saturdays. There's frequently adults left unable to board on platforms, while the train is packed with kids who either haven't paid or have paid half-fare and then the operator may have to compensate/refund passengers who weren't able to board and have already purchase a full price ticket.

 

[Oswyntail]

As the government attempts to cut tax funded subsides to the railways it'll be the annual season ticket holders who'll subside the child fares the most not the 50% tax payers.....

Unlikely, seeing as annual fares are hugely subsidised at present. Or are you suggesting that season prices will go up to approaching their true value!
As has been implied, child fares increase ridership, and start the habit of rail travel. Good business.

 

[northwichcat]

and start the habit of rail travel. Good business.

Unfortunately, for many children not travelling with parents it's also where they start walking past open ticket offices and hoping they can pocket the train fare given to them by their parents.

 

[WestCoast]

Unfortunately, for many children not travelling with parents it's also where they start walking past open ticket offices and hoping they can pocket the train fare given to them by their parents.

Now you're starting to make huge generalisations.

Well that's the TOCs fault then really isn't it? If Northern (who I presume you're hinting at) don't enforce "buy before you board" then the inevitable happens. There has been many threads about this recently.

Where penalties are in place, the situation is different. From my observations, most young people pay for tickets on Merseyrail and Manchester Metrolink.

 

[telstarbox]

if you are 16 and in full time education yes (alot of pte's pay for this) however why should you get half fare if you have a job? 16 = the real world for most

A job quite possibly at a lower minimum wage (£3.64 for 16-17 year olds compared to £4.91 for 18-20 and £5.93 for 21+). I think the 18-20 lower rate is particularly unjust - can you really say a 21-year old will do the job that much better than a 18-year old, other factors being equal?