London parents - Free bus travel for children suspended from October half term

[Poundpup]

I just came across this article whilst browsing the BBC site and it seems that free transport for under 18s will be suspended temporarily directly after the October half term. With exceptions for those travelling to school more than 2 miles away.

Does anyone know how much a child's fare is? As nowhere seems to indicate what the incoming children fares will be.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53694922

@mrsm43s

There will be families who cannot afford £40 pcm X several children. People may have considered closer schools had they known (at least for their Year 7s/12s).

But they don't need to pay £40 per month per child. Because they will still get free travel to school unless the school is under 2 miles away - which is easy walking distance for a secondary child. Walking is free.

So many people seem to be missing this point. Journeys that can be easily walked (under 2 miles) children will now need to walk or parents can choose to pay . Other journeys to school which are potentially too far to walk will still be free. Nobody needs to pay out any money, they just need to tell their secondary age children to walk the short distance to school.

Absolutely the state should not be paying for buses for teenagers who are too lazy to do a 30-40 minute walk to school.

My child attends a school over 2 miles away BUT as there are other schools closer we won't get free travel

ReallySpicy that's interesting because when I am visiting family in Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire the bus fare I pay for my 12 yr old is less than the adults fare but it's no where nearest half. When I was a kid it was actually called 'a half' but it's isn't half price now.

I reckon it'll be 50p a journey. Tube is 75p so 50p makes sense. Half adult fare too.
It'll encourage my son to walk or bike

As someone who lives in a very deprived northern city with shitty transport shitty schools and a bleak outlook for many of the cities (many of whom are BAME) children, I don't blame Londoners being pissed.
If I had something like free travel that was helping my child get to a better school in a different area and better cultural and social opportunities I'd want to hold onto it for dear life.

Do whilst I sympathise I think there is a minority of posters who seem to be blind to issues that the rest of the country are facing. London isn't the only place that struggles and writing long posts about things that "uniquly" affect london that aren't unique at all is just dumb.

Some of the arguments to retain this perk are hysterical. 2 miles is not an unreasonable distance for a teenager to walk and some of these arguments are desperate and a bit pathetic. Dangerous to walk in snow, needing subsidised travel to go to theatre, threatening to home school so teenagers don’t need to walk under two miles.

@Jackparlabane

Ds would have been taking the bus from September but I've had to get him used to the idea of walking, simply because with buses taking 35 people max (instead of 70), the chances of him getting on a bus will be minimal. Unfortunately the school have decided Y7 have to use the back gate in Sept, which adds at least 5 minutes onto the walk, which is almost all up a steep hill.

I just checked Google maps which says that's still 1.9 miles and should take 45 min. Better start getting him fit, once this heat calms down.

If this was a decision affecting drivers, or off the Mayor's own bat, there would have been years of lead-in time, like for vehicles not complying with the extended ULEZ.
A compromise would be free travel between 7 and 8.45 and 2.30 and 5, or one or two fares a day.

Assuming your child has no additional needs, a 45 minute walk to school for a secondary aged child is perfectly reasonable and he shouldn't need 'to get fit' to manage it.

I think that a 45 minute walk shouldn't tax a healthy teenager, or adult. But it's the amount of stuff they sometimes have to carry that would concern me. In her first year my then 12 year old used to have one day a week where she had to take a hockey stick, a sports kit, a violin and all her music books, a couple of lever arch files and a schoolbag containing all the books for her 8 classes that day. Luckily for her we live near the bus stop. But if she had to walk 45 minutes with all that lot she just wouldn't have been able to carry it all. And she's not so badly off as some of her friends as her school has lockers, so once she got to school she could at least dump some of the stuff until she needed it. I see kids standing at bus stops on my way to work and they are carrying so much stuff that it takes up more space than they do...

Teenagers do carry a lot of stuff around with them - food tech, sports kit, bag of books, lunch - agreed it may not always be practical to cart that for the best part of two miles - but for the price of the bus fare it's probably worth doing on busy days.

Ah London, so special, so different from everywhere else

45 minute walk to school for a secondary aged child is perfectly reasonable

45 mins for a 1.9 mile walk for a healthy 2ndry pupil is not reasonable - should easily be able to do it in 30mins.

And yes London is flat relative to the rest of the country - from the lowest to highest part of fox Hill is less than 100'.
Look how far you can see from Sydenham Hill - am currently near Watford and from Bushey (540' above sea level) you can see most of the docklands buildings and the 'gpo tower' - very few hills - TV transmitters on the palaces (alexandra and crystal) were all that were needed to cover the whole of London. That's flat.

Yes, 2 miles may not seem far to those that regularly walk to school but you are dealing with generations of kids in London who definitely do not walk 2 miles regularly and are not as streetwise

This ^ to me sounds 100% like the argument for stopping the subsidy. If any child of school age (disabilities excepting) can't walk two miles, then this issue is FAR bigger than money. That is seriously worrying.

@BackforGood

Yes, 2 miles may not seem far to those that regularly walk to school but you are dealing with generations of kids in London who definitely do not walk 2 miles regularly and are not as streetwise

This ^ to me sounds 100% like the argument for stopping the subsidy. If any child of school age (disabilities excepting) can't walk two miles, then this issue is FAR bigger than money. That is seriously worrying.

Agree with this. Quite confusing really because nearly every thread I've ever seen about raising children in London goes on about how Independent it makes children swanning around here there and everywhere on the tube. But now they may have to walk 2 miles they lack "street smarts".

sorry I meant streetwise not street smarts.

It would be wonderful if the rest of the country could follow London's lead and offer free travel to children. Let's not bemoan what London children get and ask for the same!

I am not sure how London affords it and the rest of the country can't, but I would guess it is because of the huge number of adults travelling through the city, which subsidises it. I would assume the government doesn't prefer children from London.

I know another town where children swim for free in the council pools. I don't bemoan them either, but I would like some of that too!

London teenagers should get free transport because, typically, their homes are smaller (often significantly smaller) than those of teenagers elsewhere (due to London property being SO expensive) and thus they have nowhere to meet their friends. Sure they can hang out on the estate, or in local parks, but at the more deprived end of the spectrum - and those deprived areas are throughout London, wherever there are estates and where parents are working zero hours contracts etc. and so are less present - there are also gangs. How much better to be able to meet friends outside of their postcode, or to be able to go to one of the (many) free museums etc. Living in London is amazing, but it is also a trade-off: space for opportunity. Taking away free transport is taking away opportunities from the most underprivileged. And rather than 'why shouldn't London teenagers pay when kids in other cities have to?' Well, they shouldn't. Urban public transport should be free - especially as it discourages cars etc. Which will then make the roads safer for cyclists. Or it should be means tested. As it should be for the elderly, too. If your parent is eligible for child benefit, the child is eligible for freee travel, or something.

However, the idea that people have big houses, cars and no poverty in other towns and cities is really ridiculous.

@Theworldisfullofgs

Car insurance cost is about the same btw.

I seriously doubt that. I’ve lived all over England and recently moved back to London so I do know that London isn’t the centre of the universe, which seems to be what most Londoners get accused of. The issues outside London are numerous but London’s streets are not paved with gold. Many people in London are struggling to survive. This change doesn’t actually affect me but it does annoy me when people like to dig at London. The free travel of under 18’s are paid for by Londoners, the counties could do the same and subsidise their travel.

It must be a relief to everyone in rural or coastal areas and every other town and city to know that all the issues they thought existed are apparently now unique to London and no longer a problem.

@ColouringPencils unfortunately you assume wrong. The government gives far more per head for London's public transport, that's why they can afford it.

@Puffykins I think it's admirable that after all the far fetched made up reasons why London dc deserve special treatment you've managed to find another ridiculous avenue to explore.

What I’m not too sure on is if you have chosen a school, not a local one, for a particular reason will the free transport still continue?

Dd going into year 13 at 6th form grammar 5 miles one direction, ds going 5 miles opposition direction for sports academy 6th form. Neither are our local 6th forms.

Would this still come within the over 2 mile criteria?

Flowering I think that is one of the issues that people have questioned. If this is just temporary (that's vague too) then it's not to bad. But if it does turn out to be permanent it needs to perhaps be phased in and start with Year 7 and Year 12 but this would need to be known when parents have to apply for places (so announced at least a year in advance). Or every child should have the automatic right to go to their 'local' school - but in a world of Academy Chains, Lottery Systems, Schools with 10% Bursery places etc that's never gonna happen.

So a 17 yr old is not able to walk two miles to 6th form but can work at a Saturday job, or easily do this going round the shops at a weekend.

I worked in London for over a decade, in social services, in the community, in people’s houses. I have also worked in other cities and towns and rural areas. Some of these arguments are nonsense and quite bizarre. I can understand why people are annoyed at this been withdrawn and people should be given more notice but the concept that the youth of London cannot walk 2 miles is frankly bonkers!

Seeitsortit yes most 17 year olds (and younger) can walk 2 miles. The issue is because parents have had the free choice of being able to apply for any school or college (as in the whole country does) they may have chosen a school that's 8 miles away. Part of choosing would be looking at costs. I know some parents look at uniform costs, equipment etc and the transport (if needed) to get there. If parents know in advance they have to pay for transport they would look at the costs before applying to a specific school. The problem with this is that it has suddenly been bought in it and that changes things. If a family would struggle to pay for the transport (but not 'poor' enough to qualify for benefits) they would be more likely to choose School A a mile down the road rather than School B that's several miles away. But school starts in a month. It's too late now.
This is essentially like being told that in September you have to buy a uniform for your child but from the October half term you have to buy a completely new one as they've decided to change it.
It's an unexpected added cost that will catch many parents by surprise.

Yes, same happened up where I live now. Previous generous policy brought in when the idea was to give choice so instead of one bus to local school, there were two or three buses to 2/3 schools then suddenly we had to pay if not in catchment area. Same for all councils. Local government has been starved of money and they need to pay for social care which has been very hard hit by Covid!

I wouldn’t want to walk two miles with the amount my daughter has to carry. In fact I wouldn’t dream of walking more than about ten minutes with the rucksack she carries every day. Perhaps if this makes schools rethink their use of text books it would be a positive thing.