Forum Topic

Proposed withdrawal of 60+ Oyster

I am horrified. This has been an absolute lifeline. As I am forced to work for at least 7 years longer than my expected retirement age, this is the least that I can expect having not, by the way, benefitted from free travel when I was of school age as is the case now.In fact there are many more discounted and free options open to young people now that I had to pay full price for when I had very little money and no parental support. Not everyone over 60 owns a mortgage-free property or for that matter owns a property. Not everyone drives a car.Perhaps if TfL stopped wasting money on pointless re-painting of road crossings and re-branding of rail lines they might have a bit more to spare to continue to fund this small concession.

Charlotte Kasner ● 428d33 Comments

Looks like you'll have to give up your Daily Mail subscription, Charlotte.

Mike Smith ● 427d

From Harrow online:"Reem Ibrahim of the Institute for Economic Affairs told the LDRS: “It’s absurd that Transport for London continues to give blanket travel discounts to everyone over 60, regardless of income, at a cost of £84million last year. This is not targeted support to those that are most in need. It disproportionately benefits the wealthiest demographic."It worked for me when a colleague of the same age alerted me to this perk when I was about 61. Saved me from having to pay for my commute to a well paid job in The Strand. Of course I took the free money - who wouldn't - but I agree it is absurd

Guy Lambert ● 427d

Well, I can't find anything on the withdrawal However, based on its card usage, it's stated that TFL loses £84m in lost revenue. That is not costing TFL £84M The cost of the card and the department issuing the card were addressed in the rise in the cost to get the card last month. The only thing I found was below, but not a proposed withdrawal on the BBC webite but just some group "Campaigners for intergenerational fairness reacting to TfL estimating a £84m lost revenue called for the benefit to be scrapped"  

Julian Pavey ● 426d

Well, I can't find anything on the withdrawal However, based on its card usage, it's stated that TFL loses £84m in lost revenue. That is not costing TFL £84M The cost of the card and the department issuing the card were addressed in the rise in the cost to get the card last month. The only thing I found was below, but not a proposed withdrawal on the BBC webite but just some group "Campaigners for intergenerational fairness reacting to TfL estimating a £84m lost revenue called for the benefit to be scrapped"  

Julian Pavey ● 426d

The £84m cost for last year appears to be based on the assumption that every journey made using the card would have been made and paid for even if the card was not available. This is not a sensible assumption. Perhaps the notional cost of the card usage could be taxed? The cost of the card is now £35 perhaps this should be an annual charge like Senior's Railcard?

Sam Hearn ● 426d

There is an annual charge albeit smaller than the initial charge so yes they could put that up too. I use public transport, especially buses, far more now I have a 60+ card. I’m on the border of zone2/3 but don’t live that close to a tube station and often get a bus then a tube. Because we don’t have a property integrated transport system It means I end up paying more to go into central London (£5.25) than someone who lives out in zone six who’s closer to the tube (£3.80). So before I got my 60+ card it was often cheaper for me to drive into say Marylebone, for relatively short periods, than it was to take public transport. Which is ridiculous.Regarding older workers using the oyster card to travel to work much of this has been stopped because of the 930 start time.

David Turner ● 426d

What I find hard to understand is how travel is cheaper in  other European counties. The most extreme case being Luxembourg, which is free for both trains and buses. We have some of the most exspensive travel. Our airports are exspensive to use, Branson complains about Heathrow.

Nicholas Beard ● 426d

Travel is not cheaper than in the UK in most European countries, with the exception of, say, Luxembourg. But Luxembourg is a small population, and it's the population that funds the free travel through taxes. Why is the UK cheap, you may ask? Well, plain travel within Europe is cheap if booked in advance. Coach travel is cheap, and National Rail fares are also cheap if you book in advance. But certainly not on the day of travel. You can find good deals if looking in advance

Julian Pavey ● 426d

As Julian says, there is no actual proposal, just some campaign saying it's unfair.I can't see any justification for having this below state pension age; however, having benefited from it myself for 6 years, I wouldn't want to draw the ladder up behind me.The problem with withdrawing things like this is that, in a perverse way, it ADDS to intergenerational unfairness, because we Boomers got something which the young then won't get.

Susan Kelly ● 425d

I understand what you are saying Julian, but the examples you give tend to highlight cheap travel options for occasional journeys rather than regular commuting.Do you know how the prices of yearly travel passes for the underground and other capital city's metros compare?There are some bargains out there, I have a colleague who has a season ticket for the Oxford Tube, and I'm amazed how cheap the (average) cost of each journey works out.

Andrew Jones ● 425d

I should mention that the Oxford Tube is a coach service! Nothing to do with the underground.

Andrew Jones ● 425d

Never understood the necessity of granting free travel to people aged between 60 and 66.  Or, for that matter, no pharmacy prescription charge. Most people still work up to state pension age and those who retire before then do so because they can afford to. If the leader page article is correct, that 25% of pensioners are millionaires, that figure is quite staggering.

Steve Taylor ● 425d

I think it has been a  good way to encourage those who always commuted by car in their working life to move on to or to reconnect with public transport.It would be interesting to know how many people haven't taken this up even when they are eligible because not everybody has and why.  Are their figures just based on age and eligibility?  Do more millionaires use it than the hard-up? Is there a better way for people to be able to keep involved in their communities and avoid isolation when they can no longer drive?

Philippa Bond ● 425d

I don't find it staggering that a quarter of pensioners are millionaires. We are the generation that benefited from booming property prices and, for most of these millionaires, that money will be tied up in their house.

Susan Kelly ● 425d

I agree.  I also think that so many families live spread out now that it is much more difficult to keep on keeping in touch with those who are less able/aren't able or won't keep up with the ever changing technology and this can make travelling far more difficult.There are supposed to be more of those electronic noticeboards coming to some of the bus stops which should help those people who don't have smartphones but the frustration of roadworks and changing routes unfortunately is always going to be more of a challenge for both the traveller and all the authorities.Too often it can be when you have the time you don't have the money and when you have the money you don't have the time.

Philippa Bond ● 425d

This BBC article has a graph showing London Transport receiving the lowest subsidy of a number of cities including Paris and Madrid. It's from 2020 TFL does now retain business rates, in effect central gov subsidy. It still gets 60% of its costs from fares though. The article explains George Osborne started the phasing out of a central gov grant in 2015 in agreement with Boris Johnson who was in the last year of his term as London Mayor.The article also explains the impact of Crossrail on TFL's finances, which caused its debt rating to worsen increasing its borrowing costs. This may be what led to the change to let it retain a greater portion of business rates. COVID also badly impacted TFL's finances.  It now has a strong debt rating.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54652907Subsidising fares generally through tax is good way of redistributing wealth. It is of most value to those on lower incomes and is fairer than awarding a subsidy based on age. It would also encourage people to use public transport, if they have in effect, already paid for it. It can improve job mobility making it feasible for people to travel further to work. Creating a low cost of living through subsidising fares and housing and working towards having low energy costs may be more efficient than having to top up the incomes of many people, working and not working, to enable them to live.

Kathleen Healy ● 425d

Well said Kathleen

Caroline Carney ● 425d

https://www.transportforall.org.uk/your-rights/how-we-can-help-you/If you are having difficulties this website may be useful to you.  People get used to travelling in one way and when there are changes they can be really difficult to deal with/get used to.  It would be good if more proactive help was offered to those who insist on carrying on being independent for as long as they can be!  They may well not be able to find stuff online - or have a phone which tells them the time of the next bus.  I find the increased info at the bus stops good but it will be even better with more of those computer info boards that can tell you if there is a change of route due to roadworks etc! The resumption of the 60+ card was something in Boris Johnson's manifesto.

Philippa Bond ● 424d

As Philippa says, the 60+ card was an electoral bribe by Johnson in 2012. He claimed that people didn't understand that the state pension age was rising and, with it, the age of eligibility for free travel, so he was going to 'make it simple'.

Susan Kelly ● 424d

I am not sure our knight of the realm(LOL) has much time for over 60's as this could well be a vote loser if he did this.He probably figures that many in that age group won't vote for him anyway,and he probably figures corresctly.

Keith Iddon ● 424d

London is different to most of the country. In London even people in their sixties have, in recent elections, been more likely to vote Labour than any other party.

David Turner ● 424d

Fair enough,but I can't see the policy being popular amongst that age group.

Keith Iddon ● 424d

Yes, it would/could have softened the blow of the pension age change which although talked about at one time or another the details of which hadn't been clearly decided, finalised and advertised.  There'd have been an even bigger swarm of irate WASPIs without it and that wouldn't do for the Conservative Party!

Philippa Bond ● 423d

I've a fair few years to go before I would qualify and, from the moment was introduced, I've always been convinced that it wouldn't survive to the time I was due to get the card. It is clearly a misdirected subsidy giving free travel to an age group that on average has a higher income than younger people.  I think the Mayor should immediately extend the hours during which its use is restricted with a view to eventually phasing it out.

Francis Rowe ● 416d

It definitely should be restricted to those over State Pension age.

Steve Taylor ● 416d

Advocating for your own self-interest again Steve?You are not wrong though that the age is to low. I'd say increase the age limit to 67, increase the restrictions at peak hours and have anyone applying sign a declaration that not having this benefit would cause significant financial hardship.

Mark Evans ● 412d

Not advocating for self interest at all. If only!However, I agree that it should only be available to those over state pension age  who can’t afford to pay. Some form of means testing. As 25% of pensioners are millionaires I would assume that possibly up to 80% could easily afford to pay. I forget the figure of how many pensioners genuinely need the winter fuel payment (before Starmer’s remarkable u turn) but perhaps it would be reasonable that only those people receive free Oyster.

Steve Taylor ● 412d

As Susan said earlier the elderlys money is tied up in their property, you might say sell up but it's possible they only have one bedroom now, ideally they would need a second bedroom for live in care if they should need it.

Janice Evans ● 412d

That lifeline is essential for most of us. We are not all rich!

Petey Rosebar ● 411d

Do people know about this?  It would solve a lot of the issues here for everyone. https://www.farefreelondon.org/

Caroline Carney ● 411d

A lot of people don't seem to know what is already available.  It's a good idea to  have an idea about it and some info about it before it becomes necessary.  Don't put it off because it might change - or you won't be here to need it - because everything everywhere is subject to changes all of the time!https://tfl.gov.uk/transport-accessibility/plan-an-accessible-journey

Philippa Bond ● 404d

If you propose to means test this, then why not means test free travel for children? I am sure that, as many people who benefit from the 60+ have access to private transport so do the parents of children who pay nothing.Of course, it would cost quite a bit to administer.

Charlotte Kasner ● 404d

"why not means test free travel for children?"It would mean more wealthy parents would be increasingly inclined to drive their children to school.

Francis Rowe ● 400d