Bus Services Bill
Bus Services Bill
(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years).
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?
(22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am)Andreos1 Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit.
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension.
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.
It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS?
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system.
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too.
For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?
(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years).
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?
(22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am)Andreos1 Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit.
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension.
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.
It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS?
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system.
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too.
For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?
