Boris' pricing plans under the microscope | Left Foot Forward.
If you want to know who the Tories pklan to hit hardest just look at what's happening in London.
Bus fares will rise 33% in 2 years under Boris Johnson. Inflation is 6.4%. And those on lowest pay tend to be the biggest users of buses.
That's the Tory concept of fairness.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard
For once I’m in total agreement with you. I know of university graduates starting work in London on salaries in the high twenties £ who cannot afford to use the Tube and bus, even with Oyster cards to subsidise it. They end up easily spending £40-plus per week just to get to work and back and to shop for essentials. The service should be much more heavily subsidised as it is elsewhere. Mind you, the whole transport pricing system needs looking at. I recently caught a 6pm weekday train from Euston to Stafford and that cost £82 one-way. It would be cheaper to hire a car and such pricing does nothing to encourage the public to get out of their cars and onto public transport.
Mainland Europe trains are massively cheaper (even ignoring the weak pound), ditto buses and trams.
Subsidised transport gives rise to winners and losers. In Sweden the inter-island ferries are “free” ie run by V?§gverket and paid for out of general taxation. There is no charge for foot passengers, cars, buses, trucks or anything else. Typically, this means journeys equivalent to Portsmouth-Fishbourne which you can look up the prices of on the Wightlink website.
If Wightlink prices were charged, the islands would become depopulated. As it is, they have buoyant economies and properties on the islands are much sought after. So guess who the main beneficiaries are?
@Rupert, why should an OAP in Devon or oil workers in Aberdeen pay towards the travel costs of young graduates in London? Track this one through. Graduates cannot afford public transport costs because (1) they are being underpaid and/or (2) they are paying too much rent. Subsidising public transport means either that employers can get away with underpaying their staff or their staff will pay more in rent as landlords will always put the rents up to the maximum people are willing and able to pay. If staff are generally paid more then they will also end up paying higher rents.
So the end result of the subsidy is that the hard-up Devon pensioners and Aberdeen oil workers are not even subsidising the poor graduates, but stingy employers or greedy landlords. Are these appropriate targets for subsidy?
Boris is a Tory so Boris’s plans are Tory Plans. Way to go Richard. Analysis of this depth and insight will get you a nobel prize
Is it actually possible to support a transport system to get the sheer numbers of people into and out of London every day? Possibly the reality is that London is simply too big and far too much of the economy is concentrated there. Theoretically this is the sort of thing that should force businesses to decentralise out of London, which may be good for the rest of the country.