On 20/09/2012 11:01, d wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:46:24 +0100
Graeme wrote:
On 20/09/2012 10:44, d wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:34:21 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Try Moscow then - considerably bigger than london. Flat fare.


Bigger subsidy and smaller network.

Not that much smaller

Around 200 route miles as against 250 in London.

Like I said, not that much smaller unless you're going to suggest that extra
50 miles makes all the difference.

That's 25% difference.

But if you want to split hairs - the
new york subway also has flat fares.

So?


and it carries more passengers. Ironic how russia with
its bankrupt economy can subsidise when the UK, supposedly one of the top
10 richest countries in the world, can't.


UK does.

Not as much as it should and its slowly being reduced as a percentage.


Are you willing to pay the extra taxes necessary to pay for an increased
subsidy?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:15:12 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:44:20 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:34:21 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Try Moscow then - considerably bigger than london. Flat fare.


Bigger subsidy and smaller network.

Not that much smaller and it carries more passengers. Ironic how russia with
its bankrupt economy can subsidise when the UK, supposedly one of the top
10 richest countries in the world, can't.

How much extra Council Tax would you volunteer to pay, in order to
increase the subsidy enough to have a reasonably priced flat fare?

Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

B2003

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:51:16 +0200, lid
(iMark) wrote:

It also compares very well to travelling in other parts of the UK. We
occasionally use the bus in Bournemouth. There are two operators there
and tickets between Yellow Buses and Wilts and Dorset are not
interchangeble. Even in a city where there is a decent network, the
non-interchangebilty of tickets is extremely annoying and expensive. Not
everyone has an OAP bus pass. :-)

You can buy a "Get Around" ticket which does cover all operators in
Bournemouth and Poole. Unfortunately it is not very well promoted.

http://www.gettingabout.info/GettingAboutTicket.php

Thanks for that. Never heard of that ticket.

But the following quote from the website is bewildering.
"The exact area of validity is shown on the local 'Area Bus Map'
available from the Information Office at Bournemouth Rail and Coach
Station - underneath Asda."
Is it too much trouble in 2012 to turn that map into a pdf and make it
available from the website?

It's also bewildering that the bus companies don't mention this ticket
on their websites (or have hidden the info somewhere I couldnt find it).

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:29:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Like I said, not that much smaller unless you're going to suggest that extra
50 miles makes all the difference.

That's 25% difference.

No, its 20%. 50/250, yes? Hope you don't require maths in your job. And which
bit of "not that much smaller" are your clearly having trouble with?
FWIW the NYCS is almost the same route miles as london but has almost twice
the number of stations.

But if you want to split hairs - the
new york subway also has flat fares.

So?

So if it works in cities the size of moscow and new york it would work here
and special pleading about london being some unusual case due to its size is
specious at best.

Not as much as it should and its slowly being reduced as a percentage.


Are you willing to pay the extra taxes necessary to pay for an increased
subsidy?

Yes. Mainly because it would cost me less in the long run. I subsidise
buses and trains oop narf via my taxes which I'm never going to use, no reason
they can't subsidise the tube a bit more.

B2003

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:35:41 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:15:12 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:44:20 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:34:21 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Try Moscow then - considerably bigger than london. Flat fare.


Bigger subsidy and smaller network.

Not that much smaller and it carries more passengers. Ironic how russia with
its bankrupt economy can subsidise when the UK, supposedly one of the top
10 richest countries in the world, can't.

How much extra Council Tax would you volunteer to pay, in order to
increase the subsidy enough to have a reasonably priced flat fare?

Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

Some £6m TfL subsidy already comes from Council tax. I can't see the
central government increasing its TfL subsidy enough to produce flat
Tube fares in London, so the extra subsidy would have to come from
London's council tax, or the flat fare would have to be set high
enough to be revenue neutral. I certainly wouldn't vote for either of
those options.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:06:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

It's often more of a case of how big the subsidy is. Not unusual for
some overseas Public Transport operations to run on the basis of one
third fare box, two thirds subsidy.

TFL costs about twice the farebox revenue to run, iirc (£5.5bn operating
costs plus £2bn capital projects) versus £3.5bn. So not exactly
"profitable".

Thanks, Roland. I was under the impression that the bus services in
London were operated by companies that were in it for profit.

They certainly are in Birmingham, (National Express) where I live, and,
unless you live in the more affluent parts of the city, or along traffic-
choked corridors, the bus service is appalling. No wonder, really, when
you consider that in excess of half of the bus garages closed shortly
after the buses were taken away from BCT.


--
Alex

Boltar wrote

Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

So what rate of income tax, or VAT, would you accept to pay for it? Should
other public services - gas, electricity, telephones, water and sewerage, be
heavily subsidised out of taxation?

Peter

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:45:46 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

So what rate of income tax, or VAT, would you accept to pay for it?
Should other public services - gas, electricity, telephones, water and
sewerage, be heavily subsidised out of taxation?

The basic rate of income tax was 35% in the days when we had good public
services.

--
Alex

On 20/09/2012 11:42, d wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:29:53 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Like I said, not that much smaller unless you're going to suggest that extra
50 miles makes all the difference.

That's 25% difference.

No, its 20%. 50/250, yes?

50/200 = 1/4 = 25% yes?

Hope you don't require maths in your job. And which
bit of "not that much smaller" are your clearly having trouble with?

25% larger or 20% smaller, whichever you prefer, is quite a big
difference. Would you say a 20% cut in your income was not that much?
A 25% increase in mine would be quite a lot.

FWIW the NYCS is almost the same route miles as london but has almost twice
the number of stations.

But if you want to split hairs - the
new york subway also has flat fares.

So?

So if it works in cities the size of moscow and new york it would work here
and special pleading about london being some unusual case due to its size is
specious at best.

You were the one making size comparisons (oo er missis!)


Not as much as it should and its slowly being reduced as a percentage.


Are you willing to pay the extra taxes necessary to pay for an increased
subsidy?

Yes. Mainly because it would cost me less in the long run. I subsidise
buses and trains oop narf via my taxes which I'm never going to use, no reason
they can't subsidise the tube a bit more.


I bet you change your mind in the voting booth.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 20/09/2012 11:44, Alex Potter wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:06:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

It's often more of a case of how big the subsidy is. Not unusual for
some overseas Public Transport operations to run on the basis of one
third fare box, two thirds subsidy.

TFL costs about twice the farebox revenue to run, iirc (£5.5bn operating
costs plus £2bn capital projects) versus £3.5bn. So not exactly
"profitable".

Thanks, Roland. I was under the impression that the bus services in
London were operated by companies that were in it for profit.

They are.


They certainly are in Birmingham, (National Express) where I live, and,
unless you live in the more affluent parts of the city, or along traffic-
choked corridors, the bus service is appalling. No wonder, really, when
you consider that in excess of half of the bus garages closed shortly
after the buses were taken away from BCT.



Birmingham, and the rest of the country, works under a different regime.
The fact that London has a different funding model was a tacit
admission by the tory government that their method of bus deregulation
didn't actually work.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail