On Jan 15, 12:09*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:31:56 +0000

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:53:30 on Tue, 15 Jan
2013, remarked:
The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes
a flat fare.

Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT.

Well it all comes from the treasury pot so its rather academic how much is
raised by which tax since none of them are specifically reserved to be spent
on the roads. But you still have to tax an insure your car if its on a public
road even if you pushed it yourself.

It's the same argument as is going on in a parallel thread about
buying "green" electricity or nuclear electricity when it all comes
out of the national grid. All the money comes out of the general pot
of mixed funds. There is no way to identify whether a particular
pound spent on filling a pothole came from fuel duty, VAT on fuel,
duty on beer, income tax, national insurance or corporation tax.

Robin

In message , at 11:49:34 on Tue, 15
Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked:
Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT.

The revenue to maintain the roads comes from general taxation. All UK
taxes go into one pot and are distributed from there.

It's still possible to look at the tax collected and spent, and see that
in a general area the one provides the other.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/01/2013 22:12, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 14/01/13 20:13, wrote:
On 14/01/2013 19:24, Roger Lynn wrote:
Unfortunately my job is moving to Swindon, where apparently many of the
buses are "exact change only". I thought that sort of thing had gone out 30
years ago. It makes me very reluctant to use the buses because I can't be
sure of having the correct fare, especially if I have no idea what the fare
would be and the only way to find out the fare seems is to get on a bus and
ask. This is extremely unfriendly to passengers.

You could, of course, find out what the local transport agency is in
Swindon and either access their website or give them a ring.

I've never seen bus fares on websites when I've looked in the past. They
usually make it difficult enough just to find which route you want and a
timetable for that route. Even when I have found the fare I still can't be
sure of having the correct change.

Roger

So, ring them up then and explain your situation and ask what they might
advise.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 15/01/2013 12:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:49:34 on Tue, 15
Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked:
Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT.

The revenue to maintain the roads comes from general taxation. All UK
taxes go into one pot and are distributed from there.

It's still possible to look at the tax collected and spent, and see that
in a general area the one provides the other.

From he

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/transport-statistics-great-britain-2011/tsgb-2011-summaries.pdf

Nearly £5.8 billion was raised through vehicle excise duty (VED) in
2010/11. This was based on nearly 43 million unique vehicles being
licensed during the year and includes refunds for surrendered tax discs.

About £27.3 billion was raised through fuel tax in 2010/11.

Expenditure on local and national roads was £9.4 billion.
--
Phil Cook

Roland Perry wrote:

Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically
around
£4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact
change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling
in their purses to find their bus pass.

Providing of course later buses are signed up to the all day tickets. Many
a
traveller has tales of being caught in a suburb or satellite village and
finding the only buses that turn up at that time won't accept the already
purchased ticket.

All-day tickets that are interavailable between operators are generally
harder to find and more expensive. I've never found that people *expect*
an all-day ticket to intervailable,

It may be a specific thing for Londoners and perhaps those from abroad, but
I've certainly experienced people misunderstanding the nature of all-day,
all-evening, return and similar tickets where the wording immediately
available isn't the clearest and can lead to the assumption it means all
buses in the area.

so checking that the suburb you are travelling back from has buses from
the right company, at the time you need them, is an inevitable (but
trivially easy) part of the exercise.

Inevitable perhaps but often not so trivially easy, particularly when the
information about meetings and the like doesn't carry it. Part of the
problem may be locals not thinking about this because the system is second
hand to them.

And this information isn't always easy to find online.

For Nottingham, where I lived and there were several all-day tickets
available, such information is very easy to find online.

My visits to Nottingham have been fairly limited but in general it's been
one of the easier cities to get round the system without needing to find a
native.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:30:05 +0000
Robin9 wrote:
to reduce the subsidy from the tax payer and to release funds for
improvements to the infrastructure. It's about the only thing Boris
Johnson
has got right in my opinion.

Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same refrain
from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge. And
yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to mention
constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted ****ups.

B2003

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I
would be interested in how it's working there.
On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure
people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other
than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram.

Hong Kong trams are pay on exit: you just board without restriction at
the back, but you touch your Octopus card to exit. (It's a flat fare for
the entire tram network.)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Wrong! Almost the opposite is true.

Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it even
though Bob Kiley told the relevant Parliamentary Committee that the subsidy
on buses was going through the roof and had reached a £billion a year, a
third of TfL's then annual budget. Livingstone, the archetypal Socialist
parasite, maintained that investment in big infrastructure should come from
grants from Central Government and not from TfL's budget. This was one the
points Steve Norris made during his unsuccessful campaigns to become Mayor.
Livingstone has not changed his tune and he still sings the same old song
every Saturday morning on LBC.

Boris Johnson, being a different brand of parasite and using his office merely
as a springboard to leadership of the Tories, is eager to reduce the subsidy but
not in order to increase investment. (What new projects has Boris Johnson
initiated? Almost everything completed during his term was started by Livingstone.)

Johnson's agenda is to demonstrate to the Tory faithful that he is far more effective
than George Osborne at cutting expenditure and reducing debt without
seriously damaging services. So Johnson is using the money saved to pay off
the debt. (This was one of the points Livingstone made during the last Mayoral
election. Livingstone said he would use the saved money to reduce fares.)

Neither of these two wastrels has indicated there is a link between fare levels and investment.

As for the quality of services, I suggest it may be more due to management
and the suspiciously high costs of every project. The more that is spent on
existing projects, the less there will be for other important work.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:11 +0000
Robin9 wrote:
Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same
refrain
from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge.
And
yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to
mention
constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted
****ups.

B2003

Wrong! Almost the opposite is true.

Not about the service. The one time I took the tube to work last week there
were delays on the piccadilly and central lines. Its always nice to have
my decision to commute by car vindicated every time I take the tube these days.

Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it
even

One of the things IMO Ken was good at was transport (shame about his tedious
racial agenda bordering on obsession) and part of that was keeping the fares
down. He got the point that the tube is a public service, something which
Boris doesn't seem to grasp.

points Steve Norris made during his unsuccessful campaigns to become

If Norris hadn't been such compliant bull****ting mouthpiece for the company
that screwed up at Potters Bar he might have done better.

not in order to increase investment. (What new projects has Boris
Johnson
initiated? Almost everything completed during his term was started by
Livingstone.)

Unfortunately the only thing Boris is interested in is Boris. If him starting
new schemes or projects won't boost his popularity with the faithful any
further then he won't bother.

Neither of these two wastrels has indicated there is a link between fare
levels and investment.

I don't think that needs to be pointed out to the average traveller. They
clocked that years ago.

As for the quality of services, I suggest it may be more due to
management
and the suspiciously high costs of every project. The more that is spent
on
existing projects, the less there will be for other important work.

Its management and staff. I've lost count of the number of times I've watched
drivers amble along to take their train at Arnos Grove or White City while
500 people have been sitting there for 5 minutes waiting for them to get their
lazy arse into the drivers seat with trains no doubt backing up behind. Its an
attitude problem that seem to be ingrained at LU.

B2003

On 17 Jan, 09:49, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:11 +0000

Robin9 wrote:
Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same
refrain
from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge.
And
yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to
mention
constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted
****ups.

B2003

Wrong! Almost the opposite is true.

Not about the service. The one time I took the tube to work last week there
were delays on the piccadilly and central lines. Its always nice to have
my decision to commute by car vindicated every time I take the tube these days.

Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it
even

One of the things IMO Ken was good at was transport (shame about his tedious
racial agenda bordering on obsession) and part of that was keeping the fares
down. He got the point that the tube is a public service, something which
Boris doesn't seem to grasp.

On transportation Ken Livingstone was excellent. And, the municipal
level is one where socialist policies are appropriate, provided they
are paid for by those who live and work in the metropolis.

However, Ken was so despicable with regard to meeting with terrorists,
and caustically anti-Semitic remarks, I could never support for him.