public transport

[timwilky]

please read this first (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7858085.stm)

OK. this is what I don't understand. Why should anyone fund "public transport", except the people that use it.

Surely if public transport is usable people will in turn use it.


By usable, I mean :-

Affordable
Available
convienient
safe
comfortable

So if you want to run a transport system, and have not got the money to do so. Do what business has to do. Go to the markets with your business plan. If it is sound, people will invest.

The above tax on business was rejected as not appropriate in a recession etc. But what sort of idiot thinks anybody but the customer should have to pay for any service.

I do not have a telephone, I would be fuming if BT made me pay so they can run wire past my house. Why should the public at large pay for goods/services they do not use?

[missyburd]

By usable, I mean :-

Affordable
Available
convienient
safe
comfortable



Of which it only fulfills 1 possibly 2 of those in my opinion.


It is by no means affordable, prices continue to go up at an astonishing rate.
Convenient, on occasion yes but more often than not no, it takes me 3 hours to get to YC's house (if I'm home) for what should be a 3quarter of an hour journey. Unfortunately the bus connections I regularly deal with are rubbish and usually mean waiting about for half an hour/an hour.
Safe no, the amount of nutters that get on - intoxicated or sober - certainly don't make you feel safe, the bus drivers couldn't care less either.
Comfortable, well they're getting better but to be honest I would rather the other 4 options were considered before worrying about how my bum will feel after a half hour journey :rolleyes:

As they've mentioned in the article, increasing tax on it couldn't be suggested at a worse time, clearly the penpushers are in safe financial hands and couldn't give a rat's pennywhistle what difficulties others are in.

My 2ps worth anyhoo :-)

[madness]

It's a vicious circle I'm afraid. People will not start using public transport until it fill the criteria you mention. Unfortunately, it will never do this without a huge investment. That money has to come from somewhere, and as it's 'Public Transport' we as 'The Public' should fund it to a certain extent. We should look to other countries for examples of how a public transport system should be run. How are we supposed to reduce traffic without a good public transport system. If we don't do something we will all end up crawling along in traffic, our speeds being monitored and basically having a sh*t time everytime we venture onto our road network. Personally I'm happy to pay a bit more tax to get lots of cars off the road.
Would you use the same arguement with regard to the NHS? Just because you don't use the service doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it. That's how it works in the UK. We are all free to emigrate if we don't like it.

[missyburd]

Would you use the same arguement with regard to the NHS? Just because you don't use the service doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it. That's how it works in the UK.

Indeed even if you don't actually think you use the services now, you know they are there should you actually have need for them.

[timwilky]

No it is not the same argument re NHS etc. This is funded by tax which is fair if a scheme is "public". We all pay. Other schemes selects who pays.

However, surely if there is then a universal public transport system. We all should be entitled to the same provisions, ie 24 hour operation 7 days a week. same cost/mile irrespective of where you live etc.

[the_lone_wolf]

Why should the public at large pay for goods/services they do not use?

cause otherwise the doley bast*rds wouldn't be able to get into town to get their free money every week...

</dailymail>

[the_lone_wolf]

of course, public transport does have some advantages:

http://www.ktmforum.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=1957&d=1233343745

[Woz]

The problem is that 'public' transport is run by 'private' companies and therefore, profit is the primary concern. The actual service provided is way down on the list of priorities and so you have the vicious circle already mentioned. As people stop using it, the prices have to go up to cover the shortfall in turnover and more people stop using it.

When I go to the pub, it costs £3.20 on a bus. To get a taxi is £6 so when the current Mrs Woz comes with me why would we want to stand in the cold waiting for a bus when it's cheaper to order a taxi?

[Thingus]

I don't think the tax will matter. Fuel duty is going up and therefore they'll charge more anyway. Unless that doesn't apply to public transport or somethin', i dunno.

Public transport hasn't really ever let me down, but i haven't given it much of a chance to.

[CoolGirl]

<business grad mode on>

look at the bigger picture.
we all want better public transport.

Consumer view
Transport companies have put fares up to the point where they have become almost unaffordable (particulalrly trains). The cost of running a car's gone up, so punters are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Transport company view
the cost of runnig public transport's gone up . Shateholders still want their cake, infrastructure's a mess (but out of their control) and the punters want a better service for their money.

Local busines view
It's getting harder for customes to park thie cars (parking restrictions, parkinbg space being sold for propoerty development etc). and with consumer spending going down, affecting return on shareholdings, how can they attract customes? Answer: help make it easier for them to get there by investing in public transport.

Local government view
we need to spend existing budgets on schools, hospitals and other front line public serices. Shopping isn't a priority. We want to help local businesses boost their profits, so let's set up a way of helping them to get customers.

Compare it to when you go on a package holiday and the transfer from the airport to hotel are laid on for you. What would you rather have - fifty quid off the price of your holiday or have to find your own way to a strange place in a strange land where you can't understand the language.

[TazDaz]

I haven't read the whole thread so some of this may be a repetiton of other peoples comments!

Firstly public transport is a key part of the UK infrastructure and without it there would actually be anarchy with the roads grinding to a halt with all the additional cars on them!

Fact is that the public transport companies rarely (if ever) manage to run their services without government funding or funding from other parties*. The fees paid by passengers do not cover the costs and they are stuck basically, because if they raise the prices then less people would use it and therefore less money! *(New developments of a reasonable size make a contribution towards public transport provision...usually part of the S106 agreements if I recall correctly.)

If the public transport links offered were reduced then we would end up with even more cars on the road, which no one wants! Bit like in the 60's when Beeching closed a lot of the railways. There was a dramatic modal shift from rail to private cars and many of the roads in Britain are already running over capacity in the peaks so we don't need anymore!

Hence the government / local authorities will do anything to "persuade" people not to have cars and this tax is their way of doing it! If you can run a "green" office, with no car parking, then it's highly likely that they won't be included in this tax when it comes is, and it will, as that office is doing it's part for removing traffic from the roads!

Removing cars from the roads is actually one of the biggest priorities that the government has which is why the increases in road tax etc. Yes it does earn the goverment more money, but they are actually trying to outprice motorists! Also why most of the new housing developments have reduced parking, and sometimes no parking! It's because the developer will be forced to pay a very high amount of money if they want to include parking in their development!

Public transport is reasonably affordable over the long haul, like season tickets etc. I can travel to work on the bus for £10.50 a week (7 days) which is very good in my opinion - not that I do it though! It's just the price for individual journeys seems disproportionately high, £1.90 for one way ticket!


Just my two british pennies!

[timwilky]

My obviously defected brain thinks that taxing businesses that provide staff parking would simply encourage those businesses to relocate out of the city.

I am lucky enough to live in an area where public transport exists but is expensive. (£5 return to my local town centre), no discount/weekly passes etc. I was at one point paying over £40/week for my kids to go on the school bus. It does not run after 11pm. On Sundays the first bus is 10am (how can my wife a nurse start her 7.00am shift at the local hospital 14 miles away by bus).

Then contrast that against my parents. They have been given pensioners bus passes. Only problem their nearest regular bus stop is about 8 miles away. They do have a bus on Tuesdays that passes near to their house about 9am and returns about 6pm.

This is the problem. People making transport policy tend to think public transport is available to all. affordable to all and convenient for all. They therefore try to punish financially those who either cannot use public transport, have not got public transport or the transport does not go where they want to go and as a result are forced to provide their own transport. My parents ended up with having to maintain a car each for themselves plus a land rover for the times when it snows as the local council cannot be bothered to clear the snow outside of the town centre and you cannot drive normal cars in 4ft drifts.