What is it about Joanna Lumley? Something perhaps of a bygone age, of the values of the British Raj? She’s lent her not inconsiderable influence to passionate campaigns on behalf of animal welfare and human rights and, of course, there’s her ardent support of the Gurkhas. Even Gordon Brown will find it hard to withstand her.
Perhaps she might also lend her support to the bus industry. After all, she’s eligible for a free bus pass. Perhaps she could better explain the meaning of “no better or worse off” because the message isn’t getting through to the town hall, as marginal routes turn into loss makers where reimbursement is too low. A route holding its own under a typical 81p in the pound half-fare farebox plus reimbursement cannot hope to recover costs at 48p without something like a 70 per cent leap in free ridership, stiff increases in fares or cuts in service...
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Absolutely Fabulous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What's really ironic is that on strong commercial routes it is bearable. There are extra OAPs who will ride into town on high frequency routes instead of using their cars, and more ofter. If this drives a need for more frequency, there is still potential growth as a result in fare payers.
Yet, on rural routes through sparesley populated villages there simply isn't the over 60 population there to see the level of growth required, and indeed, on low frequencies many will stick to their cars. there is no prospect of better frequency, so no increase in fare payers either.
So the ironic side effect of the current method of payment means that it is the 'lifeline' services that are becoming uneconomic to run. these are the very 'socially necessary' services that will fall to local Councils to fund...the same local councils strapped for cash having in many cases been short changed too by the government for concessionary fares costs.
This government has managed to wreck the very socially necessary services that it has said bus operators should run as part of their networks. Many in the ruling party used to demand that bus companies effectively run these services fnded by commercial routes - yet they've directly damaged more marginal routes through their own concessionary fares regime!
Amon wrote
"What's really ironic is that on strong commercial routes it is bearable. There are extra OAPs who will ride into town on high frequency routes instead of using their cars, and more ofter. If this drives a need for more frequency, there is still potential growth as a result in fare payers.
Yet, on rural routes through sparesley populated villages there simply isn't the over 60 population there to see the level of growth required, and indeed, on low frequencies many will stick to their cars. there is no prospect of better frequency, so no increase in fare payers either."
Were the calculations on increased ridership across the board rather than route specific, then?
If as mentioned in a previous reply the uplift required to make a 70% increase needed to break even, how did it come about? Were the rules misunderstood, misinterpreted, the base figures wrong?
For the supported routes could gross cost be a solution?
Depends who funds them.
First we have to decide what the interests of the bus industry and what the interests of passengers are. And then we have to work out if they are the same.
I have a lot of sympathy for the rail model but there the issue of fares remains, but not much of an issue because the trains are full (and to make them emptier is a lot of hard work). Much the same as London Buses really. The main weakness of the rail model is whether or not the interests of the funders and the passengers are the same.
On balance bus passengers probably have more in common with bus companies than with government as a whole. But that could change. Or it could be structured so it didn't matter.
Post a Comment