Will she ever learn?

[Robin]

Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save around £200 over the next four years).

[Robin]

You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution to the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA). Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a. net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes, duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'd guess there were plenty other subsidies around then which others might deem unfair too.

But let's stick to the present day, shall we?

If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the council tax is levied on.

It also would be the thin end of the wedge if council tax payers could obtain a rebate because they don't use PT. As the same would have to apply to all other council services.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 15:19:45 on Thu, 26 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

The implication of the manifesto promise was that all households using public transport [to get to work or otherwise] would see no rise.

But lots of households did see a rise because their fares were capped.

Presumably the ?200 over 4yrs is what someone with a crystal ball guesses that TfL would have raised their fares by in the absence of the manifesto promise.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 15:18:23 on Thu, 26 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I disagree. Five years ago I was living somewhere with excellent public transport better than a bus every ten minutes; and paid my way on them several times a week (on quasi-discretional trips as I worked from home).

I was looking forward to a bus-pass so I could explore the area more, but "they" changed the rules. So despite having paid in the recent past into a pot, to give people at a younger age than myself free travel, I was denied it.

Fast forward to now, when I've had my bus pass for a little over a year, but have genuinely had no opportunity to use it because the bus service in the new place I live is so appalling. Basically about half the District Council[1] area is served by one bus an hour, and some of the rest by one every perhaps three hours. The village I'm most likely to want to go as a leisure destination basically has minimalistic buses which are on the school-run [so against the tidal flow I'd need] but take other passengers too.

No-one else in my household has any realistic proposition of finding the local bus service useful either.

[1] I'm not blaming them, it's just to give an idea of the footprint.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 15:34:36 on Thu, 26 Jul

2018, Roland Perry remarked:

not

[Robin]

Where did I imply it was wrong?

If you read back you'll see that I had already referred to it as a fares freeze. ("Fares" does not means "all fares".

As regards the household saving, I was stating a fact. See eg

I wasn't going to state baldly that "the average household will save £200" because *I* haven't the evidence to prove that. Have you?

[Roland Perry]

In message , at

15:53:52 on Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Robin remarked:

The promise was "Londoners won't pay a penny more for their travel in

2020 than they do today". [I'll happily accept ring-fencing that to public transport in the Greater London area, as he has little control of car rental costs in Australia]

However, he specifically ruled out "if's and buts":

"I want to be crystal clear, no ifs, no buts, what you'll pay if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end of my 4 years in office."

No "Tfl travel only", either.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

That will teach you to vote Tory, then. They've put up the qualifying age for almost everything.

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like a TFL area.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

So explain what you meant by 'doesn't stop the mayor ....referring'

I'm not the one questioning it.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 17:16:27 on Thu, 26 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

...

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm one) using PT, and I don't.

[Robin]

I was referring to Roland's point.

Given I'm not questioning it why do you ask *me* if I have evidence to prove it wrong?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Up to you to complain to your council if you think you get a poor deal.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 00:31:05 on Fri, 27 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

London

Even adding in the missing 'London', I don't actually agree, and quoted my own experience on the matter.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Don't really see how choosing to live in an area with poor PT has any relevance to the situation in the TFL area where PT is generally very good.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 10:09:45 on Fri, 27 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL area.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no overground?

There was a time when you needed different tickets for overground and tube.

But with TFL it's integrated.

Other thing of course is most council charges are for a household. Where others than the CC payer can use PT.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul

2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Surbiton. And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today would have marginal utility.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Has a station.

And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today