09:17:46 on Sat, 28 Jul 2018, michael adams remarked:
LONDON
LONDON
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services, some of the money is indeed goinf round in a circle (from taxpayer to himself via lower fares) but overall, on average, or whatever similar concept floats your boat, all of them are subsidising the minority who are benefiting from the lower fares.
My gut feeling is that you are basing your comments on a very restricted demographic and/or part of London.
Nationally, the average modal share of bus is 5% and train 2%. Obviously it's going to be higher in London, but then the 25% modal share of "walking" may well be higher too, because facilities you are travelling to are much more concentrated in a mainly urban area.
Out in the leafy suburbs, most people won't be seen dead outside of a car (or those living in WC1, outside of a black cab).
Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years. Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but that's not what you said.
National figures have nothing to do with TFL. As you've stated, you've move to somewhere with useless PT. That was your choice.
That comment says you don't know 'most people'.
BTW, making PT decent and affordable also benefits those who do travel mainly by car. As you'd know by the congestion when there is a PT strike or whatever.
I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of inputs. Well done grilling your work colleagues about their domestic travel arrangements though.
Kids of taxpayers are a small section of the market, but if they walk to school (or get a lift with mum/dad) why would they need TfL public transport? My children grew up in an area with good public transport, but they walked/cycled everywhere with their chums (to the shops, the parks etc) until they were at least 14, at which point they did the occasional trip further afield with most parents (not us though) fretting about the axe-murders they might encounter en-route.
No, I'm looking at the wider picture where people either live in dense bit of London and everything is in walking distance, or the leafy suburbs where taxi-dad is the preferred mode of transport for the family (including of course mum and dad themselves).
Probably to highlight that it is now a TfL service, rather than a National Raiways franchise. I think they must have just about exhausted the possible derivatives of Great Eastern over the years ...
I think you mean what it was as it is now the Elizabeth Line.
(Although, personally, I thought Crossrail was a better name.)
Yes, though I'm not sure how it works. We use two operators - Stagecoach and a local firm called PC Coaches.
Stagecoach card readers just read the ITSO card but PC Coaches drivers ask for the destination - which is then printed on the ticket.
Unlike London, both operators issue zero charge tickets.
The current scheme replaced numerous local schemes funded by local councils and cover all bus travel in the country you live in but there is nothing to stopp the local authority adding extra benefits to the national scheme in their area such as in London and Newcastle (and probably other areas I don't know of.)
But as I said round here everyone talks about the overground to differentiate from the tube. Since many journeys can be done by either. But don't mean the TFL one which is relatively new.
Indeed. My original post on this topic was in response to
To which you at one stage replied
" Grants by central government for TfL's operations[1] are being phased out."
Which was the subsidy being talked of. Such grants will have originated in the Treasury and so in that context I should more correctly have referred to their contributions to the UK Treasury, rather than to the UK economy. Fair point. Other taxes will of course have been generated as a result of their employment, corporation tax, VAT on goods they produce or services they provide, etc. etc. but these again will be in proportion to the GVA contribution made by their region.
But what's being discussed here are relative contributions both to UK Treasury and the economy as a whole, of whole regions not just individuals. You may well quibble that GVA per head takes no account of the respective percentage of economically inactive individuals - comprising among others OAP's,children, the chronically sick, students, and the unemployed across each region. Thinking about it its totally meaningless in this context in any case, and was only introduced at all in order to score cheap points at the expense of our friends in the north.
But the hold on ! What am I saying ? All along I've been attempting to prove by using one measure or another that people in other regions can't possibly be subsiding Londoners because basically we're doing so much better than they are. So how could they possibly be subsiding us ?
But then one comes across headlines such as this, and it all comes flooding back
EU farming subsidies: One in five biggest recipients are billionaires and millionaires on the UK rich list
Sir James Dyson's farming business was the biggest private recipient of EU basic payments in the UK in 2016, receiving ?1.6 million, Greenpeace says
formatting link
The question on everybody's lips of course, is will the UK Govt carry on paying these subsidies after Brexit ?
I think we should be told.
The rich didn't get to be rich by subsidising the poor. Precisely the opposite in fact.
And of course that's how it actually works . Housing benefit in effect subsidises landlords at the taxpayers expense as it underpins the level of market rents for those sectors to which it applies
Income support subsidises those employers, at the taxpayers expense who are unwilling to pay a sufficiently high wage.
Yes but that was all before he got to see the actual books.
You didn't really expect Boris to show him the actual figures beforehand did you ?
Not that Boris himself necessarily had any idea what they were himself, but that's another matter.
Lobby.
"Sadiq old chap, Hi !"
Customary handshake ensues.
" I know what you're here for and of course you're entitled to all the relevant information, only I've had a word with our Chief Financial Officer chappie and it seems there's been a bit of a SNAFU with this year's final accounts. Absolutely nothing to worry about Sadiq old chap, you have my word on it, everything will be absolutely fine"
Slaps Kahn on the back, followed by another handshake, and then waddles off to the other side of the lobby.
I must say you sound very familiar with this stuff considering you live thousands of miles away. You'll be giving everyone the lowdown on Oyster top-ups in no time at this rate.
I can spot a distraction technique like that a mile off.
Of course it had a National Rail station, I mentioned that - but as the tickets on that line aren't subsidised by TfL it's utterly irrelevant to the topic.
Meanwhile, even if it had been TfL subsidised no-one in our household would have used it more than once in a blue moon.
Don't watch it.
I've never said there was zero patronage of public transport.
There's plenty to do in each Borough without having to travel to the next. If it's further, remember: I would drive.
It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to roam distant streets all day are long gone.
They may not be subsidised but the Mayor has a measure of control on the services get into Greater London. Our suburban service now stops at Earlsfield after, pressure from Ken Livingstone.
Same here. Far more trains now stop at my local station than once was the case. Making the frequency of the service not much different to the tube. And a much more pleasant way to travel on journeys that both do.
No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.