Bus cuts would be "a disaster" says campaign group

Worcester News: Bus cuts would be "a disaster" says campaign group Bus cuts would be "a disaster" says campaign group

A CAMPAIGN group has hit out at Worcestershire’s £3m bus cuts - saying it would “be a disaster” if the services disappeared.

The Campaign for Better Transport says councils across the country are allowing bus cuts to reach “critical levels”.

The group has unearthed information revealing that up to 10 counties are considering scrapping all subsidised transport next year - cutting £48m slashed from spending.

Worcestershire County Council has already launched a consultation to remove its entire £3m yearly subsidy from 88 bus services next September, running on 43 routes.

The group says councils in Oxfordshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Dorset, Essex and Nottinghamshire are among those looking to do the same.

Martin Abrams, from the Campaign for Better Transport, said: “Cuts to bus services are now reaching critical levels.

“We have seen services lost year-on-year and with further deep cuts planned next year, some authorities may stop supporting buses altogether.

"This is a watershed moment - if the Government doesn't take action to help support buses, we will see whole networks disappear.

"Politicians both locally and in Westminster need to understand how important buses are.

"They may not be as politically sexy as big transport projects but they make a significant difference to the economy, the environment and to wider society.

“It would be a disaster if whole networks were allowed to disappear.”

Counties making year-on-year cuts of more than 10 per cent to support for buses include Shropshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, West Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey, West Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire.

A report by the campaign group recommends launching new minimum standards for subsidised buses, and increasing their popularity by increasing the take-up of concessionary travel.

The funding set for the chop in Worcestershire includes the two park and ride services in Worcester, at Sixways and Perdiswell.

The county council is still talking to operators about saving some services by charging higher fares, altering routes, or both.

Councillor John Smith, the cabinet member for highways and transportation, said: “We all know the Government is reducing funding to all local authorities and we’re having to pull back our horses.

“We’ve had to look at every area of spending, this isn’t an easy or popular thing to do.

“Some routes cost us £8-£9 per passenger and that isn’t a good use of resources.

“If by talking to operators, we can make some of these routes commercially viable that’s what we’ll do.”

The services under threat include swathes of weekend and evening buses, affecting every town and city in the county as well as rural areas.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:22am Wed 11 Dec 13

trustmeimcool says...

People in the rural towns and villages surrounding Worcester such as Kempsey, Upton Upon Severn, Kinnersly etc RELY on certain bus routes to get to work, school, college, university, train stations, let alone to meet friends, family, use the shops, bars, restaurants and cinema.
College and school students cannot be expected to pay ridiculous taxi fares (30 gbp from Upton) twice a day if they are unable to drive .
Rural towns and villages will be completely cut off... I'm not saying no changes should be made but to cut people off who aren't within WALKING DISTANCE of their local city is RIDICULOUS.
People in the rural towns and villages surrounding Worcester such as Kempsey, Upton Upon Severn, Kinnersly etc RELY on certain bus routes to get to work, school, college, university, train stations, let alone to meet friends, family, use the shops, bars, restaurants and cinema. College and school students cannot be expected to pay ridiculous taxi fares (30 gbp from Upton) twice a day if they are unable to drive . Rural towns and villages will be completely cut off... I'm not saying no changes should be made but to cut people off who aren't within WALKING DISTANCE of their local city is RIDICULOUS. trustmeimcool
  • Score: 9

10:52am Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want. Hwicce
  • Score: -6

3:19pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Karl Hunderson says...

Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this? Karl Hunderson
  • Score: 7

3:25pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
[quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want. Hwicce
  • Score: -6

4:54pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Karl Hunderson says...

Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that. Karl Hunderson
  • Score: 5

5:01pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
[quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they? Hwicce
  • Score: -6

5:44pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Karl Hunderson says...

Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
No, neither do you.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?[/p][/quote]No, neither do you. Karl Hunderson
  • Score: 6

6:11pm Wed 11 Dec 13

New Kid on the Block says...

Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
No, neither do you.
I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle.
[quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?[/p][/quote]No, neither do you.[/p][/quote]I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
No, neither do you.
I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle.
That's the one, there's also fuel tax as well.

Don't see bus passengers paying that much into the exchequer (remember all the income tax etc. is also paid by car owners so you will need to quote a bus passenger only tax).
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?[/p][/quote]No, neither do you.[/p][/quote]I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle.[/p][/quote]That's the one, there's also fuel tax as well. Don't see bus passengers paying that much into the exchequer (remember all the income tax etc. is also paid by car owners so you will need to quote a bus passenger only tax). Hwicce
  • Score: -5

7:59pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Karl Hunderson says...

You don't know how much bus passengers pay to the exchequer do you? Neither do you know if a car driver pays income tax. I guess the point here is that I am happy to pay my taxes into one big pot (which is what we all do) and have it spent by the authorities on public services, such as road, buses, health services, but you would rather people pay as they go (i.e via your non existent "road taxes). Is that right- I am happy to be corrected.
You don't know how much bus passengers pay to the exchequer do you? Neither do you know if a car driver pays income tax. I guess the point here is that I am happy to pay my taxes into one big pot (which is what we all do) and have it spent by the authorities on public services, such as road, buses, health services, but you would rather people pay as they go (i.e via your non existent "road taxes). Is that right- I am happy to be corrected. Karl Hunderson
  • Score: 5

10:16pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
You obviously don't live in the real world!

Lots of young people live with parents. 46% of 18-24 year olds don't even have a driving licence let alone a car. We have an ageing population who will be increasingly more public transport dependent.

If public transport isn't available to enable those that don't have cars to get to work or the facilities they need it will increase the costs on society. In the scheme of things a £3M subsidy for bus services is far cheaper than the additional costs the state and taxpayers will have to pick up.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't live in the real world! Lots of young people live with parents. 46% of 18-24 year olds don't even have a driving licence let alone a car. We have an ageing population who will be increasingly more public transport dependent. If public transport isn't available to enable those that don't have cars to get to work or the facilities they need it will increase the costs on society. In the scheme of things a £3M subsidy for bus services is far cheaper than the additional costs the state and taxpayers will have to pick up. i-cycle
  • Score: 7

10:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
Of course they do. There's no such thing as "Road Tax'. Churchill got rid of this in the 30's.

Yes car users pay VED, but this is effectively a tax on 'pollution' and carbon. It comes nowhere near paying the cost for providing and maintaining roads. The majority of these costs are paid from general taxation.

You've previously said cyclists don't pay 'road tax'. The fact is that 65% of cyclists also own a car and those that don't would pay no VED even if they did have to pay for having their bike on the road. Cyclists also pay income tax and VAT. It may be that some for health, wealth, environment or other reasons choose not to have a car, but they still make a contribution to general taxation.

Its the same for bus users.

The other big advantage is that the more people who choose to walk, cycle or use public transport the fewer cars there are on the roads, the less congestion there is for other car drivers and the less will need to be spent on providing bigger roads that are often only needed because more don't use other forms of transport.

I'm not anti-car, but there are certainly lots of good social, economic and environmental reasons why its in everyones interest to get more people out of their cars and using other forms of 'transport'.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?[/p][/quote]Of course they do. There's no such thing as "Road Tax'. Churchill got rid of this in the 30's. Yes car users pay VED, but this is effectively a tax on 'pollution' and carbon. It comes nowhere near paying the cost for providing and maintaining roads. The majority of these costs are paid from general taxation. You've previously said cyclists don't pay 'road tax'. The fact is that 65% of cyclists also own a car and those that don't would pay no VED even if they did have to pay for having their bike on the road. Cyclists also pay income tax and VAT. It may be that some for health, wealth, environment or other reasons choose not to have a car, but they still make a contribution to general taxation. Its the same for bus users. The other big advantage is that the more people who choose to walk, cycle or use public transport the fewer cars there are on the roads, the less congestion there is for other car drivers and the less will need to be spent on providing bigger roads that are often only needed because more don't use other forms of transport. I'm not anti-car, but there are certainly lots of good social, economic and environmental reasons why its in everyones interest to get more people out of their cars and using other forms of 'transport'. i-cycle
  • Score: 5

10:39pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
Karl Hunderson wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?
I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road.

If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built.

Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.
Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.
They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?
No, neither do you.
I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle.
That's the one, there's also fuel tax as well.

Don't see bus passengers paying that much into the exchequer (remember all the income tax etc. is also paid by car owners so you will need to quote a bus passenger only tax).
Of course they do. There's no such thing as "Road Tax'. Churchill got rid of this in the 30's.

Yes car users pay VED, but this is effectively a tax on 'pollution' and carbon. It comes nowhere near paying the cost for providing and maintaining roads. The majority of these costs are paid from general taxation.

You've previously said cyclists don't pay 'road tax'. The fact is that 65% of cyclists also own a car and those that don't would pay no VED even if they did have to pay for having their bike on the road. Cyclists also pay income tax and VAT. It may be that some for health, wealth, environment or other reasons choose not to have a car, but they still make a contribution to general taxation.

Its the same for bus users.

The other big advantage is that the more people who choose to walk, cycle or use public transport the fewer cars there are on the roads, the less congestion there is for other car drivers and the less will need to be spent on providing bigger roads that are often only needed because more don't use other forms of transport.

I'm not anti-car, but there are certainly lots of good social, economic and environmental reasons why its in everyones interest to get more people out of their cars and using other forms of 'transport'.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karl Hunderson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]I notice from other posts that you are quite happy for road building to be subsidised by the taxpayer. You don't suggest that people stuck in traffic on the Worcester bypass move house so that they can get out and about without moaning. Why is this?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that car users pay a (very) large amount of tax for having their cars on the road. If only all that money was used for roads all the new roads required could easily be built. Now all I'm suggesting is, like car tax payers already do, that bus users pay for the service they want.[/p][/quote]Bus users pay tax the same as everybody else and then the fare on top of that.[/p][/quote]They don't pay tax for using the roads do they?[/p][/quote]No, neither do you.[/p][/quote]I presume the tax referred to is the Vehicle Excise License at tax of up to £475 per annum paid by anyone who runs a motor vehicle.[/p][/quote]That's the one, there's also fuel tax as well. Don't see bus passengers paying that much into the exchequer (remember all the income tax etc. is also paid by car owners so you will need to quote a bus passenger only tax).[/p][/quote]Of course they do. There's no such thing as "Road Tax'. Churchill got rid of this in the 30's. Yes car users pay VED, but this is effectively a tax on 'pollution' and carbon. It comes nowhere near paying the cost for providing and maintaining roads. The majority of these costs are paid from general taxation. You've previously said cyclists don't pay 'road tax'. The fact is that 65% of cyclists also own a car and those that don't would pay no VED even if they did have to pay for having their bike on the road. Cyclists also pay income tax and VAT. It may be that some for health, wealth, environment or other reasons choose not to have a car, but they still make a contribution to general taxation. Its the same for bus users. The other big advantage is that the more people who choose to walk, cycle or use public transport the fewer cars there are on the roads, the less congestion there is for other car drivers and the less will need to be spent on providing bigger roads that are often only needed because more don't use other forms of transport. I'm not anti-car, but there are certainly lots of good social, economic and environmental reasons why its in everyones interest to get more people out of their cars and using other forms of 'transport'. i-cycle
  • Score: 6

11:42pm Wed 11 Dec 13

trustmeimcool says...

Hwicce wrote:
But why should buses be subsidised in the first place?

If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service.

If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft.

If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence.

Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.
Since I have lived in Upton there has been connections to Worcester, so we didn't chose to live somewhere with bad connections...

There's a word for your above comment and it's called bigoted.

What about disabled people? What about kids who live with their parents and have just left their local High School and want to go on to college and University? What about me and my job in Worcester? I'd like to move out and but that's going to be hard if I lose my job because I can't get there. Come on, don't be ignorant.

No one's complaining about the rate of the bus service... I'll pay for the service as long as it's provided!
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: But why should buses be subsidised in the first place? If there is a demand for a service from a to b then it would be economically viable to run a commercial service. If I go a buy a house half way up a Welsh mountain am I entitled to expect the Council to subsidise a bus to come past my house on the off chance I might want to go on it? Don't be daft. If you go and buy a house somewhere with poor transport connections then don't moan you can't get out and about like everyone who hasn't. I don't see why my tax money should be used to pay for your poor choice of residence. Either pay the going rate for the bus service or move closer to the facilities you want.[/p][/quote]Since I have lived in Upton there has been connections to Worcester, so we didn't chose to live somewhere with bad connections... There's a word for your above comment and it's called bigoted. What about disabled people? What about kids who live with their parents and have just left their local High School and want to go on to college and University? What about me and my job in Worcester? I'd like to move out and but that's going to be hard if I lose my job because I can't get there. Come on, don't be ignorant. No one's complaining about the rate of the bus service... I'll pay for the service as long as it's provided! trustmeimcool
  • Score: 1

11:54pm Wed 11 Dec 13

New Kid on the Block says...

The amount of money paid in taxes by car drivers pays for the expenditure on roads many times over.
Don't forget they pay tax on fuel, new vehicles, insurance etc.
Here are some interesting figures
http://www.roadusers
.org.uk/chapters/inf
rastructure-investme
nts/
or here
http://www.iam-brist
ol.org.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&t
ask=view&id=538&Item
id=1
The amount of money paid in taxes by car drivers pays for the expenditure on roads many times over. Don't forget they pay tax on fuel, new vehicles, insurance etc. Here are some interesting figures http://www.roadusers .org.uk/chapters/inf rastructure-investme nts/ or here http://www.iam-brist ol.org.uk/index.php? option=com_content&t ask=view&id=538&Item id=1 New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 0

11:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
The amount of money paid in taxes by car drivers pays for the expenditure on roads many times over.
Don't forget they pay tax on fuel, new vehicles, insurance etc.
Here are some interesting figures
http://www.roadusers

.org.uk/chapters/inf

rastructure-investme

nts/
or here
http://www.iam-brist

ol.org.uk/index.php?

option=com_content&a
mp;t
ask=view&id=538&
amp;Item
id=1
Correct.

What you and Hwicce fail to recognise that as with cyclists most bus users are also in car owning households. The household probably pays just as much in various taxes as yourself, but can't afford to have one car for each member of the household and with some who won't be able to drive.

The bus operators also pay taxes which are included in the cost of fares.

Ironically, if you encouraged more to walk, cycle or use the bus it would reduce car use, decrease congestion and the need to build more expensive roads and help improve health outcomes thereby reducing costs on the NHS and Social Services.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: The amount of money paid in taxes by car drivers pays for the expenditure on roads many times over. Don't forget they pay tax on fuel, new vehicles, insurance etc. Here are some interesting figures http://www.roadusers .org.uk/chapters/inf rastructure-investme nts/ or here http://www.iam-brist ol.org.uk/index.php? option=com_content&a mp;t ask=view&id=538& amp;Item id=1[/p][/quote]Correct. What you and Hwicce fail to recognise that as with cyclists most bus users are also in car owning households. The household probably pays just as much in various taxes as yourself, but can't afford to have one car for each member of the household and with some who won't be able to drive. The bus operators also pay taxes which are included in the cost of fares. Ironically, if you encouraged more to walk, cycle or use the bus it would reduce car use, decrease congestion and the need to build more expensive roads and help improve health outcomes thereby reducing costs on the NHS and Social Services. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

@I-cycle - and I'm quite happy that all the cyclists and bus users who pay their car tax etc. get to use the roads.

What I don't think is that they should have their bus fares subsidised, they should pay the proper fare which means the operator will then have enough money to pay his bus tax, fuel duty etc. like the rest of us.

Maybe we should charge bus passengers an extra tariff to subsidise the Motability car scheme, after all without the ability to get a Motability car lots of aged and infirm people in outlying areas wouldn't be able to get about as much.

Maybe this tax surcharge should also be applied to cyclists, I'm sure you'd be a supporter of helping the aged and infirm and helping them get around more.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@I-cycle - and I'm quite happy that all the cyclists and bus users who pay their car tax etc. get to use the roads. What I don't think is that they should have their bus fares subsidised, they should pay the proper fare which means the operator will then have enough money to pay his bus tax, fuel duty etc. like the rest of us. Maybe we should charge bus passengers an extra tariff to subsidise the Motability car scheme, after all without the ability to get a Motability car lots of aged and infirm people in outlying areas wouldn't be able to get about as much. Maybe this tax surcharge should also be applied to cyclists, I'm sure you'd be a supporter of helping the aged and infirm and helping them get around more. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Hwicce
  • Score: -1

9:12pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
@I-cycle - and I'm quite happy that all the cyclists and bus users who pay their car tax etc. get to use the roads.

What I don't think is that they should have their bus fares subsidised, they should pay the proper fare which means the operator will then have enough money to pay his bus tax, fuel duty etc. like the rest of us.

Maybe we should charge bus passengers an extra tariff to subsidise the Motability car scheme, after all without the ability to get a Motability car lots of aged and infirm people in outlying areas wouldn't be able to get about as much.

Maybe this tax surcharge should also be applied to cyclists, I'm sure you'd be a supporter of helping the aged and infirm and helping them get around more.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The majority of cyclists are also motorists. All cyclists pay for roads through general taxation. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think we should pay more for the occasions when we help reduce congestion and pollution by using the roads we've already paid for and in ways that improve our personal health so we're not as big a burden on the NHS and social services.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @I-cycle - and I'm quite happy that all the cyclists and bus users who pay their car tax etc. get to use the roads. What I don't think is that they should have their bus fares subsidised, they should pay the proper fare which means the operator will then have enough money to pay his bus tax, fuel duty etc. like the rest of us. Maybe we should charge bus passengers an extra tariff to subsidise the Motability car scheme, after all without the ability to get a Motability car lots of aged and infirm people in outlying areas wouldn't be able to get about as much. Maybe this tax surcharge should also be applied to cyclists, I'm sure you'd be a supporter of helping the aged and infirm and helping them get around more. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.[/p][/quote]The majority of cyclists are also motorists. All cyclists pay for roads through general taxation. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think we should pay more for the occasions when we help reduce congestion and pollution by using the roads we've already paid for and in ways that improve our personal health so we're not as big a burden on the NHS and social services. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Worcester1651 says...

The £4 million bus lane is being built by Worcestershire County Council and includes new bus stops, signals and road widening from Worcestershire Royal Hospital to the junction with Sheriff Street. This was on the Newtown Road.

All going to be a waste of money due to there is going to be a cut bus services. When are the Worcestershire County Council going to put our taxes into something that works ?
The £4 million bus lane is being built by Worcestershire County Council and includes new bus stops, signals and road widening from Worcestershire Royal Hospital to the junction with Sheriff Street. This was on the Newtown Road. All going to be a waste of money due to there is going to be a cut bus services. When are the Worcestershire County Council going to put our taxes into something that works ? Worcester1651
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree