Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Not the band - the berk.
What a shame I'd be an hour late for work
where the funding for the new buses that aren't needed'll be coming from at last.
what a fucktard
on income support before?
didn't boris get rid of that?
if he did, why is he bringing it back in?
''The mayor said there would be a new half-price travel scheme for people on income support, while the elderly and war veterans would still receive support. ''
or am i remembering things wrong?
it was funded by oil from Chavez
and often by a lot more than 6%.
Why should public transport in the world's most expensive city be any different?
millions in efficiency savings to be made.
and the last mayor had it sussed.
so 1-0 ROB
the complete bastard
It's far too expensive as it is. Extend the congestion charge and cut the prices, say I.
i'm too outraged to move.
I'm not happy about this. But way, way before the name Boris was even mentioned with regards to the mayoralty, I questioned just how sustainable the cheap fairs Oyster cards presented would be.
Down from £2 to 90p in one swoop? Sounds great, and it was while it lasted.
that the cash made from the c-charge facilitated the drop in fares.
Having looked at the fairs, so what? Most travelcards are going up by £1.60. That really isn't out of the ordinary.
when the money is going on to be used to replace perfectly good buses.
let alone in one swoop.
Cash prices were £1.50 and oyster £1 before the present pricing structure.
Not being sarky, I was away for uni!
even cheaper, with the 40p/70p/£1 fares.
And bus day travelcards used to be £2.
and the c-charge plus that £25 gas-guzzle charge would have helped to sustain it.
Kids these days don't know they are born
who are going to get the biggest increases?
with their low population densities and back gardens. YEAH!!11
we're to believe that Boris' green credentials are more than lipservice.
pointing out that he was going to put (at the time undefined) green policies in place and that under Boris, London would become a far more green city. He had an entire environment section on his manifesto to make it clear
As yet, the only thing he's done on that front is announce his million or so for cycling and encouraged the most polluting vehicles to continue to drive in central London.
were placed at the same level of heading as crime and safety on the dude's website during the campaign, no?
in Chelsea who voted for him, was it? Not at all, and I would imagine that he's mindful of that. I'd certainly hope so.
it was the people who are like "oh they're vindicating us because we drive big, polluting cars!"
Boris ? Green ? He probably can't even point out a brocolli in a line of carrots
I'd like to point out that we were told that there were millions in efficiency savings to be made. Now we're being told that actually we need to spend more money that we already were while Boris is adding to the costs with a number of plans of dubious benefit.
just hope that the fares don't rise again a few months or a year after, purely for the building of new Routemasters.
I actually quite like Routemasters, but I like cheaper travel fares more.
and i dislike bendy buses on a safety level, its still a total waste of Londerners' money to replace them
Ken never guaranteed that the fares wouldn’t rise above inflation after the election.
And I don’t remember Boris claiming fares would be kept low by making efficiency savings – as I remember it, he was going to redistribute any savings in the form of rate reductions (i.e. car drivers in the suburbs would receive a disproportionate benefit).
He’s still a wazzock, mind, albeit one that knows he has to reward those that voted for him, regardless of the interests of London.
is a good one. Boris is, to be fair, staying true to his pre-election pledges. They may have been shit ones, but he's keeping to them.
as bad as Ken.
Could be a good slogan.
(hence the word ‘albeit’), and I didn’t say that I didn’t think Ken was a wazzock either.
But I didn’t hear many of those who know what they’re talking about (transport chiefs, urban designers etc. – even those that represent the business interests of the city) advocating the reduction in the congestion charge zone, the scrapping of the low-emission zone and the re-introduction of the Routemaster.
it's about £50 a year
I liked you Boris
I liked you and you're fucking me in the ass
which pisses me off even more
the big blonde royal bastard
in funding, it should be primarily motorists that pay for it in London. If that doesn't make up the shortfall, then, fine, raise the fares. Not before.
WERE basically covering the majority of it. Until Boris decided that he'd slash £50m of funding by stopping the £25 'congestion' charge.
and are being hit particularly hard by the current economic 'crisis'. There is only so much they can take.
I'm not necessarily arguing the Congestion charge should be scraped, but there are only so many costs motorists can be saddled with.
but thats a minority of motorists. I'm not sure it is fair to punish all motorists for it.
I'm pro-congestion charge, but not opposed to a re-think or re-jig of certain aspects of it, is all.
that were being targeted by it in fairness. About 8000 people a day given the figure that was expected to be raised.
people who live in the zone get a 90% discount.
Where they have the most comprehensive local public transport network system in the country as an alternative? Where their traffic actually compromises the effectiveness of that system?
In this case, motorists are the 'premium users.' That's not the case around the rest of the country where commuting isn't possible by public transport. It makes sense that the premium users are the ones who experience the most severe cost hits.
Public transport is unreliable, so people don't want to use it. But not using it and resorting to private trasnport exacerbates the problem.
I'm less concerned with the ethics, more the practicalities. How much more, after road tax, the congestion charge and escalating fuel prices, can the average motorist take? Maybe financially forcing them out of driving is the answer? But wouldn't that just lead to new problems? Other questions as well...
I've gone from about 300 miles out of a tank to almost 400 just by driving a little differently - slowing earlier, accelerating more smoothly, not doing 70 to 80 on motorways.
The number of times I've seen Porches/Ferraris/Audis etc scream round one corner in London, hit 30+ within a few meters before slamming on the brakes for the next corner belies belief.
£150 a month on petrol wasn't good.
work that one out
principal of pricing people out of driving on a nationwide basis, because I think that the alternative public facilities have to really excellent for it to be even slightly viable.
But here the facilities are excellent. Unreliable at times, sure, and potentially slower, but the coverage is great.
Really, I'm less concerned with forcing motorists out of their cars (if they want to pay a premium option, then that's their choice) but they're first on the chopping block if these 'finance black holes' appear. People who can afford to run a car in London are not going to be the ones living on the breadline.
SCREW THEM ALL!
i have no sympathy for them. mainly because *generalising* most of them flippantly use their cars to go to the shop, and so on. when they could easily walk or use public transport.
i know it's a different city but i see it at home with my own family. my mum drives to work. she could get the bus, it would take 20mins, it's really close. and there are 4 different buses she could take.
my brother used to drive to uni, when he could have taken at least 6 buses.
people do it all the time, because they CAN.
"Some of us will pay a little more but I have ensured fares will remain affordable, especially for ***people who rely on public transport most***, including the elderly, disabled veterans and those on lower incomes."
what about the millions (AND MILLIONS) endure it to get to work to earn the money that pays for your bicycle clips you fuck?
is that not all of the motorists are chelsea tractor driving posh wankers. Some of them drive vans for proper work reasons (plumbers, builders, etc). A lot of vans would have been eligible for the gas guzzler charge. £25 per day quite a lot.
And, I don't think the increase is that much.
if the new plans would have forced a significant number of small businesses to go under, that is. But again, the same principle applies; if these businesses can afford to absorb the cost, they should be the ones doing so. Not those individuals being edged down towards the poverty line.
wouldn't they? people who use vehicles for work. taxis get a discount i'm sure.
I have a friend who runs a courier business, only a small one, and he was going to have to close down if this charge came in.
I don't know about taxis, maybe they do, but vans sure as hell don't.
* Two wheeled motorbikes (and sidecars), mopeds and bicycles
* Black cabs licensed with the Public Carriage Office (PCO)
* Mini cabs licensed with the PCO
* Emergency Service vehicles - e.g. ambulances / fire engines
* NHS vehicles that are exempt from road tax
* Vehicles used by the disabled that are exempt from vehicle excise duty (road tax) under the 'disabled' class
* Vehicles for more than one disabled person (e.g. Dial-A-Ride) exempt from road tax
* Public transport vehicles with nine or more seats that are listed within the taxation classes Buses or Reduced Pollution Buses