|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 11, 2019 15:59:49 GMT
I dont see why kids shouldn't pay say 30p most if them onky go 1 or 2 stops any Way. In Greenford there are 3 big High Schools within 1 mile of each OTHER its almost impossible to get on a bus between 3 and 3 30. Make them pay
|
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jun 11, 2019 16:04:27 GMT
Yikes with that latest PDF. Really should have been proofread before sending. Maybe the draft was mistakenly uploaded. We’ve all been there!
So this is the last one... as long as this information is published on the website though, it’s not too big a deal tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 11, 2019 16:12:51 GMT
I dont see why kids shouldn't pay say 30p most if them onky go 1 or 2 stops any Way. In Greenford there are 3 big High Schools within 1 mile of each OTHER its almost impossible to get on a bus between 3 and 3 30. Make them pay Why not just lay on extra buses to deal with the pressure of schoolkids? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 16:25:30 GMT
I dont see why kids shouldn't pay say 30p most if them onky go 1 or 2 stops any Way. In Greenford there are 3 big High Schools within 1 mile of each OTHER its almost impossible to get on a bus between 3 and 3 30. Make them pay Why not just lay on extra buses to deal with the pressure of schoolkids? Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 11, 2019 16:43:34 GMT
Yikes with that latest PDF. Really should have been proofread before sending. Maybe the draft was mistakenly uploaded. We’ve all been there! So this is the last one... as long as this information is published on the website though, it’s not too big a deal tbh. Well at least the document goes out in an iconic way  Why not just lay on extra buses to deal with the pressure of schoolkids? Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. I don't know what the lack of income has to do with this. otherwise London would not have a single school bus route operating  More so that if you have to lay on extra buses just during school hours they're going to sit around doing nothing for the rest of the day unless the whole day sees the enhanced service which may not be required. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 16:46:53 GMT
Yikes with that latest PDF. Really should have been proofread before sending. Maybe the draft was mistakenly uploaded. We’ve all been there! So this is the last one... as long as this information is published on the website though, it’s not too big a deal tbh. Well at least the document goes out in an iconic way Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. I don't know what the lack of income has to do with this. otherwise London would not have a single school bus route operating More so that if you have to lay on extra buses just during school hours they're going to sit around doing nothing for the rest of the day unless the whole day sees the enhanced service which may not be required. Last time I looked at the tender awards page I did not see school services have a zero cost. In the cost per mile box, they are probably the least efficient form of bus travel financially. Yes they need to provide socially necessary school travel ... but current arrangements just take the pee. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 11, 2019 16:50:11 GMT
Why not just lay on extra buses to deal with the pressure of schoolkids? Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 11, 2019 16:50:24 GMT
Well at least the document goes out in an iconic way I don't know what the lack of income has to do with this. otherwise London would not have a single school bus route operating More so that if you have to lay on extra buses just during school hours they're going to sit around doing nothing for the rest of the day unless the whole day sees the enhanced service which may not be required. Last time I looked at the tender awards page I did not see school services have a zero cost. Yes they need to provide socially necessary school travel ... but current arrangements just take the pee. I don't see what the issue with the current arrangements are with the school routes. I'm sure everyone would rather have the school children squashing onto the school buses designated for them rather than to use already overcrowded services. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 11, 2019 16:51:21 GMT
Like it or not, free travel for young people is not going away. There is substantial political pressure for similar schemes across the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 11, 2019 16:58:24 GMT
Yikes with that latest PDF. Really should have been proofread before sending. Maybe the draft was mistakenly uploaded. We’ve all been there! So this is the last one... as long as this information is published on the website though, it’s not too big a deal tbh. Well at least the document goes out in an iconic way Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. I don't know what the lack of income has to do with this. otherwise London would not have a single school bus route operating More so that if you have to lay on extra buses just during school hours they're going to sit around doing nothing for the rest of the day unless the whole day sees the enhanced service which may not be required. School routes are effectively extra buses just crosslinked to day routes, I don't see why you couldn't have extra buses which are crosslinked to a particular route. |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jun 11, 2019 17:13:22 GMT
Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 17:50:19 GMT
Because that cost money with zero fare income ... zero fare payers are not what TfL needs. If they had to pay half fare 75p ... watch how many would not use the bus ... thus negating the need for extra provision ... plus you get fare income from those that do pay. And before anyone goes on about cost ... it is what you have to pay in every other part of the country ... half fare. The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Wages are higher in London and bus fares are cheaper. Out side of London families on lower incomes have to pay more. Having children is a life style chouce you choose to make and the government even pay you for having them. Part of the responsibilities of be a parent is providing for that child as they grow up ... if you dont want that commitment and responsibility you dont have children. I am not saying stop school children from using buses ... just ensure a fair fare is collected. I live in South Norwood, not one of the richest parts of London ... and the local take aways do a roaring trade at school closing time ... sure these are the very kids whose parents would claim they cant afford it! |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 17:51:42 GMT
The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want A lot of the little darlings would walk ... so surely if a bus can be removed ... all the better |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 11, 2019 17:59:07 GMT
The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want Sorry, but I have always thought children going free was always a good progressive idea.
With the exception of those who struggle with walking I am no fan of those who get the bus for one or two stops. Perhaps everyone should pay 50p to travel one stop, 40p for two stops and 30p for three on top of whatever fare they pay! Get them to walk and become healthier! More seriously, I don't really support charging people like that, but I would offer carrots to try and people to walk a bit more rather than take the bus a stop or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 18:03:09 GMT
The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want How many parents can afford to run a car and not a maximum of £7.50 as discounts apply to period passes for their childs transport. |
|
More so that if you have to lay on extra buses just during school hours they're going to sit around doing nothing for the rest of the day unless the whole day sees the enhanced service which may not be required. 
