Concessionary Bus Fares: Hang On A Minute...

So I read Mayor Johnson's written reply to Darren Johnson's question about half-price bus fares and concluded that all the talk about considering an alternative concession scheme for income support claimants had come to nothing. Here's why:

Darren Johnson's First Question: In the light of growing economic difficulties for many Londoners, will you consider indefinitely continuing the provision of half-price bus travel for those on income support?

Mayor Johnson's Reply: Many Londoners face growing economic difficulties at the moment, but I believe this can best be addressed by keeping the overall level of bus fares as low as possible. I do not believe that an extension of the Venezuela funded scheme can be justified. As I have already said, I think many Londoners felt uncomfortable about the bus operation of one of the world’s financial powerhouses being funded by the people of a country where many people live 10 in extreme poverty. I simply think there are better ways of benefiting Londoners and better ways of benefiting Venezuelans.

See what I mean? I posted accordingly. But now I've deleted the post. That's because I read Mayorwatch. "TfL to explore new concessions," it says. How could this be? Because there was a second Darren Johnson question on fares and an answer that told a different story.

Darren Johnson's Second Question: How many Londoners in each borough have taken advantage of the offer of half price bus fares for those in receipt income support?

Mayor Johnson's Answer: I am committed to honoring the existing concession until the end of the scheme. The table below shows the breakdown of existing cardholders by borough. The total number of cardholders represents less than 20% of all those claiming income support in London. I therefore do not consider this to be an efficient way of assisting low income Londoners with their travel costs. I have therefore asked TfL to investigate more suitable forms of fares concession for low income Londoners for consideration at the next fares revision.

Whatever it all mean, it's all here.

Comments

[Ben]

Good. It was disgusting to fund the previous scheme off the back of Venezuela. I am deeply glad he ended the scheme, and as delighted he's honouring the concession anyway.

[BenSix]

As Tory Troll points out elsewhere, however, "keeping the overall level of bus fares as low as possible" sounds like an attempt to divert attention from the discounts.

[Aardvark]

Whether or not Johnson comes up with an alternative (which I doubt very much will emerge) there is a big hole in the provision of discounted fares about to occur - the current concession, which the Mayor has promised to honour - comes to an end on the last day of August, so anyone whose current 6-month pass comes to an end or who becomes eligible after that date will not be able to obtain a new pass. The next general TfL fare revision will be on the 4th January 2009, so even if a new scheme comes into effect then, that leaves a four month gap through the autumn without a scheme - nicely timed to coincide with the period when those on the lowest incomes will be hit with the predicted/inevitable huge hikes in heating bills. Thought this one through did we Boris?

Speaking of fuel bills, what sort of an economic illiterate cancels a deal which guarantees a 20% reduction in diesel costs at a time of one of the fastest growths in oil prices to date?

[OneHopeOneChoice]

"Good. It was disgusting to fund the previous scheme off the back of Venezuela. I am deeply glad he ended the scheme, and as delighted he's honouring the concession anyway."

So I take it you don't use petrol at all then? Because every time you fill up your tank, you're helping companies likes BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil rake huge profits off the backs of impoverished people in Saudi Arabia and the wider Middle East, Russia and South America or cause massive environmental damage in Alaska. They do little for the local people and have only their own profits to worry about.

I accept that Livingstone should have made the benefits of the deal more tangible for the Venezuelan people: something more solid than just communication between Caracas and London, that was a failing in the scheme. But the way the Conservatives and their supporters are claiming that this scheme was ended on moral grounds or for the benefit of the Venezuelan people either shows that they've fallen into their usual ideological trap of applying separate standards to the state and to business or that it was purely out for party political gains.

If Boris wanted to help the lowest income in London while helping the Venezuelan people, why not renegotiate the terms of the deal? Why not send more to Venezuela? Why not promise to help the people of Caracas more than Ken did, while maintaining the cut rates for the benefit of our impoverished?

Double standards I guess.

[Tom]

If the takeup was as low as 75000, then that's £214 of discount travel per year per claimant based on Venezuela paying the full £16m, which they will have done. That pays for 476 45p bus journeys, although actually that's *extra* bus journeys, as there's an (unknown) existing level of bus usage among Income Support claimants at 90p. It's highly unlikely, therefore, that TfL was out of pocket on the deal, so the question is how much of a hole in the TfL finances this has put, which ought to be someone's next question, something along the lines of 'how much does TfL estimate the scheme cost in the first year?'. I wonder if Mr. Parker's recipe for failing organisations includes canning the profitable parts. Doubt it, somehow.