The Daily reports that the deal between the Venezuelan Government and Transport for London to secure cheap oil for buses has finally gone through, despite opposition from the Tories.
Now, this might sound all well and good, and maybe it is. Cheaper public transport is always a plus, especially given that ticket costs have shot up in London, well above the rate of inflation. When I first moved to London, it was possible - with Saver tickets - to pay just 50p for a single bus journey. Now, a single cash fare for any bus journey is now £2.00 - an increase of 300%, if my maths is right (I’ll admit, it usually isn’t). Meanwhile, there is no evidence to suggest that incomes in London have risen to match this increase.
Of course, you may like to point out that a bus journey costs just £1.50 on Oyster at peak times, and £1 off peak. But sticking money on Oyster is not always a viable option, especially if you are on a low income. If it was financially viable to have a bus service which cost 80p (cash fare, single bus journey) to use in September 2004 - when I first moved here - then it should still be somewhat viable in Febuary 2007.
However, my only problem with Livingstone’s plan with the Venezuelans as it stands is this bit:
Ken Livingstone has negotiated a deal with the government of Venezuela to bring cut-price oil for fuel London’s buses, which will fund cheaper travel for people on low incomes.
The fuel will be provided at a 20% reduction from the market price. This saving will be passed onto London’s poorest residents, via a 50% reduction in travel costs to anyone on income support. This could include up to 250,000 Londoners.
(Emphasis is mine.)
While being an Income Support claimant would automatically put you under the “low income” catagory, it doesn’t automatically follow that all low-income persons are on income support. The NMW is around the £5.50 mark, which, after deductions, leaves £9,202.10 a year, or £176.96. Even if you earn £6 an hour, this works out to be £9,864.06 per year, or £189.69 a week, after deductions.*
That, especially in London - where Londoners have to earn a third more to enjoy the same quality of life as people in the rest of the UK - counts as a ‘low income’.
But such incomes don’t qualify for Income Support.
If the new oil-for-cheap-buses deal is actually going to benefit more Londoners than the 1 in 38 it currently does, and actually allievate poverty - including my own - why not just lower the fares? Why not have just a single £1 flat rate however you pay - cash or Oyster?
Otherwise, what’s the point?
* Figures based on working a 38 hour week, 52 weeks of the year. Deductions worked out by worksmart.org.uk’s tax calculator.
Oyster card = one off charge of £3. Bus fare you can just add onto the card at a tube station, and you don’t have to put a large amount of money on. Nonetheless, I see your point.
I take Kit’s point here. Another thing is that Oyster doesn’t always work because I have been caught out not realising I am out of money on my card and if it is at night and you don’t live near a tube, there’s usually nowhere to top it up until the next day which means you’re charged double simply for having ran out of credit. This is punishing people who religiously use the Oyster card as well.