The rise in the number of money people have to pay for the public service busses is adversely affecting the low-income demographics who rely on them to get to various places in the nation. It is also worth noting that the rise will imply that they spend the significant amount of income on a fare. These people will also do all that they can to access the best fare deals in the nation. The worst is that the transport problem can turn out to be the primary barrier for them to get employed because if they are paying too much on fair, they will have issues paying for their fare then some will not be able to access their jobs at the required times (Van and Hardy 2015, p. 50). Some of the low-income people might fail to pay for the trips to where they are expected to work thereby losing a chance to be employed. This paper aims at investigating the effects fare increases has on the low-income earners in the nation, and thus the paper will recommend several strategies that could be employed to help minimize the amount of fair that the bus service firms charge the low-income commuters.
A family is a household made up of one or more grown-up person and children's. A family is considered to be a low-income one when they can pay for a decent life or standard services in the community. For instance, married people with two or more kids will be considered to be from the low income social, economic class (LSC) if they were averaging three hundred and sixty-one dollars a week (Mandic and Spence 2016, p.e011196). Moreover, a family might be considered to be from the LSC if only one of the partners has a fulltime with a minimum wage and the income is taxed. The condition of the bus fares has been presenting nightmares to the low socioeconomic groups in the nation over the past two decades because of the significant rise in the bus fares in the country. The issues have been on the rise because the local authorities or the government regulate most of the bus services in the nation for buses serving the other areas outside London (Ford and James 2015, p. 135). It is important to note that the fact that the bus business is not regulated it gives the bus operators an opportunity to either increase or decrease the amount of fare they charge without being questioned by any organization. For instance, in areas where there is regulation of bus fares the issue of bus fare hiking has not been a significant problem as it is in the other towns (Preston 2018). In London, the Transport for London board determines the amount of fare that the organization should impose on their clients thereby lowering the levels at which the ticket is increased in the nation (Brue and Grant 2014). Thus, in an attempt to solve the problem for the low socioeconomic demographics in the country then it would be better if the government will create a board to check on the way the bus companies charge fares for the services they are rendering to the people. a
A recent study noted that people in England use buses as the primary means of transport implying that the citizens have no other alternative other than to go with the fare inflation in their areas. The bus fare increases matter a lot for the low-income societies because of most of the use the buses more than the high-income earners. For instance, the LSCs are known to make 75% fewer trips by use of trains, about sixty percent as personal vehicle drivers, but over 206% more trips using buses are well as coaches in comparison to the high-income people (Brue and Grant 2014). It is critical to note that a considerable proportion of the households in the lowest income quintile are probably pension householders than the LSCs. Thus, it would be correct to conclude that's the amount of income earned by a family rises the lower the number of trips they will make using the busses and coaches. This insinuates that the fare increases profoundly impact the social demographics that cannot easily afford it in the nation.
Secondly, low-income groups also are forced to spend a considerable amount of income on bus travels. Recently, the minimum income standard for England was created depending on what the masses believed the people required for an excellent minimum standard of living (). The MISs is continuously being updated on a yearly basis. For instance, an update on the MISs in 2010 discovered that the minimum income needed for a better living had risen significantly when compared to the average inflation in business. This implies that most of the families receiving the minimum wage might fail to gather sufficient amount of income to attain the minimum requirements set by the MIS. On the other hand, the research outcome means that the low-income societies are continually struggling with the rising bus fares and an increase could result in the firms leading worse lives in the country.
There seems to be some level of discrimination in the degree to which the people can access the best fare deals in most parts of England. For instance, the best value bus fares can be realized by taking the weekly, monthly, or yearly tickets instead of taking a travel ticket on a daily basis. On a regular basis, it would cost one individual almost four Euros to board a bus while an annual card goes for 1.7 Euros a day with the only difference being that one is needed to pay it once (Yang and Diez-Roux 2016, p.60). Most of the low-income communities will continue to struggle to pay for the significant amounts of income for the annual and monthly tickets. Thus, the deal seems to be availed to the high-income groups who comfortably pay for the services that are being sold to the on the monthly and annual offers (SLOMAN 2016). The yearly subscribers are not affected by the constant rise in the amount of fare during the year, implying that the high-income families are less affected by the price hikes in the nation.
Furthermore, the low-income earners have a burden of paying for their young one's transport costs. The low-income society’s children are entitled to free school transport if they come from areas that are close to the academic organization. The families are also allowed to paying their kids bus fares to social activities such as sports and parties which is very essential for their general wellbeing (Bocarejo and Oviedo 2016, p. 50). The issue can only be resolved for the LSCs only through promotion and marketing of available bus fares for the kids can be employed to create awareness among the kids and their families to some good events that they can reach by public transport when the bus fares fall. The most significant effect of the fare rise is that it can act a barrier to employment for the low-income families in most parts of England. For instance, if an individual is not employed, it can be difficult for him or her to cover the traveling costs to an interview or travel to a specific area to explore multiple employment opportunities (Bocarejo and Oviedo 2016, p. 50). This implies that the price hikes can limit the level at which an individual can successfully be involved in job hunting activities in the nation. Failure to have affordable transport can be a significant drawback to bettering the earning capability of the low-income families and can result in their earnings to remain low at all times (Brue and Grant 2014). A recent survey noted that forty percent of the job hunters claim that their job search has been minimized because of the high costs of transportation involved in the hunt. Some of the lone parents argue that they cannot pay for the cost of transport to their work resulting in their incomes remaining to be low all the time (Ford and James 2015, p. 135). The problem can be lowered by the bus companies offering to make transportation affordable by all the demographics in the society by continually issuing discounts on their bus services.
The first step towards realizing this goal is to make sure there is the constant support for the bus services in the nation. For instance, there is need to use the Bus Service Operators grant which helps in minimizing the amount of money they spent on fuel and maintenance of the buses (Brue and Grant 2014). This, in turn, will be seen in the low costs of providing bus services and also maintains lower bus fares as well as facilities in all parts of the nation. This also implies that the low-income earners will not face the challenge of paying significant amounts of income, fail to cover their kids' transport demands, and even have an easy time exploring the different employment opportunities in different parts of the nation with no problem at all (Bocarejo and Oviedo 2016, p. 50). Thus, the paper suggests that there is need to maintain the support for the bus services in various parts of the country at all costs (McTigue and Monios 2017). However, the PTEs need to make sure that the funds are utilized in a manner that will help in meeting the local problems in the society today and also to avoid some of the unwanted effects and wastes that occurs when the income is distributed on the flat basis of the countrywide criteria.
There is also need to introduce the oyster model of ticketing in various parts of London. The London's famous Oyster card has simplified the traveling case by making sure that all the people regardless of the economic backgrounds gain access to the best value fares without being a need to cash in lump sum amounts of income at a single moment (Frey and Osborne 2017, p. 276). In attaining this big goal or objective, it is essential to make sure that there is efficient roll out of small tickets that are designed to make sure there is a maximum benefit for the low-income demographics (Bocarejo and Oviedo 2016, p. 50). The upfront fees must be minimized, and more discounts should be provided to the bus users in the country. There is also need to make sure that the price increase and decrease take into consideration the social, economic conditions of all the people.
The paper also suggests that the bus companies should offer a single and more consistent discounts on fares to the young people. It must be understood that by giving discounts on child fares the low-income families will not limit the beneficial travels need for the proper development of the kids (Ford and James 2015, p. 135). The other thing is that the offers must be communicated earlier for the families to plan on how best they can use them for their kids' case. Moreover, there is need to backup the workwise plans as the cost of traveling to job interviews can be high impedance to the low-income families to improve their earning by getting a better job (Frey and Osborne 2017, p. 276). The transport system must use the Local Transport Act which permits collaboration schemes reached between the local authorities and the bus operators to determine the fair to be imposed on the travelers in the nation. The act will also help in regulation of the amount and the level to which the business can offer the fare to its consumers in the country.
Conclusion
From the discussion, the paper recommends that there is need to do something to regulate the level to which the fair is adversely affecting the lives of the people in the society. It is not worth that low-income families are always unable to get the money to help them meet their transport demands. The problem is worsened by the fact the same low-income families have to stand in for the traveling needs of their young ones as well as the high incurrences of exploring employment opportunities that could increase the amount of income gained by the organization. Therefore, the local and the central government's bodies must step in and seriously take measures that will make sure that the cost of the transport system does not adversely affect the lives of the low-income families in the nation at any time of the year.
References
Bocarejo, J.P., Portilla, I.J., Velásquez, J.M., Cruz, M.N., Peña, A. and Oviedo, D.R., 2014. An innovative transit system and its impact on low income users: the case of the Metrocable in Medellín. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, pp.49-61.
Brue, S.L., McConnell, C.R., Flynn, S.M. and Grant, R.R., 2014. Essentials of economics. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Ford, A.C., Barr, S.L., Dawson, R.J. and James, P., 2015. Transport accessibility analysis using GIS: Assessing sustainable transport in London. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(1), pp.124-149.
Frey, C.B. and Osborne, M.A., 2017. The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, pp.254-280.
Mandic, S., Williams, J., Moore, A., Hopkins, D., Flaherty, C., Wilson, G., Bengoechea, E.G. and Spence, J.C., 2016. Built Environment and Active Transport to School (BEATS) Study: protocol for a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 6(5), p.e011196.
McTigue, C., Rye, T. and Monios, J., 2017. The role of reporting mechanisms in transport policy implementation by local authorities in England. Case Studies on Transport Policy.
Preston, J. and Mackie, P., 2018. Bus Regulation–from Workhorse to Thoroughbred. Integrated Futures and Transport Choices: UK Transport Policy Beyond the 1998 White Paper and Transport Acts: UK Transport Policy Beyond the 1998 White Paper and Transport Acts.
SLOMAN, J.G., 2016. ESSENTIALS OF ECONOMICS MYECONLAB PACK. PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED.
Van Ristell, J.A., Quddus, M.A., Enoch, M.P., Wang, C. and Hardy, P., 2015. Quantifying the impacts of subsidy policies on home-to-school pupil travel by bus in England. Transportation, 42(1), pp.45-69.
Yang, Y., Auchincloss, A.H., Rodriguez, D.A., Brown, D.G., Riolo, R. and Diez-Roux, A.V., 2015. Modeling spatial segregation and travel cost influences on utilitarian walking: Towards policy intervention. Computers, environment and urban systems, 51, pp.59-69.
