Should foot passengers pay to use the floating bridge?

By Ross Findon

Monday, June 30, 2014

 

Should foot passengers pay to use the floating bridge?

The Isle of Wight Council is to consider consulting whether foot passengers should pay to use the floating bridge.Picture by Peter Boam.

SHOULD passengers be charged 50p each way to travel on the floating bridge?

The Isle of Wight Council is considering launching a consultation on the issue as part of a wider debate about the future of the Cowes/East Cowes service.

The executive will consider launching a consultation when it meets next Monday.

A report to the committee stated: "The council is under no obligation to provide a free ferry for foot passengers or cyclists or indeed, any service at all.

"Charging for these was withdrawn in 1992, although foot passenger charges are made on the majority of comparable services.

"A significant number for foot passengers and cyclists are carried by the ferry and even a small charge would contribute significantly to the council’s income and its ability to replace the ferry."

It added: "It is proposed the consultation will be Island wide. This will seek the views of Island residents on the suggested introduction of a 50p each way fare. Passengers under the age of 18 will travel free."

According to the report, the consultation would consider:

Whether charges should apply?

What level of charges should be made?

Whether any concessions should be offered?

When charges should apply?

How charges should be applied and the method of charging?

If charges are not applied, how the service will be provided in the future.

Comments

Log-in or register to comment on this story. See our House Rules here.

By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.

Forgotten your password?
Displaying the last 10 of 87 comments - Show All Comments

Log-in to Report

by roger mazillius

3rd July 2014, at 19:00:12

Thanks David. Fair enough but could they not have learnt from past experiences?! All the best.

Log-in to Report

by david wright

3rd July 2014, at 18:13:28

@ Roger, Sinking to using Latin!
As they say in limbo competitions how low can you go!
Fair enough I accept your legal term of ' implicated by the facts' argument.

I still say ex councilors who point at current administrations and speak of waste need to look very carefully at how they administered the budget!

Log-in to Report

by roger mazillius

3rd July 2014, at 17:34:28

See also Don Prescott's comments on the Pupil School Transport thread!
He gets it!

Log-in to Report

by roger mazillius

3rd July 2014, at 14:36:04

David, the other poster I am pleased to say ended up backing down on my suggestion of a libelllous comment. I stand by my comment as "res ipsa loquitur"
Steve, as I have repeatedly argued when this subject has been aired, ask the Trustees why they agreed a Lease with the IWC at a substantial but still well below local market value rent if the Council had no "ownership" rights? No-one has ever come back with an answer!
It is not a question of stealing, rather balancing the needs of disabled residents (and their carers) against the ability of Council taxpayers (many of whom have just the state pension as their main or only income)
to subsidise such services. Most pensioners would imo understand the need to subsidise but only to a certain limit which recognises that there is no such thing as a free (disabled) lunch!

Log-in to Report

by david wright

2nd July 2014, at 23:14:52

Roger your 'evidence' sounds like rhetoric and heresay hardly evidence of wrong doing?

If thats the best you have after your chastisement of that other poster I would say you should perhaps consider the proverb 'those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones!'

Log-in to Report

by Steve Smith

2nd July 2014, at 23:09:39

Roger, not the Riverside Centre again! By you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. It never was a Council asset. It never paid to build it nor did it pay anything to buy it. And for you to try and steal from disabled people to pay for other services just shows you up for the typical tory you are!

Log-in to Report

by Steve Brown

2nd July 2014, at 21:20:00

Yes of course foot passengers should pay, why should they expect something for nothing while the council is struggling with government cuts. The council should be run like a business with customers paying a sensible price to cover costs for whatever service they use instead of
council tax. A well run business will always thrive, no freebies for anyone.

Log-in to Report

by roger mazillius

2nd July 2014, at 19:58:03

David Wright - where have you been? For example the several postings made by me regarding the disposal of The Riverside Centre (which employs a senior Cllr. and has another with a longterm official post). The disposal of a landmark building in Ventnor - all giving poor value to the Council Accounts and to the Council taxpayer, the income loss from which makes attempts to raise substitute income via this non-viable scheme quite frankly not just daft but pathetic!

Log-in to Report

by john hanson

2nd July 2014, at 19:22:22

You have the staff wages of course and i bet there is a floating bridge manager and managers assistant drawing a fair old wage for nothing get rid of them for a start

Log-in to Report

by david wright

2nd July 2014, at 19:02:02

Fair comment on the car income.

It would be interesting to know the figures of income versus running costs

Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.

View our Elgin Traffic & Travel Map