Answers to questions misunderstood in translation

THANKS to councillor Macpherson (letters, April 10) for his reply on our bus services.

A few things have been misunderstood in translation.

I’m still none the wiser over what his suggestions are regarding his statement “the council must now look to ensure communities across Dundee have the best possible access to public transport and in a way that encourages people to use it”.

I mentioned the West End specifically because they’re well represented by him when it comes to publicising disagreements with the council over policy, the design of the replacement Magdalen Green footbridge being the latest.

I didn’t say extra funding was required for the service to run, I was referencing the Tele article that when it was withdrawn extra funding was requested from somewhere and I was asking him, being privy to that information, who also turned it down?

He states his party made budget suggestions that would’ve saved these services.

Another of my questions was if £122,000 has been saved, which service would have been £122,000 lighter as a result of these suggestions, given a finite budget? The NEC reference was simply referring to the £300m-plus per annum the government already hands bus companies by encouraging travel that ordinarily wouldn’t be undertaken and isn’t enough to maintain lossmaking services such as the 204, 206 and 236 without further council-funded intervention.

The councillor is quite right, if there’s no bus service to use then the NEC scheme is useless. However, if there aren’t sufficient customers to use the service despite this encouragement we’re at an impasse! His answer to my original question might help.