Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Do many holders make use of the nationwide aspect of their passes?
Judging by the queues of twirlies waiting for the X93 (all of whom used to have to buy a concessionary NE Explorer) I'd say yes.
Do many holders make use of the nationwide aspect of their passes?
No I did not. Agreed that I used the word flexible, but nowhere did I use any phrase to the effect that bus companies HAVE to be flexible.
Indeed. The (Labour) government introduced a local, half-fare statutory scheme in 2001, converting it to a local free scheme in 2006, and then an England-wide scheme in 2008. In many shire counties, this was considerably more generous than what was previously available - as the example above cites, most metropolitan areas already offered or exceeded the half-fare offer.Not that long; most schemes were flat-fare (West Yorkshire was 30p a ride) and local area only.
With us it tends to be neighbouring council passes we see but we do sometimes get others.Sorry, that should have said "There were still bus passes". And for many years they were free.
Do many holders make use of the nationwide aspect of their passes?
The idea that there are gallivanting millionaire pensioners living the high life (lol) on long, free bus rides to exotic places like Scarborough or Skegness, preventing good, honest fare-paying passengers from boarding is a tiresome myth got up by people who have a right wing political agenda, it would appear. Funny that on Bob Hind's (and others) myriad journeys recounted in 'Buses' magazine over the years to all parts of the U.K. he's never come across these people, for the simple reason they do not exist, unless a couple of paqrticularly vexatious UKIP branch chairmen are organising such outings.With us it tends to be neighbouring council passes we see but we do sometimes get others.
The idea that there are gallivanting millionaire pensioners living the high life (lol) on long, free bus rides to exotic places like Scarborough or Skegness, preventing good, honest fare-paying passengers from boarding is a tiresome myth got up by people who have a right wing political agenda, it would appear. Funny that on Bob Hind's (and others) myriad journeys recounted in 'Buses' magazine over the years to all parts of the U.K. he's never come across these people, for the simple reason they do not exist, unless a couple of particularly vexatious UKIP branch chairmen are organising such outings.
I think you are right, but a lot of pensioners visit such places in May, June, September, October simply because that is when they can get decent deals from hotels, holiday camps or other. They try and avoid the school summer holidays not only because it is cheaper but also because it is quieter. They often extend the visiting season for these places, and, most of all, spend money to help often struggling destinations.I think there can be an issue with "tourist" destinations - but I see this as a problem with the way the scheme is funded, not a fault of the scheme itself.
I am not arguing that anybody should be doing anything. I just pointed out what currently happens, and the obvious benefits to everyone. It is you that seem determined to have an argument, repeatedly mis-representing me.If you're not arguing that bus companies should be flexible then you've lost me.
What are you arguing?
I am not arguing that anybody should be doing anything. I just pointed out what currently happens, and the obvious benefits to everyone. It is you that seem determined to have an argument, repeatedly mis-representing me.
It should be made 24/7 for disabled workers. Whether having to buy for public transport or not can make a big difference as to whether they'll work or not.
Not only that, a lot of disabled workers have to travel further than usual on average to work just because it's one of a few jobs they can do, or their workplace is more accommodating.
Cynic in me tells me the only reason concessionary bus schemes exist is that they're a form of subsidy for bus operators, nothing about altruism.
If you're saying it costs more per passenger than what councils would pay out then that can be true.Bus companies often lose out on concessionary pass use.
If you're saying it costs more per passenger than what councils would pay out then that can be true.
But the cost per passenger goes down as more passengers use the bus up to the certain point.
In nearly all cases, it would be advantageous to take on concessionary pass holders. The only a drawback would be that they prevent use of full fare paying passengers which is unlikely even during a rush hour period.
If you're saying it costs more per passenger than what councils would pay out then that can be true.
But the cost per passenger goes down as more passengers use the bus up to the certain point.
In nearly all cases, it would be advantageous to take on concessionary pass holders. The only a drawback would be that they prevent use of full fare paying passengers which is unlikely even during a rush hour period.
I will disagree with you its not a subsidy. I can give you an example on the Red Arrow between Derby and Nottingham the councils refused to pay for concession pass holders saying it was a premium service. Passes are not valid on the service. There is no blanket payment from councils. You only get paid for the number of passes used.It should be made 24/7 for disabled workers. Whether having to buy for public transport or not can make a big difference as to whether they'll work or not.
Not only that, a lot of disabled workers have to travel further than usual on average to work just because it's one of a few jobs they can do, or their workplace is more accommodating.
Cynic in me tells me the only reason concessionary bus schemes exist is that they're a form of subsidy for bus operators, nothing about altruism.
Presumably reimbursement was calculated on the basis that usage would be minimal if full fare was charged. That sounds within the spirit of the scheme to me.Harrogate and District withdrew their hourly X54 Harrogate to York some years ago, citing that as it was popular with pass holders they were getting full buses but not enough revenue to cover the driver's wage.
I understand Cornwall Council allow the use of Concessionary passes at any time of the day and not just during specific times and obviously I'm aware that in Wales and Scotland Concessionary passes are valid 24/7
Do you think British Concessionary passes should be required to be valid for travel at all times or do you think 24/7 free travel should continue to be discretionary?
Being resident in Cornwall and conversant with the available bus services, my estimate of the extra services available on a weekly basis to concessionary pass holders would be somewhere between 12 and 18%. As it's unlikely too many of the elderly would choose to travel with the kids going to school, realistically the only impact might be on buses between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m., so I'd be surprised if reimbursements as a result of the change would increase by as much as 10% and many of the earlier journeys would only cancel out ones that used to be made after 9.30.It depends on who is paying, and who you ask, and what the effect on passengers would be.
Local government is not properly reimbursed for the cost of the scheme, and the operators are paid a pittance, but woe betide any government who wanted to substantially alter the scheme to make it more economic. The political cost would be enormous.
It should be made 24/7 for disabled workers. Whether having to buy for public transport or not can make a big difference as to whether they'll work or not.
Not only that, a lot of disabled workers have to travel further than usual on average to work just because it's one of a few jobs they can do, or their workplace is more accommodating.
Cynic in me tells me the only reason concessionary bus schemes exist is that they're a form of subsidy for bus operators, nothing about altruism.
It depends on who is paying, and who you ask, and what the effect on passengers would be.
Local government is not properly reimbursed for the cost of the scheme, and the operators are paid a pittance, but woe betide any government who wanted to substantially alter the scheme to make it more economic. The political cost would be enormous.
There was a case in Wales a few years ago of a long distance route where the full adult return fare was £15 and the rate the company was getting for pass holders was about £10 return which they said was reasonable, however the council said it was costing too much so changed the formula so instead of £10 return the rate fell to less than £1.00 return. The consequence of that was the service wasn't viable any more and got withdrawn.
The fact there is no blanket payment doesn't mean it's not a subsidy. Subsidy can even be paid out in other methods that's not cash - for example, an investment in infrastructure.I will disagree with you its not a subsidy. I can give you an example on the Red Arrow between Derby and Nottingham the councils refused to pay for concession pass holders saying it was a premium service. Passes are not valid on the service. There is no blanket payment from councils. You only get paid for the number of passes used.
a ridiculous number of posts claimed that it affected pensioners despite the scheme simply being brought into line with the state pension age as happens in England already.
Disabled workers are paid the same as their colleagues who (in the vast majority of circumstances) have to pay to travel on the bus to get to work so really there is absolutely no reason why those in paid employment should be entitled to free travel 24/7. If any job fails to pay sufficient wages for bus fares to be viably paid out them the job should not exist at its current wages and therefore the need to pay bus fare shouldn't make any difference as to whether disabled people are able to work (and in fact by claiming otherwise you are suggesting that many disabled people who are physically and mentally capable of holding down a job would choose not to if they had to pay the usual costs of having such a job and would instead get benefits to which anyone capable of work (and many who are not) have very little chance of receiving under the current regime.It should be made 24/7 for disabled workers. Whether having to buy for public transport or not can make a big difference as to whether they'll work or not.
Not only that, a lot of disabled workers have to travel further than usual on average to work just because it's one of a few jobs they can do, or their workplace is more accommodating.
Cynic in me tells me the only reason concessionary bus schemes exist is that they're a form of subsidy for bus operators, nothing about altruism.
Disabled workers are paid the same as their colleagues who (in the vast majority of circumstances) have to pay to travel on the bus to get to work so really there is absolutely no reason why those in paid employment should be entitled to free travel 24/7. If any job fails to pay sufficient wages for bus fares to be viably paid out them the job should not exist at its current wages and therefore the need to pay bus fare shouldn't make any difference as to whether disabled people are able to work (and in fact by claiming otherwise you are suggesting that many disabled people who are physically and mentally capable of holding down a job would choose not to if they had to pay the usual costs of having such a job and would instead get benefits to which anyone capable of work (and many who are not) have very little chance of receiving under the current regime.