|
|
Post by the110 on Mar 30, 2009 14:41:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Mar 30, 2009 15:53:38 GMT 1
Think this is a disgracefull idea.
The fact is, the Goverement should of invested in Lawyers to look into where money would be lost with this system. Only now do they realise where the money has been lost.
Mind you labour dont like paying out good money or they do, but only for the CEO to get a HUGE pension out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Mar 30, 2009 16:43:21 GMT 1
It's like reading the letters page of The Sun on here some times...
|
|
Jack
Forum Member
Posts: 1,244
|
Post by Jack on Mar 30, 2009 17:22:06 GMT 1
The changes being made to the scheme aren't that drastic, basically it is ironing out any misunderstandings with the scheme.
Basically, Park & Ride schemes and services where over 50% of the seats can be pre-booked where concessionary card holders are unable to use their passes.
Nick, I seriously advise that you research your facts before posting such sensationalised tripe!
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Mar 30, 2009 17:48:55 GMT 1
Yes but i made the statement about the money, because like i said if they had invested in this before going ahead with the scheme, Lawyers been paid thousands would of brought this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 30, 2009 18:54:29 GMT 1
Given the overcrowding on certain popular services resulting from the free travel situation and the problems local authorities are facing with funding charging £1 for journeys that start outside of the pass holders home authority area would be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Mar 30, 2009 19:00:06 GMT 1
I'd imagine charging £1 for journeys outside of the local area would be a lot less favourable than the trimmimg of free coach services and tourist buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bradford Traveller on Mar 31, 2009 9:31:29 GMT 1
WHY should park and ride be free? This subsidy ie free rides should not extend to the car using populace.
Agree with the department on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jabbott1987 on Apr 1, 2009 17:27:21 GMT 1
So would that mean people living up by King Lane wouldn't be able to use the 71 (Peach Line) as this is a P&R route.
|
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Apr 1, 2009 17:33:28 GMT 1
So would that mean people living up by King Lane wouldn't be able to use the 71 (Peach Line) as this is a P&R route. I would very much think that the restrictions would only apply to dedicated park and ride services such as those found in York. Besides, if they did stop people travelling for free from King Lane, surely a short walk to the next stop would solve that little problem! |
|
Jack
Forum Member
Posts: 1,244
|
Post by Jack on Apr 1, 2009 17:37:35 GMT 1
But the Rawcliffe and Designer Outlet P&R services are also local stage carriage services as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Apr 1, 2009 17:54:46 GMT 1
I think all the Park & Ride services are normal services in York and either stop along the way or serve destinations in their own right.
A totally dedicated P&R site such as the ones in Preston would probably now be exempt
|
|
Matty
Forum Member
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by Matty on Apr 1, 2009 20:06:47 GMT 1
I think it is a good idea because why should biddies get free bus travel and everyone has to pay it is just so unfair, plus the bus company's are loosing money, because say Metro give the company's £1 - £2 for each pass used when the company can charge £2.20 it is just stupid.
|
|
kendall17
Forum Member
Justice for the 96!
Posts: 4,515
|
Post by kendall17 on Apr 1, 2009 20:45:14 GMT 1
Flat fare of 50p on all routes would work for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Apr 1, 2009 22:50:23 GMT 1
It was only 35p before it went free!
|
|
kendall17
Forum Member
Justice for the 96!
Posts: 4,515
|
Post by kendall17 on Apr 2, 2009 9:16:14 GMT 1
It was only 35p before it went free! Aye, but with everyone else's fares have risen so this should be equal. I think 50p is a fair amount, afterall it will still save them some money. |
|
77syk7
Forum Member
Posts: 644
|
Post by 77syk7 on Apr 2, 2009 10:20:25 GMT 1
Although I am gradually nearing the age when I will be egible for a Pensioners' Pass (and indeed already working out the possibilities!) I agree that there should be some charge for all people travelling on buses. How about a 10% charge rounded up/down to the nearest 5p? So Leeds- Halifax £2.70 adult fare - charge 25p. Leeds-Scarborough £11.00 adult fare - charge £1.10. It may seem too low, but I think most pensioners would not grumble at contributing a little something towards their day out. A full Coastliner bus would give over £70. This could be increased to 15% / 20% at a later date, but I do think this scheme may answer some of the problems encountered and make both the operators and Metro a little happier!
|
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Apr 2, 2009 20:58:23 GMT 1
Leisure bus services are affected by this rule so will this mean that pensioners will have to pay to use the Dales Bus weekend network?
|
|
Jack
Forum Member
Posts: 1,244
|
Post by Jack on Apr 2, 2009 22:06:17 GMT 1
What they mean by leisure is open top bus services. I think the City sightseeing network was already off bound for silver surfers.
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Apr 2, 2009 23:32:35 GMT 1
Metro have put an article on its website to clarify the situation, following a number of phone calls recently. The website says: “In West Yorkshire, you can still use you National Concessionary Pass for nearly all scheduled services from a bus stop anywhere. The only exceptions are overnight NightRider services, some works services and school services.”So, all other services in the West Yorkshire area, including the DaleBus services, seem to be fine. www.wymetro.com/News/090331-ENCP-changes.htm |
|
|
|
Post by busman3 on Apr 4, 2009 20:27:00 GMT 1
Hope this helps: Reported in this weeks Bus & Coach Buyer The DfT has introduced changes to the free concessionary travel scheme in England with effect from Wednesday 1 April 2009, a year after the scheme went nationwide. They say that the changes are intended to address some of the anomalies of the original Order and clarify some of the grey areas. The introduction of the changes followed a period of public consultation. To most observers, far from clearing up the anomalies, the changes look set to cause even greater confusion for passengers. The Consultation, probably because it was not widely publicised, received very few submissions, only 128. Of those more than half came from local authorities (66). Very few operators responded to the consultation. Strangely the second biggest response group was the Police (21)! Under the new order the following are now exempted from the concessionary travel scheme: 1. Services on which more than 50% of available seats can be booked in advance. 2. Any service which will operate for less than six consecutive weeks. 3. Any service which is primarily for tourism (e.g. sightseeing tours) or where its principal raison d'etre or where its principal raison d'etre is the historical interest of the vehicle. 4. Rail replacement services. 5. Services where the fare includes a special amenity element (e.g. park and ride services and those including an entry fee to an attraction). Whilst this all seems fairly straight forward, it is further complicated by the fact that the DfT has said that a local authority has the discretion to include any, or all of these exemptions, if it so wishes and at its expense. So therefore the situation could easily arise where a local authority in one area might make a sightseeing tour eligible for concessionary travel and one in a neighbouring area might not, but will that be obvious to the passenger? The DfT has also said that these changes will not attract any increase in concessionary fare funding from central Government. To study the changes go to www.dft.gov. uk/consultations /closed consultations and then scroll down to Consultation on definition of services for the statutory bus concession in England. Closing date was 23 January 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Apr 5, 2009 0:37:30 GMT 1
At face value it does seem that the DfT are further complicating matters, but actually it seems to me that all this is being done for the right reasons. Essentially they are clarifying that free bus travel shouldn't be available for services which have a specific purpose, such as park and ride or rail replacement, and closes these loopholes where conflict or confusion has arisen. Of course this has to be accurately defined, which leads to the apparent absurdity of statements such as "over 50% of pre-bookable seats", but as with everything the rules need to be defined so they can be implemented and enforced properly.
Admittedly leaving it open for individual local authorities to still offer such services for free out of their own pocket will lead to confusion and doubt over which services are free and which aren't, but at least this allowance gives the authority the chance to decide rather than having a draconian no exceptions policy. Therefore rather than complain, people who live in areas where local authorities are putting their hands in their pockets should be happy and make use of any extra service being offered free.
|
|
