In message
, at
05:37:36 on Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Mizter T remarked:
"Freedom pass" means that I must be a resident of a London borough.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure why we are supposed to know that.

Apart from the fact you did know that, this is uk.transport.london,
and the existence of the Freedom Pass is also regularly part of
discussions on uk.railway.

Hard not to come to the conclusion that you do enjoy a bit of
provocative trolling from time to time Mr Perry ;-)

In this case that's an incorrect assumption. I have no idea whether a
"Freedom Pass" is a descriptor that's unique to London, or indeed
anywhere else.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:08:43 on Tue, 6
Jul 2010, Paul Terry remarked:
Experience of different P&R round the country says service levels are
pretty patchy, and as a first time visitor to Cambridge it's always
going to be a gamble.

Heaven forbid that they might have to use the Internet to see what
service levels are like before they leave! But you are right in the
sense that early closing times of such car parks can be a gotcha. The
Cambridge scheme is well set-up, with staffed information offices at
the terminals and frequent bus services.

I had to go to central Oxford a few months ago and contemplated using
their P&R. But I couldn't make much sense of it in the time available,
so I drove all the way in and parked near the station. It was easy.

Someone I know wanted to P&R for Manchester last month, and I tried
looking that up - complete nightmare! They seem to assume you know the
names of all the places you might be wanting to use (very few were
familiar to me) and the only maps were thumbnails of the last few
hundred yards. So they drove all the way and parked quite happily close
to Oxford Rd station.

Last time I went to Cambridge I was considering using P&R, but as I
turned off the A14 onto Huntingdon Rd it occurred to me that none were
actually that easy to get to from there. So I drove to QAT and parked
there. Not including the petrol, it was cheaper (for my afternoon stay)
than 2 people on the P&R. And when we wanted to leave, we left. No
messing about queuing for buses.

If you say so. I'm still unconvinced that this is a major drain on
resources, compared to people living within a 10-mile radius coming to
Cambridge to shop.

Bus-pass journeys starting outside the city of Cambridge are
irrelevant, because they are not paid for by the city council.

They are relevant because the return leg is paid for by Cambridge.

All of this has, in fact, been thoroughly discussed in parliament,
where it was agreed that cities which are tourist centres are unfairly
treated by the current grant arrangements - Cambridge, Norwich and
Oxford were mentioned in particular (see Hansard for 26 January 2009).

So as I said a few days ago - a simple formula change is all that's
needed. The parliamentary debate tended to conflate "visitor" and
"tourist".

There really is no doubt that tourism is the main problem -
particularly now that we have an increasingly mobile population over
the age of 59 with time (and bus passes) on their hands. AIUI, the
grant arrangements are being reviewed (hence the answer to the original
question in this thread) with a view to making them more equitable.

Colin says they are being transferred to the County, which won't
actually help if the problem is people doing P&R into Cambridge - the
County will be paying for both legs.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Terry wrote

Bus-pass journeys starting outside the city of Cambridge are
irrelevant,
because they are not paid for by the city council.

But, as already discussed, the return journey does so start and so
Cambridge has to pay. A worse case would be a trip in, another bus to a
factory shop then reverse on the return. Three out of four would
'start' in Cambridge.

All of this has, in fact, been thoroughly discussed in parliament,
where
it was agreed that cities which are tourist centres are unfairly
treated
by the current grant arrangements - Cambridge, Norwich and Oxford
were
mentioned in particular (see Hansard for 26 January 2009).

There really is no doubt that tourism is the main problem -
particularly
now that we have an increasingly mobile population over the age of 59

with time (and bus passes) on their hands. AIUI, the grant
arrangements
are being reviewed (hence the answer to the original question in this

thread) with a view to making them more equitable.

Lots of assertions but not even sampled actual data.

Of course it was noted that the Scilly Isles had tourists but no buses
so made a profit on the deal.

--
Mike D

In article 01cb1d47$8b8dca40$LocalHost@default, (Michael
R N Dolbear) wrote:

Of course it was noted that the Scilly Isles had tourists but no
buses so made a profit on the deal.

The fact that the Scillies get a grant is proof positive that the
allocation formula is not fit for purpose.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

Last time I went to Cambridge I was considering using P&R, but as I
turned off the A14 onto Huntingdon Rd it occurred to me that none
were actually that easy to get to from there. So I drove to QAT and
parked there. Not including the petrol, it was cheaper (for my
afternoon stay) than 2 people on the P&R. And when we wanted to
leave, we left. No messing about queuing for buses.

You don't say how long your car park stay was but you are one of a
minority of motorists aiming for Cambridge City Centre who don't regard
QAT as too long a walk away from the main locations. Maybe the majority of
motorists' legs atrophy?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 19:22:37
on Tue, 6 Jul 2010, remarked:
Last time I went to Cambridge I was considering using P&R, but as I
turned off the A14 onto Huntingdon Rd it occurred to me that none
were actually that easy to get to from there. So I drove to QAT and
parked there. Not including the petrol, it was cheaper (for my
afternoon stay) than 2 people on the P&R. And when we wanted to
leave, we left. No messing about queuing for buses.

You don't say how long your car park stay was

The aim was 4 hours.

but you are one of a minority of motorists aiming for Cambridge City
Centre who don't regard QAT as too long a walk away from the main
locations. Maybe the majority of motorists' legs atrophy?

I do indeed regard QAT as close enough for most purposes, unless it's in
the evening when I'll tend to use Park St as it's closer to the
nightlife.
--
Roland Perry

In message ,
writes
You don't say how long your car park stay was but you are one of a
minority of motorists aiming for Cambridge City Centre who don't regard
QAT as too long a walk away from the main locations. Maybe the majority of
motorists' legs atrophy?

Don't like to appear ignorant, but what or where is QAT?


--
Clive Page

In message , at 20:47:31 on Wed, 7 Jul
2010, Clive Page remarked:

what or where is QAT?

Queen Annes Terrace aka Kelsey Kerridge.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 20:47:31 on Wed, 7
Jul 2010, Clive Page remarked:

what or where is QAT?

Queen Annes Terrace aka Kelsey Kerridge.

Queen Anne Terrace, please! The Kelsey Kerridge sports hall is mostly on
top of the car park of that name.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 8 July, 01:08, wrote:
In article , (Roland

Perry) wrote:
In message , at 20:47:31 on Wed, 7
Jul 2010, Clive Page remarked:

what or where is QAT?

Queen Annes Terrace aka Kelsey Kerridge.

Queen Anne Terrace, please! The Kelsey Kerridge sports hall is mostly on
top of the car park of that name.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

It is not just the amount of money that the council has to pay for
journeys made by ENCTS pass holders from outside the area that is the
problem . Capacity is often an issue as well. Where my mother lives
(Poole) the bus services run on an hourly or 30 minute frequency, and
in the summer are often overwhelmed by ENCTS pass holders on holiday.
Not being able to get on an hourly bus service because it is full up
is quite a problem. At least in London you can be reasonably sure that
another bus will turn up in 5 minutes or so.