On 27/06/2013 08:46, Roland Perry wrote:

Dr J R Stockton remarked:

The social benefit of free pensioner travel can therefore be offered
from 09:30 at comparatively little cost to the rest of society.

Unfortunately it's not worked out like that. Not only have some routes
become overcrowded by pensioners, so that capacity needs to be
increased, but the cost to local authorities is often quite high.

Cambridge, for example, which doesn't have a particularly good bus
service in the first place, manages to get a net bill of around £1.5m
*after* central grants for the passes, an amount which is around 20% of
the City Council's entire council tax budget.

The obvious source for the necessary extra "funding" (what a delicious
weasel word that has become over the last couple of decades) is the
fares paid by other passengers.

On 27/06/2013 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in
message nvalid...
In uk.transport.london message , Sun, 23
Jun 2013 12:48:16, Roland Perry posted:

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to
work".


That may be what you are told. It may be what the teller believes. It
may be what the relevant management "think".

But the sensible reason is that buses are crowded with commuters until
nearly 09:30, and have empty seats after that.

Not where I live. (outside of London)

Buses aren't full at any time of the day and the only reason for the
9:30 "ban" is to stop travel to work use

Actually, there is *no* pre-09:30 "ban" on the London buses.

It's the one place in England where that is the case.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2013 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in
message nvalid...
In uk.transport.london message , Sun, 23
Jun 2013 12:48:16, Roland Perry posted:

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to
work".


That may be what you are told. It may be what the teller believes. It
may be what the relevant management "think".

But the sensible reason is that buses are crowded with commuters until
nearly 09:30, and have empty seats after that.

Not where I live. (outside of London)

Buses aren't full at any time of the day and the only reason for the
9:30 "ban" is to stop travel to work use

Actually, there is *no* pre-09:30 "ban" on the London buses.

It's the one place in England where that is the case.

I know that's the point

tim

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:39:37 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:53:52 on Wed, 26
Jun 2013, tim...... remarked:
People in London really have no idea what it's like in the provinces,
when it comes to being provided with transport.

If you mean, do I

no he doesn't

he means, does a normal person realise....

I prefer the word "average", unless you mean "normal" in the
trainspotter slang sense.

You could, of course, be more precise, by specifying what kind of
"average" person you mean: mean, mode or median. I quite like "mean"
in this context.

In message , at 12:02:24 on
Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
he means, does a normal person realise....

I prefer the word "average", unless you mean "normal" in the
trainspotter slang sense.

You could, of course, be more precise, by specifying what kind of
"average" person you mean: mean, mode or median. I quite like "mean"
in this context.

To avoid that type of overthinking, maybe "typical" would be a better
word.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:12:29 on Thu, 27
Jun 2013, JNugent remarked:
The social benefit of free pensioner travel can therefore be offered
from 09:30 at comparatively little cost to the rest of society.

Unfortunately it's not worked out like that. Not only have some routes
become overcrowded by pensioners, so that capacity needs to be
increased, but the cost to local authorities is often quite high.

Cambridge, for example, which doesn't have a particularly good bus
service in the first place, manages to get a net bill of around £1.5m
*after* central grants for the passes, an amount which is around 20% of
the City Council's entire council tax budget.

The obvious source for the necessary extra "funding" (what a delicious
weasel word that has become over the last couple of decades) is the
fares paid by other passengers.

In other words, the scheme should be run within the bus company's
budget. But that's not how it was designed.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:02:05 on Thu, 27
Jun 2013, tim..... remarked:
But the sensible reason is that buses are crowded with commuters until
nearly 09:30, and have empty seats after that.

Not where I live. (outside of London)

Buses in Nottingham are very crowded in the rush hour, and twirlies on
trips to "tourist" destinations are reported to be filling up the
available buses leaving no room for paying (mainly local) passengers.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:49:23 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2013 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in
message nvalid...
In uk.transport.london message , Sun, 23
Jun 2013 12:48:16, Roland Perry posted:

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to
work".


That may be what you are told. It may be what the teller believes. It
may be what the relevant management "think".

But the sensible reason is that buses are crowded with commuters until
nearly 09:30, and have empty seats after that.

Not where I live. (outside of London)

Buses aren't full at any time of the day and the only reason for the
9:30 "ban" is to stop travel to work use

Actually, there is *no* pre-09:30 "ban" on the London buses.

It's the one place in England where that is the case.

I know that's the point

Of course, Oyster users may still prefer to travel after 9:30 if
they're aiming for an off-peak daily cap (Tube and bus). So you have
the odd situation where Freedom Pass holders can happily travel before
9:30, whereas paying Oyster users may be deterred from doing so.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:02:24 on
Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
he means, does a normal person realise....

I prefer the word "average", unless you mean "normal" in the
trainspotter slang sense.

You could, of course, be more precise, by specifying what kind of
"average" person you mean: mean, mode or median. I quite like "mean"
in this context.

To avoid that type of overthinking, maybe "typical" would be a better

hence the reason why I didn't use it in the first place ;-(

tim

On 27/06/2013 13:44, Paul Corfield wrote:

There are some honourable exceptions in some towns
and cities including London but there is more emphasis now on
generating off peak business than getting people to and from work.

If you have a job, why would you use a bus...?
/stereotype


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK