I read that OAPs and disabled people will be allowed to travel all
over the UK free of charge by bus from April 2008.  Does anyone know
the details of this extended concession?  Is it paid for by the
pensioner's local council or by central government?

-- 
Alasdair.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:05:22 +0000, Alasdair 
wrote:

>I read that OAPs and disabled people will be allowed to travel all
>over the UK free of charge by bus from April 2008.  Does anyone know
>the details of this extended concession?  Is it paid for by the
>pensioner's local council or by central government?

The new National Concession, starting on 01/04/2008, entitles any
eligible resident - over 60 or disabled based on a set of criteria -
of an English authority area to travel free on any local bus service
within England between 0930 and 2300 Mo-Fr and any time Sa, Su and
BHs. The concession applies in England only; the equivalent Scottish,
Welsh and Northern Irish schemes continue to operate within their
areas. Consultations have begun regarding a UK-wide scheme.

The concession is valid on bus only as a national minimum standard.
Local authorities have the power to add extra means of transport to
their concession - for instance: GMPTE in Manchester continuing to
support free rail and Metrolink tram travel for pass holders within
Greater Manchester - but these extra concessions will only be valid
for resident holders of that particular area.

The concession pass is issued by the resident's home authority, whilst
the concession reimbursement (to the service operator) is paid for by
the local authority where the service is boarded. For example, a
resident of Colne, holding a Pendle Borough Council-issued pass,
boarding Northern Blue's X4 service to Fleetwood would have their
outward journey funded by Pendle Borough. However when returning from
Fleetwood, the return journey would be funded by Wyre Borough Council,
the authority at the point of boarding.

Funding for service reimbursements is from local authority funds,
although the DfT are providing grants for authorities which may
experience difficulty in meeting costs. I would imagine these grants
are aimed at rural places with high transport operating costs, and
tourist areas a la Eastbourne, Blackpool and Central London that have
high visitor numbers and a relatively small resident level to fund it.

The DfT have a section on their website dedicated to the subject. Some
of it is quite wordy, detailing legislation and other arrangements,
but there are generic copies of the pass design and a 'Plain English'
guide to the ITSO smartcard system that is being utilised in there
somewhere! <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/concessionary/>

Hope this helps,
Tony

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:39:12 +0000, Tony Davies
 wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:05:22 +0000, Alasdair 
>wrote:
>
>>I read that OAPs and disabled people will be allowed to travel all
>>over the UK free of charge by bus from April 2008.  Does anyone know
>>the details of this extended concession?  Is it paid for by the
>>pensioner's local council or by central government?

>The DfT have a section on their website dedicated to the subject. Some
>of it is quite wordy, detailing legislation and other arrangements,
>but there are generic copies of the pass design and a 'Plain English'
>guide to the ITSO smartcard system that is being utilised in there
>somewhere! <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/concessionary/>

I was under the impression that the ITSO smart card would allow "home"
local authorities to be charged for card usage outside their area.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:32:56 +0000, Terry Harper
 wrote:

>I was under the impression that the ITSO smart card would allow "home"
>local authorities to be charged for card usage outside their area.

During the consultations and readings of the CBT Act,
charging/reimbursement from boarding point was deemed to be the only
practical way of operating the scheme, given there are 292 authorities
and PTEs dealing with the scheme.

Lancashire's current NOWcard concession scheme currently works in the
manner of 'home authority pays' and this often causes reimbursement
difficulties for operators when used outside of area. However, the
introduction of ITSO readers did reduce these problems substantially,
so there is scope for such a system to be introduced if desired.

The use of the ITSO appears to be for backward compatibility for
operators already equipped for smartcard use, and for future
compatibility with new ticketing systems. There is no requirement for
operators to have installed ITSO readers by April '08 - the pass would
be used as a standard 'flash' pass instead. Indeed, TfL Freedom Passes
- which are simply going to be stickered with the concession logo
initially - use non-ITSO compliant readers and chips and there are no
plans to upgrade until 2010 at the earliest.

Tony

"Tony Davies"  wrote in message
news:cqpsl31hu145mhgjnajld28n8d283pidbf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:32:56 +0000, Terry Harper
>  wrote:
>
> >I was under the impression that the ITSO smart card would allow "home"
> >local authorities to be charged for card usage outside their area.
>
> During the consultations and readings of the CBT Act,
> charging/reimbursement from boarding point was deemed to be the only
> practical way of operating the scheme, given there are 292 authorities
> and PTEs dealing with the scheme.
>
> Lancashire's current NOWcard concession scheme currently works in the
> manner of 'home authority pays' and this often causes reimbursement
> difficulties for operators when used outside of area. However, the
> introduction of ITSO readers did reduce these problems substantially,
> so there is scope for such a system to be introduced if desired.
>
> The use of the ITSO appears to be for backward compatibility for
> operators already equipped for smartcard use, and for future
> compatibility with new ticketing systems. There is no requirement for
> operators to have installed ITSO readers by April '08 - the pass would
> be used as a standard 'flash' pass instead. Indeed, TfL Freedom Passes
> - which are simply going to be stickered with the concession logo
> initially - use non-ITSO compliant readers and chips and there are no
> plans to upgrade until 2010 at the earliest.
>
> Tony

Here in Blackpool, we use the NowCard. There are new cards out there which
are being rolled out replacing the old ones. Our machines won't read the new
card properly, telling us its invalid.

Here in South Yorkshire we should keep our 'extra' perks like using
Northern rail to get into West Yorks.

I wish we could use it all over the UK.

Ken

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:00:32 -0800 (PST), Ken
 wrote:

>I wish we could use it all over the UK.

Is it any wonder some people have no time for  disabled and older
people with people like you about , talk about give me one give me two
give me the lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
Just be grateful for what you have got and not be wanting more and
more and remember it is the young earners of this country who are
having to pay for all the freebies the elderly are now getting.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:37:16 GMT, mymail@hotmail.com wrote:

>>I wish we could use it all over the UK.
>
>Is it any wonder some people have no time for  disabled and older
>people with people like you about , talk about give me one give me two
>give me the lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
>Just be grateful for what you have got and not be wanting more and
>more and remember it is the young earners of this country who are
>having to pay for all the freebies the elderly are now getting. 

I don't understand the logic of this as your disabled or older person
can only be in one place at one time. It's not going to cost the
taxpayer any more to transport the person from Nottingham to Derby
than it is from Stirling to Falkirk.

-- 
Alasdair.

Alasdair wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:37:16 GMT, mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
>>> I wish we could use it all over the UK.
>> Is it any wonder some people have no time for  disabled and older
>> people with people like you about , talk about give me one give me two
>> give me the lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
>> Just be grateful for what you have got and not be wanting more and
>> more and remember it is the young earners of this country who are
>> having to pay for all the freebies the elderly are now getting. 
> 
> I don't understand the logic of this as your disabled or older person
> can only be in one place at one time. It's not going to cost the
> taxpayer any more to transport the person from Nottingham to Derby
> than it is from Stirling to Falkirk.
> 
Not only that, if there's an empty seat for them, that *cost* is 
effectively zero. If you want to get picky, you *could* work out the 
extra fuel consumption & the cost of stopping the bus & getting it back 
up to speed.....

On most services the contract normally allows the operator about 50p per 
journey per pass from the local authority budget, even on commercial 
services. This is what causes the problems in implementing a scheme such 
as this. Local authorities in areas with lots of visitors are expected 
to pay the cost of the visitors' journeys out of their budgets, it 
doesn't come directly out of central taxation. In the days when local 
authorities operated their own buses, it didn't matter, but now they pay 
someone else to do operate them, it does.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:14:27 +0000, Alasdair 
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:37:16 GMT, mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>I wish we could use it all over the UK.
>>
>>Is it any wonder some people have no time for  disabled and older
>>people with people like you about , talk about give me one give me two
>>give me the lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
>>Just be grateful for what you have got and not be wanting more and
>>more and remember it is the young earners of this country who are
>>having to pay for all the freebies the elderly are now getting. 
>
>I don't understand the logic of this as your disabled or older person
>can only be in one place at one time. It's not going to cost the
>taxpayer any more to transport the person from Nottingham to Derby
>than it is from Stirling to Falkirk.

Personally even though I am of pension age I am totally against the
free passes and so was my Father back in the days when our council
dished out £ 20.00 in travel tokens every year . I only have a NoW
card for the simple reason that I hold the view of if I can't beat
them I may as well join em even though I never use it .
There are many old people who cannot get on a bus or train but if they
have a few quid tucked away they will be having to pay via the council
tax system for those who are able to travel .

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:09:36 GMT, mymail@hotmail.com wrote:

>Personally even though I am of pension age I am totally against the
>free passes and so was my Father back in the days when our council
>dished out £ 20.00 in travel tokens every year . I only have a NoW
>card for the simple reason that I hold the view of if I can't beat
>them I may as well join em even though I never use it .

I disagree with it because (due to the low reimbursements) it pushes
for more, lower-quality services, when the only way we'll attract
passengers from their cars is providing very *high* quality services,
which require suitable funding.

It also artificially skews subsidies between bus and rail, as the
passes usually are not valid for train travel, and so a bus operator
can just decide to set up shop directly competing with a subsidised
rail service, and being subsidised for doing so, thus increasing the
overall subsidy bill and, worse IMO, having local bus compete with
local rail, which is not a desirable situation; both should be
co-ordinated to complement one another.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:

> It also artificially skews subsidies between bus and rail, as the
> passes usually are not valid for train travel, and so a bus operator
> can just decide to set up shop directly competing with a subsidised
> rail service, and being subsidised for doing so, thus increasing the
> overall subsidy bill and, worse IMO, having local bus compete with
> local rail, which is not a desirable situation; both should be
> co-ordinated to complement one another.

I'd rather a system where pensioners get 50-75% off travel, including
trains and buses, and those who are disabled get 90% or possibly 100%
off (i.e. free). There would no longer need to be any restrictions
based on time, as almost everyone would be fare paying. Give them a
smartcard and, just as disabled badges are widely abused in cars,
enforce the use of them strictly and take them away from those who
pass the card on to friends and family. (Problem; we wouldn't do the
enforcement part as it would be too costly).

I'm also against the free travel for children in London, which I think
was a stupid idea from the off.

Jonathan

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:44:02 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Morris
 wrote:


>enforce the use of them strictly and take them away from those who
>pass the card on to friends and family. (Problem; we wouldn't do the
>enforcement part as it would be too costly).
The enforcement of our travel card isn't a problem here ours carry a
photograph of the holder . 
>I'm also against the free travel for children in London, which I think
>was a stupid idea from the off.
I am against free travel for anyone not just kids but the free travel
isn't the cause of kids causing problems on public transport even
charging double the adult price wouldn't be  detriment to stoping them
causing trouble and damage .
Transport companies should make it compulsory for kids to be
accompanied by an adult or they walk .

"Jonathan Morris"  wrote in
message
news:7d9a4d89-b392-4bc3-a177-190672b489ea@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com

[snip]

: I'm also against the free travel for children in London,
: which I think was a stupid idea from the off.

We've already got free travel for kids in Birmingham. Not officially, you 
understand, the little b*****s just don't pay.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:5tfg28F1cng5fU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jonathan Morris"  wrote in
> message
> news:7d9a4d89-b392-4bc3-a177-190672b489ea@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
>
> [snip]
>
> : I'm also against the free travel for children in London,
> : which I think was a stupid idea from the off.
>
> We've already got free travel for kids in Birmingham. Not officially, you 
> understand, the little b*****s just don't pay.
>
> Ivor

Merry Christmas and a happy
new year Ivor, all the best Dave B.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:44:02 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Morris
 wrote:

>I'm also against the free travel for children in London, which I think
>was a stupid idea from the off.

I'm against free travel for anyone, as it encourages unnecessary use.
Better to charge a low flat fare - even if it's 10p people will think
about it before using the service.

The one exception to this is city centre transport, where it makes a
lot of sense to include transport within a city centre in tickets to
that city for a nominal fee for unlimited use.

As for the free kids specifically, I would have accepted free *when
accompanied by an adult*, but the total free-for-all is just trouble.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:22:37 +0000, Broderick@02.co.uk wrote:

>Transport companies should make it compulsory for kids to be
>accompanied by an adult or they walk . 

That would be impractical, and against the idea that kids need to
develop their own independence. 

Far better would be the idea that the law can punish them, and more
importantly their parents[1], for their actions, both on public
transport and in general.

[1] If it were the case that, for example, the parent would be held
responsible, and sentenced accordingly, for any misdemeanour of any of
their children aged under, say, 16, I imagine parents would be a lot
more reluctant to allow untrustworthy children to run riot, while it
wouldn't affect those who can be trusted.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:20:32 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>That would be impractical, and against the idea that kids need to
>develop their own independence.

We where given  the freedom develop our own independence
back in the forties and fifties and we did, no buses got wrecked
no oap's got robbed,murdered,or sexually assaulted by us and we where
not allowed to run riot in supermarkets or other shops either because
for the most part our parents never dragged us into such places.
Mother's did the shopping while our Father,s looked after us on a
Saturday afternoon back in those days we only had the market M&S,
woollies,and Brit home stores that was of any size in our town . 
>
>Far better would be the idea that the law can punish them, and more
>importantly their parents[1], for their actions, both on public
>transport and in general.

Can't be done Neil or more to the point the multitude of people in our
society who think kids can do no wrong will not allow it to be done .
>
>I imagine parents would be a lot
>more reluctant to allow untrustworthy children to run riot, while it
>wouldn't affect those who can be trusted.

A small minority may be but I am inclined to think that around 80% of
parents today are of the same persuasion to cause trouble at every
given opportunity so their kids behave exactly the same .

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:18:09 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>As for the free kids specifically, I would have accepted free *when
>accompanied by an adult*, but the total free-for-all is just trouble.
 Free travel for anyone is wrong in my book Neil others are paying
possibly twice for the free travel for some firstly directly in the
fare they are having to pay and 2 secondly by way of the additional
council tax they are having to pay .
One of our local councilors was taking credit in the local rag for
getting a bus service reinstated which the country council had stopped
paying out for due to lack of use . I wouldn't care but the  estate in
question that the bus runs through  isn't a council estate it is one
of the 200 grand house jobs all with double garages and two bathrooms
etc and Jags and BMW's in the driveways .