Is it illegal to pass on your still valid bus day ticket to someone else

ppc_scambuster

You don't live in the country do you?

As a matter of fact yes I do, in the middle of North Yorkshire, but why that matters is a puzzle, I have no problem with buses and trains running half empty as long as I am not paying taxes for them to do so, either the PT companies charge a fare that makes the service self funding or stop running them, why should they be subsidised by people who never use them, that hardly seems fair and equitable now does it ?

So yes I have thought it out rather well.

robt_2

ppc_scambuster wrote: »

As a matter of fact yes I do, in the middle of North Yorkshire, but why that matters is a puzzle, I have no problem with buses and trains running half empty as long as I am not paying taxes for them to do so, either the PT companies charge a fare that makes the service self funding or stop running them, why should they be subsidised by people who never use them, that hardly seems fair and equitable now does it ?

So yes I have thought it out rather well.

Ahhh, that old chestnut. Ill-thought out.

ppc_scambuster

I also believe that PT should be run by not for profit organisations, and perhaps publicy owned, but self financing and definitely not susidised.

Utopia perhaps ??

ppc_scambuster

Ahhh, that old chestnut. Ill-thought out.

If I use it I pay the going rate ,if I do not I would rather not pay towards it, what can possibly be ill thought out about that concept ?

hartcjhart

Ok this is on the trains,but years ago my father worked in London and used to buy a 'weekly' ticket,he would use it in the day commute and I worked in London on nightshift,so we used to 'swap' the ticket between us. a pal that worked on the railways said it was illegal but as it was male to male swapping they could not find out,
apparently the tickets had a serial number and an M/F to signify who bought it

asbokid

robt wrote: »

Lets get rid of over half the train services in the country too shall we?

London Transport - the whole damn lot of it - is heavily subsidised.

From the 2010 Annual Report for London Transport, we find that..

London Buses fare revenues of just £1.165 billion but expenditure was £1.850 billion (subsidy: £685 million)

London Underground fare revenues of just £1.795 billion but expenditure was £2.386 billion (subsidy: £591 million)

Docklands Light Railway fare revenues of just £80 million but expenditure was £92 million (subsidy: £12.7 million)

Overall, the London Transport budget subsidised by 40%.

The Report doesn't identify where the greatest subsidies are made, but the New Deal TfL travel card for the unemployed must leave a heavy dent in the taxpayers' wallet.

Many of those who use the New Deal card are drug addicts travelling across the city to secure their fix.

See: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Annual-report-2010.PDF

asbokid

geordieracer wrote: »

So all those half empty trains and buses that run throughout the day and give people a chance to get out and about would be axed with the companies only focusing on rush hour peak time fares for the daily commute.

Many councils in rural areas are abandoning the subsidy of traditional public transport links. Instead, choosing to target funding towards Demand Responsive Transport.

In DRT schemes, the passenger pre-books the journey, and receives a door-to-door service.

asbokid

judywoody wrote: »

May ask what your problem is? Are you on a mission or what?

Calm down! Calm down!

bb21

ppc_scambuster wrote: »

I fail to see why any bus services should be subsidised, if they cannot make a profit or at least break even on a route then it sholud be canned and not subsidised by taxpayers, the majority of which will never even use the service.

Why have the NHS? Some people haven't fallen ill in 20 years so why should they subsidise the sick.

Why charge everyone National Insurance? I have always had a good job and will more than likely never use the benefit system.

Why subsidise prices of electric cars? I don't drive so why should I subsidise people that buy them? Make them pay the true retail price.

Do you see the fallacy of your argument?

ppc_scambuster wrote: »

I also believe that PT should be run by not for profit organisations, and perhaps publicy owned, but self financing and definitely not susidised.

Utopia perhaps ??

Now that I do agree. Whether David Cameron does is another matter.

judywoody wrote: »

how do you know that I gave my ticket to my husband at home??

We don't, and to be perfectly honest, the organisation that set the price are not daft. They would have taken into account of the fact that some people do that. Sometimes tickets are transferrable, however they are more than likely to be the ones that charge the passenger on a per journey basis, say a 10-trip ticket, than on an unlimited basis, eg. a weekly pass.

If the conditions state that they're not transferrable, then I don't think you can argue the fact that it is wrong to pass it onto someone else, however in many cases, whether this is enforceable is something entirely different. A bit like doing 70mph in a 30mph zone. You might not get caught, but it doesn't make it right or OK. The comeback therefore rests entirely with your conscience.

What I don't think some people grasps is the idea that the companies will lose money if they save on their own ticket costs. The company will never lose out. If they miss out on revenue from some passengers, they will simply raise their fares across board to compensate for that, so ultimately it is the general travelling public that people who practice this kind of practice will be taking advantage of, not the greedy operators.

asbokid wrote: »

London Transport - the whole damn lot of it - is heavily subsidised.

From the 2010 Annual Report for London Transport, we find that..

London Buses fare revenues of just £1.165 billion but expenditure was £1.850 billion (subsidy: £685 million)

London Underground fare revenues of just £1.795 billion but expenditure was £2.386 billion (subsidy: £591 million)

Docklands Light Railway fare revenues of just £80 million but expenditure was £92 million (subsidy: £12.7 million)

Overall, the London Transport budget subsidised by 40%.

The Report doesn't identify where the greatest subsidies are made, but the New Deal TfL travel card for the unemployed must leave a heavy dent in the taxpayers' wallet.

Many of those who use the New Deal card are drug addicts travelling across the city to secure their fix.

See: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Annual-report-2010.PDF

Very true. London has a comparatively low-fare system because it is heavily subsidised by the Council Tax payers and the general public in this country.

Livingthedream

bb21 wrote: »

What I don't think some people grasps is the idea that the companies will lose money if they save on their own ticket costs. The company will never lose out. If they miss out on revenue from some passengers, they will simply raise their fares across board to compensate for that, so ultimately it is the general travelling public that people who practice this kind of practice will be taking advantage of, not the greedy operators.

And there's me thinking that the transport companies put prices up every year to put a smile on the shareholder's faces.;)

But a question to test your statement and sorry for taking this a bit of topic; When one advises a passenger of a split ticket fare, this saves the passenger a set amount of money but in theory denies the train company out of the correct fare, would this affect future price rises?