Derbyshire CC propose axing all scheduled subsided bus services

[daodao]

The pass is NOT a subsidy!!
The government decided to offer free travel to some people. It's the same as if the government decided to offer free food to the same people, and required all supermarkets to provide this. Most bus companies suddenly found 30% of their user base now didnt have to pay, lots more free users suddenly appeared and the compensation for this varied by country and county. Lots of services across the country have been axed because the end result is buses with loads of passengers but not enough income to cover the fuel!
Local councils have the ability to remove services from the scheme if they want to, however the 'grey vote' is very powerful.

This scheme is a "subsidy" of a sort and the problems with it are not only an inappropriate use of government money for a commercial service (it goes against the principle of user pays), but uneven effects that produce the anomalies that you describe. It is not feasible to remove standard stage carriage services from the concession (other than before 0930 am Mon-Fri), although in various places, "leisure" bus services, trams and express services are excluded. It can also have a distorting effect on the use of "subsidised" trains and trams.

For example, is there a need to provide both a bus (route 200) and a train serving Styal - if more trains stopped at Styal, would the bus be needed? I doubt that it is used by many visitors to Quarry Bank Mill.

 

[radamfi]

Lots of head shaking here... First of all, I do wonder Radamfi why you choose to avoid commercial bus services? You either need to use them or not? Perverse!

I don't need to use any buses. I deliberately moved next to a major rail station with a 24/7 train service, I have an electric bike and my partner and I each have a car. So most of my bus trips are discretionary. In the past I would deliberately go out of my way to use buses because I thought that was the right thing to do, and of course I'm an enthusiast. But as time went on I realised that I was helping to perpetuate the deregulated bus industry by continuing to use commercial bus services.

Having an effective health service, good education, looking after the weakest in society, the right to free speech are all more important.

All those are important, but so is having decent public transport.

 

[northwichcat]

You say it costs "taxpayers a lot of money". Maybe compared to outside London, but compared to most world cities, the operating costs of public transport in London is largely met by fares, with the Underground self sufficient.

Won't London transport make a lot less money than it used to? The cost of single fares in London used to be quite expensive compared to other EU capitals, now if you register a contactless card it's comparable.

 

[radamfi]

Won't London transport make a lot less money than it used to? The cost of single fares in London used to be quite expensive compared to other EU capitals, now if you register a contactless card it's comparable.

It depends how you define "single fare". A trip that is only by bus and involves no changes is quite low at £1.50, but if you need to change onto an Underground train and then use a bus at the other end then the cost of that single trip is £1.50 + £2.40 + £1.50 = £5.40.

(I've assumed a Zone 1 tube fare. It might be more if more zones are needed, possibly less if outside Zone 1)

 

[northwichcat]

For example, is there a need to provide both a bus (route 200) and a train serving Styal - if more trains stopped at Styal, would the bus be needed? I doubt that it is used by many visitors to Quarry Bank Mill.

Personally I don't get why there's a Macclesfield-Wilmslow-Manchester service and a Knutsford-Wilmslow-Altrincham service and an Airport service which starts at Wilmslow. The two other services I mentioned aren't effective of methods of getting from one end of the route to the other end, it would be a lot more useful to have either Knutsford or Macclesfield to the Airport via Wilmslow.

I imagine the Airport subsidy is due to the bus being useful to get people to/from the viewing park opposed to getting people from Wilmslow to the Airport.

I'm not sure how many people use the bus service to get to Quarry Bank Mill. I don't know if it justifies one more than Dunham Massey or Tatton Park, neither of which are served by one.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't need to use any buses. I deliberately moved next to a major rail station with a 24/7 train service, I have an electric bike and my partner and I each have a car. So most of my bus trips are discretionary. In the past I would deliberately go out of my way to use buses because I thought that was the right thing to do, and of course I'm an enthusiast. But as time went on I realised that I was helping to perpetuate the deregulated bus industry by continuing to use commercial bus services.



All those are important, but so is having decent public transport.

Hmmm.... most of my trips are discretionary but I'm not concerned about perpetuating the deregulated bus industry. Besides, given that my home town was removed from the UK rail network before I was born, if I travel back by train then I have a choice...

• Get a tendered journey operated by a local independent that operates a circuitous route taking 45 mins using a passable but basic Solo once every two hours OR
• Get a refurbished modern single decker with comfortable seating on the direct route (taking 30 mins) every 20 mins operated by the capitalist pig dogs of the German rail industry

The commercial service happens to serve the rail station whereas the tendered service doesn't. In that case, practicality rather than politics rules and Herr Arriva gets my money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The pass is NOT a subsidy!!

It is a subsidy, though technically one paid to the passholder rather than the bus operator.

But whatever it's called, it's the fact that it is open-ended that is the problem.

Would an approach of giving people over a certain age a free travel budget to be redeemed on public transport of their choice have perhaps been better?

 

[radamfi]

the capitalist pig dogs of the German rail industry

Actually, I have no problem with capitalism and privatisation. I see no problem providing a public transport service entirely run by private companies. What counts is the quality of the service and whether it is value for money for both the taxpayer and passenger. Tendering in London and elsewhere has shown that you can get better service for less money. I have fewer qualms travelling on a Stagecoach bus in London than an Arriva or Rossendale bus on a commercial service outside London.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This scheme is a "subsidy" of a sort and the problems with it are not only an inappropriate use of government money for a commercial service (it goes against the principle of user pays), but uneven effects that produce the anomalies that you describe. It is not feasible to remove standard stage carriage services from the concession (other than before 0930 am Mon-Fri), although in various places, "leisure" bus services, trams and express services are excluded. It can also have a distorting effect on the use of "subsidised" trains and trams.

For example, is there a need to provide both a bus (route 200) and a train serving Styal - if more trains stopped at Styal, would the bus be needed? I doubt that it is used by many visitors to Quarry Bank Mill.

Sorry - you're wrong and Carl is right and for the reasons listed.

It is a payment to the bus company in respect of services provided.

BSOG is a grant but in reality, it's the same as not charging VAT on food stuffs and other excluded items
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, I have no problem with capitalism and privatisation. I see no problem providing a public transport service entirely run by private companies. What counts is the quality of the service and whether it is value for money for both the taxpayer and passenger. Tendering in London and elsewhere has shown that you can get better service for less money. I have fewer qualms travelling on a Stagecoach bus in London than an Arriva or Rossendale bus on a commercial service outside London.

Of course you don't....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is a subsidy, though technically one paid to the passholder rather than the bus operator.

But whatever it's called, it's the fact that it is open-ended that is the problem.

Would an approach of giving people over a certain age a free travel budget to be redeemed on public transport of their choice have perhaps been better?

That might have been the approach and in the days of NTT's, it kinda was. However, Gordon Brown's wizard idea has knackered that and you try and take it off the grey vote now. It would be political suicide!

 

[Busaholic]

Sorry - you're wrong and Carl is right and for the reasons listed.

It is a payment to the bus company in respect of services provided.

BSOG is a grant but in reality, it's the same as not charging VAT on food stuffs and other excluded items
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Of course you don't....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That might have been the approach and in the days of NTT's, it kinda was. However, Gordon Brown's wizard idea has knackered that and you try and take it off the grey vote now. It would be political suicide!

I know a lot of people who qualify for a free bus pass, as I mostly have friends of about my own age, but by no means all of them have even applied for one. Of the ones who've got one, there are people like my wife, qualified for six years but has never actually used it; I rarely use mine when at home in Cornwall, but I do use it in London. Incidentally, all the people I know of that age living in London have a Freedom Pass and use it extensively, as I am sure I would, except for my sister whose disability renders it near impossible to use any form of public transport.

For these reasons, when politicians like Nick Clegg start talking about means tests being applied to bus pass holders I get very angry - apart from any other considerations, it meant I will never vote LibDem again. The cost of means testing would far exceed the benefits gained by passholders in England, with the possible exception of Londoners.

 

[radamfi]

The problem is not so much that some people get free travel, but that normal fares are so extortionate. If fares weren't so obscene in the first place then the free travel wouldn't be so precious.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For example, is there a need to provide both a bus (route 200) and a train serving Styal - if more trains stopped at Styal, would the bus be needed? I doubt that it is used by many visitors to Quarry Bank Mill.

Between Styal and Wilmslow, the 200 bus serves a large part of that side of Wilmslow that obviously the train does not, if that answers your question.

Many National Trust properties have long estate approach roads leading to the main area of interest such as that leading to Quarry Bank Mill, which does indeed have the regular 200 bus serving the main car park area.

Other properties of the National Trust do not have the benefit of such a bus service but do have very long estate approach roads. I can think of Lyme Park, Tatton Park and Erddig in particular as examples of this.

 

[northwichcat]

For these reasons, when politicians like Nick Clegg start talking about means tests being applied to bus pass holders I get very angry - apart from any other considerations, it meant I will never vote LibDem again. The cost of means testing would far exceed the benefits gained by passholders in England, with the possible exception of Londoners.

There's arguments both for and against means testing.

Given some villages have trains but no buses, maybe a long term idea could be to give pensioners smart cards for use on any public transport with a set amount being added to the card each month instead of ENCTS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Potentially also taxis for those with nothing? Of course ideally we pay a proper pension so these concessions are unnecessary.

 

[daodao]

Between Styal and Wilmslow, the 200 bus serves a large part of that side of Wilmslow that obviously the train does not, if that answers your question.

Many National Trust properties have long estate approach roads leading to the main area of interest such as that leading to Quarry Bank Mill, which does indeed have the regular 200 bus serving the main car park area.

Other properties of the National Trust do not have the benefit of such a bus service but do have very long estate approach roads. I can think of Lyme Park, Tatton Park and Erddig in particular as examples of this.

Until a few years ago, there were buses from Macclesfield to both Lyme and Tatton Parks on summer weekends, but the subsidies were withdrawn. There is still a summer only bus to Kedleston from Derby funded by Derbyshire CC - I presume this service will be cut when they withdraw the subsidy. Other rural NT properties still with bus access by ordinary routes include Dunham Hall, Bodnant Gardens and Sudbury.

 

[Busaholic]

The problem is not so much that some people get free travel, but that normal fares are so extortionate. If fares weren't so obscene in the first place then the free travel wouldn't be so precious.

The cynical (not me, of course!) might think that one reason why bus fares are so high in most places is that reimbursement for concessionary travel is usually calculated as a percentage of those full fares.

 

[Robertj21a]

The cynical (not me, of course!) might think that one reason why bus fares are so high in most places is that reimbursement for concessionary travel is usually calculated as a percentage of those full fares.

Doesn't really work in practice. Firstly, the % reimbursement will just get reduced and, secondly, the councils etc are watching any fares that increase significantly out of line.

 

[radamfi]

Doesn't really work in practice. Firstly, the % reimbursement will just get reduced and, secondly, the councils etc are watching any fares that increase significantly out of line.

Do the council actually have any power to regulate fares that are "out of line"?

It is clear that commercial services are not compatible with the free travel scheme because of this artefact and the constant wrangling over reimbursement rates. With a net cost tendered service, there are no such issues.

 

[Busaholic]

Doesn't really work in practice. Firstly, the % reimbursement will just get reduced and, secondly, the councils etc are watching any fares that increase significantly out of line.

The % reimbursements have been reduced just about everywhere so, if a service is being provided commercially, this has to be factored in by the bus company providing that service: in many cases, in order to continue providing that service the company will have to raise fares. On your second point, the councils can do what watching they may choose, but I suggest they are utterly powerless to prevent the bus company raising the fares to whatever they choose. After all, we live in a capitalist society, and (a) any other company can apply to run a service over the same route if they can get Traffic Commissioner permission, and charge significantly lower fares and (b) the council would probably wish that service continued to run rather than be withdrawn as 'uncommercial', especially if that council was then expected to step in and provide a service. After all, in the supposedly highly-regulated rail industry, outrageous fares are hardly a novelty, whereas the supposed cut-price fares are often, in practice, virtually non-existent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do the council actually have any power to regulate fares that are "out of line"?

It is clear that commercial services are not compatible with the free travel scheme because of this artefact and the constant wrangling over reimbursement rates. With a net cost tendered service, there are no such issues.

I would think not, in answer to your question. It may be noted that the Welsh government caved in when Stagecoach commenced legal action to secure what they regarded as proper restitution for taking concessionary passes, and reached an agreement satisfactory to them so, as so often in this country (and I include Wales) the issue is never tested in the open and a judgement made that could then be binding.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not suggesting that councils have any regulatory powers over fares, of course they don't. But they still watch out for operators trying to 'pull a fast one' with an unreasonably high fare - it seems that they have a 'quiet word' about the mechanics of the formula that they use to determine concessionary payments.

 

[radamfi]

Not suggesting that councils have any regulatory powers over fares, of course they don't. But they still watch out for operators trying to 'pull a fast one' with an unreasonably high fare - it seems that they have a 'quiet word' about the mechanics of the formula that they use to determine concessionary payments.

It obviously isn't working because almost all fares are unreasonable.

 

[MedwayValiant]

The cynical (not me, of course!) might think that one reason why bus fares are so high in most places is that reimbursement for concessionary travel is usually calculated as a percentage of those full fares.

Bus operators tend to make the same argument from the other end.

They argue that the reimbursement rate is so poor that they have to raise the fares for people who actually pay them. When ENCTS was introduced, the reimbursement system was supposed to work such that operators were "no better off, no worse off", but almost all operators complain that they are in fact worse off.

Thus - or so they argue - if ENCTS was scrapped, they'd be able to reduce fares. Wasn't there a small operator in Scotland which did (utterly illegally) cease to accept the Scottish equivalent to ENCTS, and reduced its fares when it did so?

 

[Busaholic]

Bus operators tend to make the same argument from the other end.

They argue that the reimbursement rate is so poor that they have to raise the fares for people who actually pay them. When ENCTS was introduced, the reimbursement system was supposed to work such that operators were "no better off, no worse off", but almost all operators complain that they are in fact worse off.

Thus - or so they argue - if ENCTS was scrapped, they'd be able to reduce fares. Wasn't there a small operator in Scotland which did (utterly illegally) cease to accept the Scottish equivalent to ENCTS, and reduced its fares when it did so?

The bus operators are right. It is not their fault that successive governments have refused, in effect, to uphold the legislation. I hadn't heard about the Scottish operator, but it doesn't surprise me, if true.

One of the reasons for Western Greyhound in Cornwall going bust was Cornwall Council, for whatever reason, not paying out what was claimed to be due to the bus company. Most of this non-reimbursement was for. when WG was still owned by Mark Howarth and NOT after he'd sold it

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The bus operators are right. It is not their fault that successive governments have refused, in effect, to uphold the legislation. I hadn't heard about the Scottish operator, but it doesn't surprise me, if true.

One of the reasons for Western Greyhound in Cornwall going bust was Cornwall Council, for whatever reason, not paying out what was claimed to be due to the bus company. Most of this non-reimbursement was for. when WG was still owned by Mark Howarth and NOT after he'd sold it

Was the matter of securing insurance at a much higher premium rate after that major fire at Newquay which destroyed a sizable portion of their fleet (plus I think another fire at Liskeard also) cited as a major reason for the demise of the company?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Was the matter of securing insurance at a much higher premium rate after that major fire at Newquay which destroyed a sizable portion of their fleet (plus I think another fire at Liskeard also) cited as a major reason for the demise of the company?

It was but Mark Howarth was vociferous in his views regarding Cornwall Council and ENCTS remuneration. The company was already well on the slide in 2012, well before the fires, because of that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cost of means testing would far exceed the benefits gained by passholders in England, with the possible exception of Londoners.

The cost of means testing would be marginal, as one could very easily tie in eligibility for the free bus pass to receipt of certain benefits. Poor pensioners will receive Pension Credit Guarantee. Tie in the bus pass to receipt of that benefit, as well as the existing DVLA and disability rules, and you've solved it.

The ENCTS was an electoral bribe by Gordon Brown that was neither thought through nor budgeted for. And, as TheGrandWazoo points out, the "grey vote" seems to think austerity is for everyone else and not them, so trying to get rid of the ludicrous scheme would be political suicide, even though the twirlies are often in a better position to pay the commercial fare than many working age people.

 

[northwichcat]

Until a few years ago, there were buses from Macclesfield to both Lyme and Tatton Parks on summer weekends, but the subsidies were withdrawn.

Macclesfield-Tatton Park was 3 services each way Sundays only between Easter Sunday and August Bank Holiday but not the Sunday the RHS show was on. It was a Bakerbus service (even after Bowers took over the Mon-Sat service) and wasn't well publicised - it wasn't included in the glossy 27 printed timetable and was a separate yellow A5 sheet of paper which TICs and libraries put out separately to the glossy Mon-Sat timetable.

Going further back there was also a single return working on Tuesday and Fridays only between Sandbach and Altrincham via Knutsford which stopped at the Rostherne Gate.

It's quite ironic that after those services were withdrawn Northern Rail decided to put up signs at Knutsford station saying it is the home of Tatton Park, the park itself isn't a long walk from the station but the estate is the other side of the park from the Knutsford entrance.

 

[PeterC]

The cost of means testing would far exceed the benefits gained by passholders in England, with the possible exception of Londoners.

But it's only London that counts. Politicians and journalists probably think that everybody over 60 gets free bus, rail and tube transport not just the Londoners bribed by Borris.

 

[northwichcat]

The ENCTS was an electoral bribe by Gordon Brown that was neither thought through nor budgeted for.

Prior to it there were too many regional variants of the rules for free bus travel for the over 60s. Some councils allowed free travel only within their area, others allowed free travel if it started or ended within their area. The latter was the case in Cheshire and it would mean if you had a Cheshire pass you could travel on the 130 from Macclesfield to Wilmslow and then on a later service from Wilmslow to Manchester. However, if you wanted to split your journey at Cheadle instead of Wilmslow it wasn't possible without paying a fare for the second leg or travelling southbound from Cheadle to Handforth and then back north to Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it's only London that counts. Politicians and journalists probably think that everybody over 60 gets free bus, rail and tube transport not just the Londoners bribed by Borris.

And it's a whole lot easier to budget for it in London because in most cases TfL has revenue risk, so a fixed sum can be allocated to it.

I would argue that that kind of concession only really works in areas where the organisation paying for the concession has revenue risk, not a fully privatised system.