Should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel?

[ivanhoe]

About 90% of the pass holders are not on a low income (so can afford to travel as much as they want) and/or own a car (so traffic is not reduced).

The cost of the scheme is astronomical. The value of the scheme would be there even if we didn't have it. Before 2005, when OAPs had to pay a concessionary fare, we didn't see OAPs sitting at home getting dementia.

I've no problem with concessionary fares. Bring in the same scheme as you have for children- around here it's £1 for a concessionary all-day ticket for children, or 80p for a single- and you have all the benefits for none of the cost.

I do have a problem with blowing £1.2bn a year on something that is simply not needed, at a time when my local council is closing the library, closing the swimming pool, cutting back on advice funding, cutting back on social care funding, cutting back on customer services staff, cutting back on street cleaning and refuse collection...

The old scheme worked fine.

Take away the ENCTS scheme and you will see. savage decrease in bus journeys within a month. Turn up and go timetables will disappear and you will place on the scrapheap, thousands of bus drivers. The scheme is no where perfect and even I would advocate it being regional as opposed to covering the whole country. You should see the scheme as an investment in buses as well as a state benefit. Do you really think that Stagecoach, Arriva et al wish to see it's demise? The bus industry outside of London is dependent on the scheme.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you really think that Stagecoach, Arriva et al wish to see it's demise?

Martin Griffiths was pretty outspoken about ENCTS:

Griffiths said: “I won’t provide a service and not get properly paid for it. You would not go to Tesco and say to them – great idea, we’re going to let OAPs have free food. They cannot stand up there and be dishonest with people and say we’re going to have a scheme but not fund it properly. That punishes people who do pay, whether it’s full-fare paying adults or the children or young adults who I want to be the passengers of the future.”

He declined to say whether the pensioner bus pass should be axed, but added: “Are there some passengers who board our buses who could probably afford to pay? Of course they could. As a voter, I want to know bus services are going to be protected. They have to decide what is the prioritisation. They can’t be dishonest just because these people vote – 8 million of them, they all vote … so ooh, don’t tamper with the concession scheme. Politicians are being disingenuous with all of us.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/10/stagecoach-free-bus-travel-cost

 

[HH]

Yes, Stagecoach would like the funding direct without having to carry the pensioners. I leave it up to the reader to work out how that might work.

 

[ivanhoe]

Martin Griffiths was pretty outspoken about ENCTS:



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/10/stagecoach-free-bus-travel-cost

The key quote was he declined to say whether the ENCTS should be abolished. It fills seats as he well knows, when there are few cash paying passengers. He probably covers his costs and makes less profit than he would if the passengers had to pay.

 

[DeeGee]

I voted to leave and I'm in my late 20's, why I voted to leave was of a number of things, one reason was due to the out of control regulation that this country has to endure - had we remained then more than likely we'd be seeing all train doors painted eye scortching orange just to comply to whatever succeeds PSVAR.

That's the over-regulation you voted against? An imaginary directive regarding the colour of train doors? Which other laws would you like rid of?

You do know, don't you, that there's a United Nations regulation which contains broadly the same recommendations as the EU one and the more proscriptive UK PSVAR, right?

Shall we get out of the UN as well?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It fills seats as he well knows, when there are few cash paying passengers.

How many more times, ENCTS is paid as reimbursement for the fares that would have been paid had OAPs had to pay.

ENCTS doesn't pay for empty buses to run around, it doesn't subsidise bus services, it doesn't keep socially necessary but unprofitable bus services running and it doesn't give bus companies any more revenue than they'd have had before (indeed, in many cases it gives them less).

It may "fill seats", but the bus companies don't get any money for the passengers who would otherwise have driven/walked/stopped at home.

I don't understand why this point is seemingly so difficult to understand on this thread.

 

[6Gman]

How many more times, ENCTS is paid as reimbursement for the fares that would have been paid had OAPs had to pay.

ENCTS doesn't pay for empty buses to run around, it doesn't subsidise bus services, it doesn't keep socially necessary but unprofitable bus services running and it doesn't give bus companies any more revenue than they'd have had before (indeed, in many cases it gives them less).

It may "fill seats", but the bus companies don't get any money for the passengers who would otherwise have driven/walked/stopped at home.

I don't understand why this point is seemingly so difficult to understand on this thread.

Quite. If the ENCTS is such a honeypot for operators why have some well-filled services been withdrawn?

Answer - because they are largely passholders, and the reimbursement is insufficient to meet the costs.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I spoke to my next door neighbour - aged 70+ who has had free bus travel sice the age of 60. They run 2 cars and are comfortable financially.

He has used his free travel twice in 14 years.

My 2 wage earning young adults cycle to places such as Hatfield / Harpenden aSs neither have yet passed their driving tests and a bus fare is about £4 each way. Go figure. (as the USA say)

 

[Robertj21a]

I spoke to my next door neighbour - aged 70+ who has had free bus travel sice the age of 60. They run 2 cars and are comfortable financially.

He has used his free travel twice in 14 years.

My 2 wage earning young adults cycle to places such as Hatfield / Harpenden aSs neither have yet passed their driving tests and a bus fare is about £4 each way. Go figure. (as the USA say)

So the neighbour has charged up about £2 to the local council. What's your point ?
If the bus fare is £4 each way they must be travelling for quite a while every day - or is it just occasionally ?

 

[ivanhoe]

How many more times, ENCTS is paid as reimbursement for the fares that would have been paid had OAPs had to pay.

ENCTS doesn't pay for empty buses to run around, it doesn't subsidise bus services, it doesn't keep socially necessary but unprofitable bus services running and it doesn't give bus companies any more revenue than they'd have had before (indeed, in many cases it gives them less).

It may "fill seats", but the bus companies don't get any money for the passengers who would otherwise have driven/walked/stopped at home.

I don't understand why this point is seemingly so difficult to understand on this thread.

Oh, please, put your toys back in the pram and less of your condescending remarks. Of course it is a revenue stream for bus companies. If the re-imbursement was such that it was insufficient to cover marginal costs, they'd do something about the timetable. I would hazard a guess that neither you or me could actually calculate how much the company actually gets back because the formula used is not a simple calculation. Commercially Sensitive is the term and hence for all the bluff from Stagecoach, they will not come out and say they would prefer not have the scheme.

 

[Busaholic]

I spoke to my next door neighbour - aged 70+ who has had free bus travel sice the age of 60. They run 2 cars and are comfortable financially.

He has used his free travel twice in 14 years.

My 2 wage earning young adults cycle to places such as Hatfield / Harpenden aSs neither have yet passed their driving tests and a bus fare is about £4 each way. Go figure. (as the USA say)

I'm 68 and have lived in my current community for 28 years. As a bookshop owner in the town where I live I also know or are familiar with a good proportion of the older people I see in town. Being semi-retired but still active and with a lifetime interest in buses and bus routes that won't disappear before I do I know EXACTLY who uses buses on a daily basis, occasionally or never in the town, as I go past all the stops in town on an almost daily basis on foot, with and without my dog. I see virtually nobody of pensionable age who uses the buses regularly who I know. is (a) in full-time work or (b) who owns a car. My wife, aged 66 and who doesn't drive, has recently used her pass for the first time ever. It is a myth that there are buses full of Bollinger-swigging oldies cavorting off to their tea dances or whatever- most buses these days have rockhard seats for instance to discourage the casual traveller, seemingly. London may be a different case - eligibility at 60, no peaktime restrictions on bus or tube etc may well see well-heeled 'working' people taking advantage, but I'd argue that the answer to that would be to cut down on some of these 'extras' rather than the ENCTS itself.

 

[6Gman]

Oh, please, put your toys back in the pram and less of your condescending remarks. Of course it is a revenue stream for bus companies. If the re-imbursement was such that it was insufficient to cover marginal costs, they'd do something about the timetable. I would hazard a guess that neither you or me could actually calculate how much the company actually gets back because the formula used is not a simple calculation. Commercially Sensitive is the term and hence for all the bluff from Stagecoach, they will not come out and say they would prefer not have the scheme.

Well they have in some cases. By withdrawing the service or even closing the company!

[Though, of course, this thread isn't about the bus scheme - it's about introducing such a scheme to the railways!]

 

[HH]

London may be a different case - eligibility at 60, no peaktime restrictions on bus or tube etc may well see well-heeled 'working' people taking advantage...

London is a different case, because all the revenue risk sits with TfL. The Operator's only risk is whether they bid the right price to provide the service they signed up for.

Mayors of both parties have constantly stumped up more money for all forms of public transport. And oddly enough London is about the only place where bus use is growing; and it's not down to OAPs, despite the generous offer - London is mostly inhabited by the young.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Take away the ENCTS scheme and you will see. savage decrease in bus journeys within a month. Turn up and go timetables will disappear and you will place on the scrapheap, thousands of bus drivers. The scheme is no where perfect and even I would advocate it being regional as opposed to covering the whole country. You should see the scheme as an investment in buses as well as a state benefit. Do you really think that Stagecoach, Arriva et al wish to see it's demise? The bus industry outside of London is dependent on the scheme.

Quite the opposite. It increased costs (e.g. needing larger vehicles) and didn't pay enough to cover them.

 

[HH]

Well they have in some cases. By withdrawing the service or even closing the company!

And they haven't in many more. The fact that a reduction in ENCTS has forced the closure of some routes seems pretty strong evidence that some routes require ENCTS to stay open.

And I know what it's supposed to be compensating for, but the calculation of the reimbursement is no simple matter - see here.

The guiding principle on which concessionary reimbursement is based stems from the 1985 Transport Act and is that arrangements should have the objective of leaving operators ‘no better and no worse off’ (NBNW) than they would be in the absence of the concessionary scheme.

In principle and in the round, if a pensioner is not using his bus pass he is not costing anything. And if he is, the government are reimbursing the operator.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite the opposite. It increased costs (e.g. needing larger vehicles) and didn't pay enough to cover them.

Maybe it did in some cases. And maybe in others it paid too much and the operator is getting money for carrying fresh air. Such systems will always generate a number of such anomalies.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Yes, Stagecoach would like the funding direct without having to carry the pensioners. I leave it up to the reader to work out how that might work.

likethe direct funding that LAs used to provide to allow socially necessary services to run perhaps ? before that funding was replaced by the effin twirlies and their ENCTS cards

 

[Robertj21a]

Oh, please, put your toys back in the pram and less of your condescending remarks. Of course it is a revenue stream for bus companies. If the re-imbursement was such that it was insufficient to cover marginal costs, they'd do something about the timetable. I would hazard a guess that neither you or me could actually calculate how much the company actually gets back because the formula used is not a simple calculation. Commercially Sensitive is the term and hence for all the bluff from Stagecoach, they will not come out and say they would prefer not have the scheme.

I think there are many companies that would prefer to not have the scheme at all. The amount reimbursed by councils can be insufficient to cover costs and yet the bus companies are legally obliged to accept the passes during the statutory time limits. Although it's sensible, and cost effective, to carry pass holders if there is going to be a bus running anyway, with empty seats, there have been many other cases where bus services have been withdrawn because there is simply too little income generated.

 

[JamesRowden]

The fact that the bus pass scheme attracts some people to use a bus who would otherwise have used a train (because the bus is free and the train isn't) means that the scheme removes some income from the railway at off-peak times. But the scheme might also attract people to do a journey which involves both buses and trains, and therefore potentially adds additional income to the railway. Attracting people to not have a car should also increase railway income.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there are many companies that would prefer to not have the scheme at all. The amount reimbursed by councils can be insufficient to cover costs and yet the bus companies are legally obliged to accept the passes during the statutory time limits. Although it's sensible, and cost effective, to carry pass holders if there is going to be a bus running anyway, with empty seats, there have been many other cases where bus services have been withdrawn because there is simply too little income generated.

Which would mean that either the services would have been loss making without the scheme, the bus company made a mistake, or the reimbursement formula used is faulty.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course it is a revenue stream for bus companies. If the re-imbursement was such that it was insufficient to cover marginal costs, they'd do something about the timetable.

Many companies have done something about the timetable. They shut their depots (First), cut evening and weekend service (First again) or went bust (GHA Coaches, Western Greyhound, Pennine).

I would hazard a guess that neither you or me could actually calculate how much the company actually gets back because the formula used is not a simple calculation.

You can find the calculator on the DfT website.

for all the bluff from Stagecoach, they will not come out and say they would prefer not have the scheme.

Of course they won't outright call for the abolition of ENCTS, because it is a political scheme, but Griffiths in particular has been outspoken about the scheme.

Many other operators have cited ENCTS reimbursement rates as the reason for withdrawal of services, or even the failure of their business.

The fact that a reduction in ENCTS has forced the closure of some routes seems pretty strong evidence that some routes require ENCTS to stay open.

I think it is a lot more complicated than that.

If most of your customers are OAPs on their passes, and the reimbursement rate falls, then there is nothing you can do to cut costs to compensate for the reduced income.

In a normal transport market, where income is directly related to how many people you transport, there's plenty you can do: you can raise fares, you can cut frequency, you can use a smaller bus. But if your route carries 50 ENCTS passholders and the council cuts the reimbursement rate you can't do any of these things, so you either run the route at a loss or you close the route.

In urban areas, with a wider mix of population groups, operators can hedge the cuts with income from other demographics- either fares rises, working age adult passenger growth, or a bit of both. But you only have to look at North Yorkshire and Cornwall to see what effect an older population and an unaffordable ENCTS scheme has on transport provision.

The same thing would happen with the trains if we were to bring the system in. Intercity operators could probably hedge the cuts with additional income (i.e. fares rises) from those passengers who do pay, just as urban bus operators have been able to. But rural operators? It wouldn't look good for the branch lines to places like Whitby.

 

[HH]

likethe direct funding that LAs used to provide to allow socially necessary services to run perhaps ? before that funding was replaced by the effin twirlies and their ENCTS cards

Central government funding was increased to LAs to cover ENCTS, even if the money is no longer paid directly. LAs are still free to provide direct funding for routes and indeed some do so. It's rather less than it was, but that's to do with the economy, not the provision of ENCTS.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Many companies have done something about the timetable. They shut their depots (First), cut evening and weekend service (First again) or went bust (GHA Coaches, Western Greyhound, Pennine).

ENCTS is definitely not to blame for all First's bus woes. If you have any evidence to support your contention on the others please provide it.

You can find the calculator on the DfT website.

Indeed you can. Pray do a calculation for us and upload it as a Google doc with comments to demonstrate your contentions.

If most of your customers are OAPs on their passes, and the reimbursement rate falls, then there is nothing you can do to cut costs to compensate for the reduced income.

In a normal transport market, where income is directly related to how many people you transport, there's plenty you can do: you can raise fares, you can cut frequency, you can use a smaller bus. But if your route carries 50 ENCTS passholders and the council cuts the reimbursement rate you can't do any of these things, so you either run the route at a loss or you close the route.

I agree with this, but does this actually mean that without the ENCTS scheme the route would remain open?

I point back to the principle of ENCTS that the Operator should not lose - but neither should they win. If ENCTS is working as it should then the services that close would have closed anyway without ENCTS.

If it's not working as intended then I would have expected to see complaints from First, Griffiths, etc. saying exactly that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If ENCTS is working as it should then the services that close would have closed anyway without ENCTS.

If it's not working as intended then I would have expected to see complaints from First, Griffiths, etc. saying exactly that.

Griffiths has- repeatedly- said that the ENCTS is not funded properly and that it is bus operators and fare-paying passengers who have to pick up the slack. He explicitly compared it to expecting Tesco to give away free food.

Even though ENCTS cost taxpayers £1.2bn last year, the scheme is not properly funded and the reimbursement rate is falling each year. The scheme costs an absolute fortune and, despite that, still puts a huge burden on bus operators and fare-paying passengers. The true cost, including fares rises to compensate for falling reimbursement rates, is probably closer to £1.5bn-£2bn a year.

By comparison, the total subsidy cost of the railways in 2014-2015 was about £3.5bn.

Pennine buses in Skipton, a company that has been operating since the 1930s, went bust in 2014 because North Yorkshire County Council unilaterally cut the reimbursement rate by 20%.

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/...med_for_Craven_bus_service_closure/?ref=var_0

Western Greyhound's bosses also blamed Cornwall Council's significant cuts for their demise, although they also had some insurance issues too following an arson attack at their depot.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

That's the over-regulation you voted against? An imaginary directive regarding the colour of train doors? Which other laws would you like rid of?

You do know, don't you, that there's a United Nations regulation which contains broadly the same recommendations as the EU one and the more proscriptive UK PSVAR, right?

Shall we get out of the UN as well?

I was using the door colours as an example of EU meddling.

 

[Robertj21a]

The fact that the bus pass scheme attracts some people to use a bus who would otherwise have used a train (because the bus is free and the train isn't) means that the scheme removes some income from the railway at off-peak times. But the scheme might also attract people to do a journey which involves both buses and trains, and therefore potentially adds additional income to the railway. Attracting people to not have a car should also increase railway income.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Which would mean that either the services would have been loss making without the scheme, the bus company made a mistake, or the reimbursement formula used is faulty.

It's not really 100% any of those. The reimbursement formula is certainly debatable, and probably wrong, but, as I understand it, the amount reimbursed is still heavily influenced by what the relevant council can actually afford. If their reimbursement figure is unrealistically low then the operator can either continue to accept the passes (as is the legal obligation on them) and accept the lower return - or they can reduce/withdraw the service as unprofitable.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's not really 100% any of those. The reimbursement formula is certainly debatable, and probably wrong, but, as I understand it, the amount reimbursed is still heavily influenced by what the relevant council can actually afford. If their reimbursement figure is unrealistically low then the operator can either continue to accept the passes (as is the legal obligation on them) and accept the lower return - or they can reduce/withdraw the service as unprofitable.

Is the Local Authority accountable in any way for cheating the bus company?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is the Local Authority accountable in any way for cheating the bus company?

If a bus operator is not satisfied with the reimbursement rate, they have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the final decision. This must be done within 56 days of the TCA making the change.

The Secretary of State will use the same calculator that the TCA uses.

 

[HH]

Pennine buses in Skipton, a company that has been operating since the 1930s, went bust in 2014 because North Yorkshire County Council unilaterally cut the reimbursement rate by 20%.

Western Greyhound's bosses also blamed Cornwall Council's significant cuts for their demise, although they also had some insurance issues too following an arson attack at their depot.

Yes, but was the cut in the rate justified or not? Were they overpaying previously, or had circumstances changed? Companies do go bust and I've seen a number of iffy bus P&Ls.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was using the door colours as an example of EU meddling.

And you would be completely wrong to do so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36594664

PSVAR regulations grew out of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and the 2000 Transport Act. Both of which were written and implemented before the EU had any legislation in place about disability rights in transport; EU regulations didn't fully come in until about 2011.

But let's not let pesky things like facts get in the way of a good rant about doors, eh? Getting your facts right is just another sign of the EUSSR meddling in the British right to spout out complete gibberish.

 

[JamesRowden]

If a bus operator is not satisfied with the reimbursement rate, they have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the final decision. This must be done within 56 days of the TCA making the change.

The Secretary of State will use the same calculator that the TCA uses.

Therefore the reimbursement would not be influenced by what the particular local authority can afford (unless the secretary of state is also part of the conspiracy).

 

[HH]

Pennine buses quote:

The company said this week that it was being forced to close because of losses incurred through free travel passes and more competition on some routes.

“It is a very sad day,” said company secretary Maurice Simpson, whose grandfather and two great uncles founded the business in 1925 and whose father, Norman, ran the firm for many decades.

“Unfortunately it is no longer financially viable,” he added.

Mr Simpson blamed the move on North Yorkshire County Council cutting its reimbursement for free travel by a fifth, leaving him with a deficit of £45,000.

“North Yorkshire reimburses 28.4 per cent of free travel whereas Lancashire pays back 56 per cent. That is our problem. There are also too many buses on our main bus route between Skipton and Barnoldswick.

A number of things are clear from this statement:

1. Pennine buses were already making a marginal profit
2. There was also increased competition
3. That different councils have different levels of compensation doesn't mean that the lower rate is incorrect; nor has Mr Simpson said so.

Bluntly it sounds like a convenient excuse to me; better than saying, "I can't compete with more efficient companies".

 

[PeterC]

The fact that the bus pass scheme attracts some people to use a bus who would otherwise have used a train (because the bus is free and the train isn't) means that the scheme removes some income from the railway at off-peak times.

I am pushed to think of examples in my part of the world where this would be the case. There are cases where journeys might be made that wouldn't be made at all otherwise but little or no direct abstraction from the railway.