Is Pensioner free travel forcing up prices?

[Teflon Lettuce]

They are plainly expensive when compared to the perceived marginal cost of motoring, especially when there are no car park charges. British bus fares are also expensive compared to the fares charged in other industrialised countries.

1. comparing bus travel with motoring is NOT comparing like with like

2. I should think there are very few places in Britain these days where there is widespread free parking... even in my local town with a population of about 3000 souls the town centre car park is now £1.40 for 1 hrs parking!

3. The reason why fares in Britain are so expensive compared to SOME (not ALL) other industrialised countries is because in those countries bus service (and public transport) are heavily SUBSIDISED.... and IIRC you are anti- subsidy....

so YOUR solution to the conundrum is?

 

[radamfi]

1. comparing bus travel with motoring is NOT comparing like with like

2. I should think there are very few places in Britain these days where there is widespread free parking... even in my local town with a population of about 3000 souls the town centre car park is now £1.40 for 1 hrs parking!

3. The reason why fares in Britain are so expensive compared to SOME (not ALL) other industrialised countries is because in those countries bus service (and public transport) are heavily SUBSIDISED.... and IIRC you are anti- subsidy....

so YOUR solution to the conundrum is?

The private car is the main competition so of course we should compare to motoring costs. The bus industry assumes that most trips end in town centres but the fact is that car trips go to all parts of town, and of course private parking exists in town centres as well.

I am in favour of a high quality, integrated public transport system with affordable fares like that enjoyed in many places across Europe. That does require substantial funding.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The private car is the main competition so of course we should compare to motoring costs. The bus industry assumes that most trips end in town centres but the fact is that car trips go to all parts of town, and of course private parking exists in town centres as well.

why should we? we should only compare like for like... comparing the cost of public transport to private is like comparing the cost of a chauffeur driven rolls royce to a mini metro... no comparison!

I am in favour of a high quality, integrated public transport system with affordable fares like that enjoyed in many places across Europe. That does require substantial funding.

so you are against ENCTS because you see it as subsidising the bus industry.... but yet you would like to see London style contracting of a utopian anywhere to anywhere network....have you SEEN how much subsidy the London Bus network receives each year? where's the money going to come from? greater efficiency in an industry already pared to the bone? lowering drivers wages to the minimum wage? making it a legal requirement that the average age of a bus should be no less than 40 years?

just a reality check... IIRC correctly a DD now costs upwards of £200k... if you have a route that needs 20 DD's to operate it then to keep the average fleet age to the government target of 5 yrs old you have to replace 2 vehicles a year... that's £400k you have to make in revenue before you even think about paying wages, fuel, tax, insurance, business rates contribution, employers NI contribution, employers workplace pension contribution, backroom staff wage contribution, engineering contribution....

let's put it this way, if, as you have asserted, the present system of provision and funding is a recipe for making money for old rope whilst providing rubbish services why are so many small to medium operators either going bust or just plain giving up and shutting up shop?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The private car is the main competition so of course we should compare to motoring costs. The bus industry assumes that most trips end in town centres but the fact is that car trips go to all parts of town, and of course private parking exists in town centres as well.

I am in favour of a high quality, integrated public transport system with affordable fares like that enjoyed in many places across Europe. That does require substantial funding.

And is that likely to happen....?? Given that we aren't funding the NHS effectively, and that's partly down to real terms cuts in social care provision.

That dictates votes. Public transport doesn't and that is the reality.

 

[radamfi]

God forbid Radamfi would keep on topic rather than throwing up chaff of other countries, modal shift etc etc

The fact is that this is the usual ideological stuff that is usually trotted out. I remember Radamfi from about 4 years reckoning that based on Surrey (and extrapolating that nationwide), bus services would be increasingly subsidised (e.g. fewer commercial services) and that it would be a pre-cursor to his utopian Dutch vision of the centralised control of services by a public body. Of course, that has turned out to be rubbish as YoY spending cuts were clearly baked into local government central grant.

Here we have it again.... a unyielding, unwillingness to accept what is actually happening.

I am fully aware what is happening. Outside of a few hotspots, bus patronage continues at very low levels. I'm no longer as optimistic and I now predict that patronage will continue to fall from the current almost negligible levels. It doesn't matter to me as much now as I have given on on Britain, but I am still find myself, against my better judgement, embroiled in pointless discussions like this.

Getting back onto Utopian visions, the view from Radamfi is that operators will not be able to operate sustainably and can always exit the market.

I didn't quite say that. I said that if operators were unwilling to accept the funding levels offered, they are always welcome to de-register their services. Certainly it looks like funding levels are sufficiently high that the major operators haven't yet started mass de-registrations of commercial services, citing inadequate ENCTS funding as the reason.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I am fully aware what is happening. Outside of a few hotspots, bus patronage continues at very low levels. I'm no longer as optimistic and I now predict that patronage will continue to fall from the current almost negligible levels. It doesn't matter to me as much now as I have given on on Britain, but I am still find myself, against my better judgement, embroiled in pointless discussions like this.

I didn't quite say that. I said that if operators were unwilling to accept the funding levels offered, they are always welcome to de-register their services. Certainly it looks like funding levels are sufficiently high that the major operators haven't yet started mass de-registrations of commercial services, citing inadequate ENCTS funding as the reason.

Yes, you are still here, and in more ways than one.

Patronage is directly proportionate to the investment in the system, irrespective of what commercial environment. We saw that in London; we saw it in the late noughties as a better funded ENCTS scheme and cash for Rural Bus Challenge supported services. Cash is what counts.

If you're not aware of any, I am happy to provide you with plenty of examples of where operators have rowed back. In fact, my local town has seen First withdraw all but one service. Their replacements are

• Frome to Radstock - now tendered but lost its Saturday service
• Frome to Shepton Mallet - now tendered service and lost lost its Saturday service and a third of its M-F journeys
• Frome town service - taken on commercially but has seen it lose early/late services and lunchtimes. It retains its half hourly service (M-F) though reduced to 5 journeys on a Saturday

That's one town among many. Of course, this is Somerset where the cuts have been considerable and these services have only been retained because others have been chopped.

You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't happening.

 

[radamfi]

why should we? we should only compare like for like... comparing the cost of public transport to private is like comparing the cost of a chauffeur driven rolls royce to a mini metro... no comparison!

Whilst the car is king everywhere, there are a lot of urban areas in Europe where public transport and cycling are widely used alternatives to private car use.

so you are against ENCTS because you see it as subsidising the bus industry.... but yet you would like to see London style contracting of a utopian anywhere to anywhere network....have you SEEN how much subsidy the London Bus network receives each year? where's the money going to come from? greater efficiency in an industry already pared to the bone? lowering drivers wages to the minimum wage? making it a legal requirement that the average age of a bus should be no less than 40 years?

just a reality check... IIRC correctly a DD now costs upwards of £200k... if you have a route that needs 20 DD's to operate it then to keep the average fleet age to the government target of 5 yrs old you have to replace 2 vehicles a year... that's £400k you have to make in revenue before you even think about paying wages, fuel, tax, insurance, business rates contribution, employers NI contribution, employers workplace pension contribution, backroom staff wage contribution, engineering contribution....

let's put it this way, if, as you have asserted, the present system of provision and funding is a recipe for making money for old rope whilst providing rubbish services why are so many small to medium operators either going bust or just plain giving up and shutting up shop?

I have never said I am against subsidy. I am in favour of a well funded public transport network that leads to a decent number of people leaving their cars at home. I question whether ENCTS is the best way of providing that funding.

Compared to other world cities, the London transport system largely covers its costs with its fares. The operating costs of the Underground is, highly unusually by international standards, completely covered by fares. Therefore we only have the bus subsidy to account for, meaning that fares cover a large majority of the operating costs. It is more normal for fares to cover well under half of the operating costs of a city's transport network.

We only think of London having such a largess because the rest of the country is so poorly funded.

 

[radamfi]

If you're not aware of any, I am happy to provide you with plenty of examples of where operators have rowed back. In fact, my local town has seen First withdraw all but one service. Their replacements are

• Frome to Radstock - now tendered but lost its Saturday service
• Frome to Shepton Mallet - now tendered service and lost lost its Saturday service and a third of its M-F journeys
• Frome town service - taken on commercially but has seen it lose early/late services and lunchtimes. It retains its half hourly service (M-F) though reduced to 5 journeys on a Saturday

That's one town among many. Of course, this is Somerset where the cuts have been considerable and these services have only been retained because others have been chopped.

Are you sure that's down to poor ENCTS funding and not simply a general decline in patronage that has lead to several other places withdraw most rural and interurban commercial services in the recent past, like Surrey and West Sussex? Places like rural Somerset have been questionable bus territory for years and it was only a matter of time before commercial services largely ceased.

I was thinking more of mass withdrawals in major cities. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Compared to other world cities, the London transport system largely covers its costs with its fares.... Therefore we only have the bus subsidy to account for, meaning that fares cover a large majority of the operating costs. It is more normal for fares to cover well under half of the operating costs of a city's transport network.

largely covers it's operating costs? er... what is the current subsidy level? last I heard it was running at approx 1/2 billion + per year.... I'd hate to see your idea of heavily subsidised.... when are you moving to mars? seriously I can see pigs flying over my house right now!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Are you sure that's down to poor ENCTS funding and not simply a general decline in patronage that has lead to several other places withdraw most rural and interurban commercial services in the recent past, like Surrey and West Sussex? Places like rural Somerset have been questionable bus territory for years and it was only a matter of time before commercial services largely ceased.

I was thinking more of mass withdrawals in major cities. That hasn't happened yet.

it gets masked in larger towns and cities... whereas a service used to run every 10 mins and everyone got a seat... now it might run every 15 mins with everyone crammed in like sardines... until the fare payers give up on the new "improved" service.... the downward spiral is there if you look hard enough... maybe not everywhere yet... but it's coming... don't forget councils are forecasting a further 20% cut in their budgets in real terms over the next 5 years... and they are being pressurised into putting more money into social care... where's THAT money going to come from? non-statutory services of course.... subsidised bus services... ENCTS payments.... there have already been examples of councils pulling away from free school transport provision.

 

[radamfi]

largely covers it's operating costs? er... what is the current subsidy level? last I heard it was running at approx 1/2 billion + per year.... I'd hate to see your idea of heavily subsidised.... when are you moving to mars? seriously I can see pigs flying over my house right now!

It's true. Look at the TfL Annual Report.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2015-16.pdf

Taking just Underground and Surface Transport for simplicity:

Underground, income £2.7 billion
Surface transport, income £2.0 billion

Total income £4.7 billion

Undergound, expenditure £2.6 billion
Surface transport, expenditure £3.0 billion

Total expenditure £5.6 billion

The difference between income and expenditure is £0.9 billion, less than 20% of the total expenditure. In most major cities, you would expect that to be well over 50%

 

[RT4038]

The withdrawals are not solely due to poor ENCTS funding, this is just another burden for bus operators. Things will just get worse and worse (Buses bill, minimum wage increases), country areas losing services fast, then interurban routes and then the outskirts of the cities. Major cities will be the last to succumb, only this will not be allowed to happen and the financial framework will be altered to suit. However, this won't help the areas that already have lost service - a few shopping trips between school buses, and uber style taxis will be all that's left there.
One thing for certain - no or little public money involved

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It's true. Look at the TfL Annual Report.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2015-16.pdf

Taking just Underground and Surface Transport for simplicity:

Underground, income £2.7 billion
Surface transport, income £2.0 billion

Total income £4.7 billion

Undergound, expenditure £2.6 billion
Surface transport, expenditure £3.0 billion

Total expenditure £5.6 billion

The difference between income and expenditure is £0.9 billion, less than 20% of the total expenditure. In most major cities, you would expect that to be well over 50%

er look at the figures more carefully for surface transport...

INCOME £2 billion
OUTGOINGS £3 BILLION
PROFIT minus£1 BILLION

therefore surface transport last year received a 50% SUBSIDY

case closed!

 

[radamfi]

er look at the figures more carefully for surface transport...

INCOME £2 billion
OUTGOINGS £3 BILLION
PROFIT minus£1 BILLION

therefore surface transport last year received a 50% SUBSIDY

case closed!

I clearly stated that I am talking about the total transport system. You cannot exclude the Underground. You wouldn't exclude the primary metro system when calculating the subsidy level in any other world city!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Are you sure that's down to poor ENCTS funding and not simply a general decline in patronage that has lead to several other places withdraw most rural and interurban commercial services in the recent past, like Surrey and West Sussex? Places like rural Somerset have been questionable bus territory for years and it was only a matter of time before commercial services largely ceased.

I was thinking more of mass withdrawals in major cities. That hasn't happened yet.

I can point you to many other examples over the years. For example, let's walk away from places like Somerset. Look at County Durham - Arriva has largely withdrawn from major tracts of territory, reduced to only the main corridors. Some services have been taken on commercially by other operators, some replaced with tenders, many have disappeared completely.

Sorry if the evidence isn't convenient but as another poster has stated, the major cities are the last places where this issue will bite. Elsewhere, it is all too apparent (even if you care to think otherwise).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I clearly stated that I am talking about the total transport system. You cannot exclude the Underground. You wouldn't exclude the primary metro system when calculating the subsidy level in any other world city!

Yes I can... we are talking about BUS subsidy.. therefore what income/ outgoings come from Underground services has as much relevence as light rail/ heavy rail in other large cities...

Your contention is that a well funded bus service run on London lines is affordable because we ONLY subsidise London bus services by 20% but we DON'T the true figure is 50%

lets do some extrapolation using a few assumptions... lets assume that it would cost no more or less to provide the same comprehensive service across the UK (though in reality in the less populous areas the costs would be far higher)

I'll do some rounding up.... London has 10 million residents lets say... at a subsidy of £1 billion/ yr that equates to a subsidy of £100/person...with a national population of approx 70 million that equates to £7 billion nationwide....

if we can't afford to fund the NHS properly, social care properly, or even the current free travel schemes.... can you give us some idea where this extra money will come from?

of course the REAL cost of a nationwide scheme would be much higher as, outside the main towns and cities it would be virtually impossible to provide the same kind of coverage as in London...

or are you saying that maybe everyone should pay extra tax but if you live in a less populous area you get less provision for your money?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

After a fare rise they would put up posters giving old and new fares. The highest fares would be higher than a day ticket. That was a few years ago now so I can't give specific details. I'm sure locals will still remember this and may be able to quote the exact numbers.

is the day ticket in question valid for that journey ...

n some cases the headline 'day ticket' is 'city + suburbs' or ' city and surrounding villages ' and the highest single fare is a maximum journey within the operators area ...

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And I only thought it would be the BAFTAs where La La Land would be a major player

We aren't going to get major public transport funding when we can't even fund the social care to protect our most vulnerable in society

 

[radamfi]

I can point you to many other examples over the years. For example, let's walk away from places like Somerset. Look at County Durham - Arriva has largely withdrawn from major tracts of territory, reduced to only the main corridors. Some services have been taken on commercially by other operators, some replaced with tenders, many have disappeared completely.

Sorry if the evidence isn't convenient but as another poster has stated, the major cities are the last places where this issue will bite. Elsewhere, it is all too apparent (even if you care to think otherwise).

I have never denied that commercial retrenchment hasn't happened. It has been happening for years. Indeed, I quoted Surrey and West Sussex just now. My question was whether it was down to ENCTS funding reduction. Maybe these de-registrations would have happened anyway for the same reasons why Surrey was largely de-registered so many years ago now, which may include poor services and expensive fares.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I have never denied that commercial retrenchment hasn't happened. It has been happening for years. Indeed, I quoted Surrey and West Sussex just now. My question was whether it was down to ENCTS funding reduction. Maybe these de-registrations would have happened anyway for the same reasons why Surrey was largely de-registered so many years ago now, which may include poor services and expensive fares.

funny though how these large retrenchments take place after funding cuts isn't it?

 

[radamfi]

Yes I can... we are talking about BUS subsidy.. therefore what income/ outgoings come from Underground services has as much relevence as light rail/ heavy rail in other large cities...

Your contention is that a well funded bus service run on London lines is affordable because we ONLY subsidise London bus services by 20% but we DON'T the true figure is 50%

lets do some extrapolation using a few assumptions... lets assume that it would cost no more or less to provide the same comprehensive service across the UK (though in reality in the less populous areas the costs would be far higher)

I'll do some rounding up.... London has 10 million residents lets say... at a subsidy of £1 billion/ yr that equates to a subsidy of £100/person...with a national population of approx 70 million that equates to £7 billion nationwide....

if we can't afford to fund the NHS properly, social care properly, or even the current free travel schemes.... can you give us some idea where this extra money will come from?

of course the REAL cost of a nationwide scheme would be much higher as, outside the main towns and cities it would be virtually impossible to provide the same kind of coverage as in London...

or are you saying that maybe everyone should pay extra tax but if you live in a less populous area you get less provision for your money?

I *clearly stated* I was talking about the *TRANSPORT* network.

I WAS NEVER TALKING ABOUT BUSES ON THEIR OWN!!!

So STOP LYING!

You have to allow for the Tube because if London had no Tube services then most people who currently use the Tube would have to use buses. That might mean that buses wouldn't need as much subsidy as they do now.

Transport does of course have competition for public funding. That doesn't alter the fact that proper funding is required for a good integrated public transport network. If funding isn't forthcoming, then we won't have a good public transport system. I don't think I've argued otherwise.

 

[radamfi]

is the day ticket in question valid for that journey ...

n some cases the headline 'day ticket' is 'city + suburbs' or ' city and surrounding villages ' and the highest single fare is a maximum journey within the operators area ...

First Manchester's day ticket was and is valid on all their regular services including ones that cross the Greater Manchester boundary. My initial thought that there might be some excluded routes from the day ticket but that wasn't the case.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I *clearly stated* I was talking about the *TRANSPORT* network.

I WAS NEVER TALKING ABOUT BUSES ON THEIR OWN!!!

So STOP LYING!

You have to allow for the Tube because if London had no Tube services then most people who currently use the Tube would have to use buses. That might mean that buses wouldn't need as much subsidy as they do now.

Transport does of course have competition for public funding. That doesn't alter the fact that proper funding is required for a good integrated public transport network. If funding isn't forthcoming, then we won't have a good public transport system. I don't think I've argued otherwise.

where am I lying? this thread is about the ENCTS and it's effects on the bus service provision (specifically fares)... as part of that discussion you contested we need a London style bus system... I pointed out the cost of said system (I quoted 1/2 billion) you tried to claim that London was cheaper than it is because it ONLY received a 20% subsidy... I then pointed out that when you take out the tube and only look at the figures for buses you get a subsidy level of 50%... your contention is that you can't seperate tube from bus... MY contention is yes you can because you don't include the figures for heavy/ light rail when talking about other cities/ conurbations...

Just because I have a contrary opinion to yours does NOT make me a liar...

and tbh if you have to lower yourself to such a childish accusation without any foundation then all I can say is you obviously realise you have lost the argument...

I will NOT be responding to any further posts from you on this thread as I am here for mature debate of the issues involved and NOT a childish slanging match with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[radamfi]

where am I lying? this thread is about the ENCTS and it's effects on the bus service provision (specifically fares)... as part of that discussion you contested we need a London style bus system... I pointed out the cost of said system (I quoted 1/2 billion) you tried to claim that London was cheaper than it is because it ONLY received a 20% subsidy... I then pointed out that when you take out the tube and only look at the figures for buses you get a subsidy level of 50%... your contention is that you can't seperate tube from bus... MY contention is yes you can because you don't include the figures for heavy/ light rail when talking about other cities/ conurbations...

Just because I have a contrary opinion to yours does NOT make me a liar...

and tbh if you have to lower yourself to such a childish accusation without any foundation then all I can say is you obviously realise you have lost the argument...

I will NOT be responding to any further posts from you on this thread as I am here for mature debate of the issues involved and NOT a childish slanging match with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

You kept insisting that I was talking about London bus subsidy when I was clearly talking about transport subsidy as a whole. Despite me reminding of you of that in your first reply you continued to accuse me of talking about buses by themselves. I don't like my words being twisted like that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I have never denied that commercial retrenchment hasn't happened. It has been happening for years. Indeed, I quoted Surrey and West Sussex just now. My question was whether it was down to ENCTS funding reduction. Maybe these de-registrations would have happened anyway for the same reasons why Surrey was largely de-registered so many years ago now, which may include poor services and expensive fares.

Good lord, man.... You ask for examples, you get them. Then you say, not those examples, others. You get them. Now it's a case of that may have happened anyway.... :roll:

Look at the annual bus statistics (provincial) and you'll see clearly the drop after deregulation (the massive upheaval, lack of investment) and then a gradual levelling off albeit with a decline as the market matures and the impact of dereg unwinds.

Then in the mid 2000s, ENCTS and RBC comes along - hey presto, patronage goes up. Turn the money off from 2009, patronage goes down. It is patently obvious

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You kept insisting that I was talking about London bus subsidy when I was clearly talking about transport subsidy as a whole. Despite me reminding of you of that in your first reply you continued to accuse me of talking about buses by themselves. I don't like my words being twisted like that.

for Crying out loud talk about selective reading NOWHERE have I accused you of talking about bus subsidy only..I will state this ONE LAST TIME... I raised the question of how much subsidy London's BUS network received... you quoted figures that included the tube... and YOU stated that meant London's transport network received a 20% subsidy...

I then pointed out that the subsidy for the bus (which is the question I asked) is actually 50% and I also pointed out that you can't include tube contribution for London figures because it isn't done for other parts of the country...

I really can't help it if you can't handle facts that contradict your opinion but there's nothing I can do about that...

the facts are the facts

we are talking about bus subsidies on this thread... and the FACT is that London's BUSES receive a 50% subsidy

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bus fares across the world are often artificially low through subsidy payments. We could fund that but FFS, we are barely able to fund the health service!

The last time I checked, the cost of the ENCTS was about £7bn £1.2bn a year. There's the money.

The problem is that, purely as a political bribe to Tue demographic which votes, it is spent paying for people who can afford a bus fare to travel on a service that can survive commercially.

Basically, the whole ENCTS is backside over booby. We're paying for people with money to travel for free on buses that would run anyway. Which means there isn't money left to pay for people who can't afford to travel on buses that can't survive commercially.

All this on the day it's announced that pensioners now, on average, have a higher income and standard of living than working age people.

Just imagine what we could do with £7bn £1.2bn if we weren't chucking it up the wall on ENCTS

 

[PeterC]

What effect is the phased increase in qualifying age having on the cost of ENCTS?

 

[overthewater]

Just imagine what we could do with £7bn if we weren't chucking it up the wall on ENCTS

I highly doubt £7bn is correct.

 

[daikilo]

I highly doubt £7bn is correct.

According to greenerjourneys.com it was about 1.3B in 2012 ...