Britain's bus coverage hits 28-year low

[Busaholic]

I can't really disagree with you there, unfortunately



The money is going on bus routes that would run, and run profitably, anyway. What I'm saying is that that is a waste of scarce resources.



I wouldn't want to see means testing. I don't think there was anything wrong with the old system of heavily reduced fares. 50p or even £1 a journey is more than operators will often get but should still be affordable for even the poorest pensioners (who have a guaranteed minimum income of £159/week).

That said, it already is "means tested" for disabled people, you only get it in certain conditions. The same could apply for OAPs, only getting one if you're eligible for guarantee pension credit (which is the benefit you get as a top up if your pensions don't give you £159/week income). The means assessment has already been done, all the LA need to do is see a benefit letter.

IF, and it's a big if, a reduced fare of 50p or even £1 would stay at that for at least two or three years, then I might concede on that, but two factors mitigating against it in an increasing number of places are abolition of cash fares and, in London especially, the shortening of routes, so two or three times 50p or £1 might be necessary for a one way trip to, e.g., a hospital. Plus, of course, the hugely additional time spent at stops where lots of passholders get on which would have a deleterious impact in urban areas especially.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What makes you think that bus services would run anyway, if bus companies did not receive compensation for conveyance of ENCTS passholders?

As I have said above, ENCTS does not pay the operator an amount per passenger carried. It pays an amount based on how many people would (hypothetically) have travelled and paid a fare had the scheme not existed.

The whole payment is based in the knowledge that lots of OAPs wouldn't travel if they had to pay. This is why the scheme is so damaging to marginal routes in rural areas.

It's a very common misconception that ENCTS pays per passenger. It's a misconception the government doesn't try very hard to correct, either.

 

[Tetchytyke]

in London especially, the shortening of routes, so two or three times 50p or £1 might be necessary for a one way trip

London now has the hopper fare, which applies to multiple-bus journeys making later ones free, so the technology is there to have the same on an ITSO smartcard.

I'd have a nationwide version of the child concessionary scheme we have here. 60p single or £2 for a day ticket. It's not going to bankrupt poor people and the operator will very probably get more money from that than they do from ENCTS reimbursement rates.

 

[RT4038]

As I have said above, ENCTS does not pay the operator an amount per passenger carried. It pays an amount based on how many people would (hypothetically) have travelled and paid a fare had the scheme not existed.

The whole payment is based in the knowledge that lots of OAPs wouldn't travel if they had to pay. This is why the scheme is so damaging to marginal routes in rural areas.

It's a very common misconception that ENCTS pays per passenger. It's a misconception the government doesn't try very hard to correct, either.

But that is not quite correct. ENCTS does effectively pay for each passenger travelled. (If an operator carries no ENCTS passengers, it will receive no ENCTS money). However this amount is discounted to take into account the number of extra passengers that have travelled because the free scheme is in existence (aka 'Generation Factor'). The principle behind this is that operators should be no better or worse off than if the scheme did not exist. For example - If the average fare is normally £4 and it has been assumed* that (say) 4 times as many would travel if they did not have to pay, then £1 is paid for each ENCTS passholder who actually travelled. If extra services have to be provided to carry these additional passengers then this additional cost can be claimed for separately. * This assumption (and the additional costs) are a source of conflict and much unhappiness between operators and authorities, as you can imagine.

Your statement about 'buses that would run, and run profiitably, anyway' is misleading; implying that there is enough revenue from non ENCTS farepayers. Most bus companies would certainly dispute this!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your statement about 'buses that would run, and run profiitably, anyway' is misleading; implying that there is enough revenue from non ENCTS farepayers

The urban example I gave- Stagecoach Busways- has 22% margin. They'll be fine with 'normal' customers.

The issue is the marginal services, especially housing estates and rural services. ENCTS users make a big chunk of the passenger base, but the reimbursement rate is too low to operate profitably. But the ENCTS money means there's none left to pay for subsidy.

My view is many of these marginal routes would be more likely to survive if ENCTS disappeared and passengers had to pay. Arriva had a similar thought in Whitby. Transdev gave serious thought to removing themselves from the scheme by registering Coastliner buses as express/excursion. It's a failing scheme.

 

[yorksrob]

The urban example I gave- Stagecoach Busways- has 22% margin. They'll be fine with 'normal' customers.

The issue is the marginal services, especially housing estates and rural services. ENCTS users make a big chunk of the passenger base, but the reimbursement rate is too low to operate profitably. But the ENCTS money means there's none left to pay for subsidy.

My view is many of these marginal routes would be more likely to survive if ENCTS disappeared and passengers had to pay. Arriva had a similar thought in Whitby. Transdev gave serious thought to removing themselves from the scheme by registering Coastliner buses as express/excursion. It's a failing scheme.

But would there be subsidy in place of the ENCTS ?

Or is the ENCTS the subsidy and without it we'll be left with sod-all.

 

[Dentonian]

.

My view is many of these marginal routes would be more likely to survive if ENCTS disappeared and passengers had to pay. Arriva had a similar thought in Whitby. Transdev gave serious thought to removing themselves from the scheme by registering Coastliner buses as express/excursion. It's a failing scheme.

Maybe there is something in this. Just as it is questionable to include Rail in what was set up as a local *bus* scheme, then the same applies to Limited Stop services, like Coastliner. The principle is surely that less well Pensioners get free transport to/from their GP*, Local Supermarket and ideally nearest town centre, not to go riding from Leeds to Scarborough or New Mills to Manchester etc.

*Even that doesn't often work as many GP appointments are before free travel is allowed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Or is the ENCTS the subsidy and without it we'll be left with sod-all.

That's the worry, that councils STILL won't spend on socially necessary bus services. It'd worry me.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the worry, that councils STILL won't spend on socially necessary bus services. It'd worry me.

I fear that's the likelihood to be honest.

 

[Typhoon]

I fear that's the likelihood to be honest.

Too true. Some councils have dropped all or most subsidised services (leaving, maybe, just school time services). They are gone. They won't be resuscitated.

The pressure is on to spend more on social services, care, education, pot holes, etc and services that national government has decided would be best delivered locally (so they don't have to pay for them). Bus services feature nowhere*.

* - OK, so councillors and MPs will make a bit of a fuss, mostly only if elections are looming.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I see the debate has descended into blaming ENCTS for all the ills of the industry in 5 minutes flat... IF that is the case can someone explain how that explains large falls in mileage in Wales and Scotland where the ENCTS does NOT operate?

 

[yorksrob]

Too true. Some councils have dropped all or most subsidised services (leaving, maybe, just school time services). They are gone. They won't be resuscitated.

The pressure is on to spend more on social services, care, education, pot holes, etc and services that national government has decided would be best delivered locally (so they don't have to pay for them). Bus services feature nowhere*.

* - OK, so councillors and MPs will make a bit of a fuss, mostly only if elections are looming.

Yes that's true. Councils have seen swingeing cuts in funding, whilst having to support some of the most vital public services.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the worry, that councils STILL won't spend on socially necessary bus services. It'd worry me.

Yes. At least ENCTS makes bus services politically unpalatable to get rid of !

 

[ivanhoe]

I see the debate has descended into blaming ENCTS for all the ills of the industry in 5 minutes flat... IF that is the case can someone explain how that explains large falls in mileage in Wales and Scotland where the ENCTS does NOT operate?

Once people have made up their minds that ENCTS is the problem behind the ills of the industry, then I fear it is difficult to persuade them otherwise. The Coalition Government transferred the funding of ENCTS from the DFT to The Formulaic Grant given to Local Authorities and which is administered through the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The same Government then sought to decimate the Grant that such LA’s received meaning that by 2014, the compensation to Bus Companies was going to be an issue in many areas although some do manage things better than others. Successive Governments have stated that they want to keep ENCTS. The issue is NOT ENCTS but the reluctance of Governments to fund it properly. Government has devolved the problem to LA’s in austere Times.
There are of course many other issues which have proved problematic to Bus Companies. Some of them are self inflicted by the Companies themselves. However, standing in the Dock, are Government , whose DFT has no Bus Policy and expects LA’s to pick up the tab and the blame for all of the ills that prevail in the Bus Industry.Shameful!

 

[RT4038]

Yes. At least ENCTS makes bus services politically unpalatable to get rid of !

You might think that, but I suspect (outside of the large cities) they will degenerate into off-peak services operated in between school contract buses, on Mondays to Fridays only.

 

[Typhoon]

Yes. At least ENCTS makes bus services politically unpalatable to get rid of !

True. It would be more difficult to justify getting rid of a bus service that is half full even though 90% of the passengers are using an ENCTS card. The local media would have a field day:- photos/ videos of pensioners (those using walking sticks to the fore, wheelchair user if possible) bemoaning the potential loss of their service; maps indicating how these pensioners are supposed to access medical care (with pictures of roads without pavements); MPs and council leaders asked to justify such heartless action. Explanations of how ENCTS works (or doesn't work) will be faded out with 'I'm sorry, we've run out of time' as the presenter stifles a yawn.

 

[Typhoon]

The issue is NOT ENCTS but the reluctance of Governments to fund it properly. Government has devolved the problem to LA’s in austere Times.
There are of course many other issues which have proved problematic to Bus Companies. Some of them are self inflicted by the Companies themselves. However, standing in the Dock, are Government , whose DFT has no Bus Policy and expects LA’s to pick up the tab and the blame for all of the ills that prevail in the Bus Industry. Shameful!

I think I spot a nail squarely being hit upon its head!

 

[yorksrob]

True. It would be more difficult to justify getting rid of a bus service that is half full even though 90% of the passengers are using an ENCTS card. The local media would have a field day:- photos/ videos of pensioners (those using walking sticks to the fore, wheelchair user if possible) bemoaning the potential loss of their service; maps indicating how these pensioners are supposed to access medical care (with pictures of roads without pavements); MPs and council leaders asked to justify such heartless action. Explanations of how ENCTS works (or doesn't work) will be faded out with 'I'm sorry, we've run out of time' as the presenter stifles a yawn.

Exactly. Bums on seats justify the service, GMT needs to guarantee funding.

 

[RT4038]

Once people have made up their minds that ENCTS is the problem behind the ills of the industry, then I fear it is difficult to persuade them otherwise. The Coalition Government transferred the funding of ENCTS from the DFT to The Formulaic Grant given to Local Authorities and which is administered through the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The same Government then sought to decimate the Grant that such LA’s received meaning that by 2014, the compensation to Bus Companies was going to be an issue in many areas although some do manage things better than others. Successive Governments have stated that they want to keep ENCTS. The issue is NOT ENCTS but the reluctance of Governments to fund it properly. Government has devolved the problem to LA’s in austere Times.
There are of course many other issues which have proved problematic to Bus Companies. Some of them are self inflicted by the Companies themselves. However, standing in the Dock, are Government , whose DFT has no Bus Policy and expects LA’s to pick up the tab and the blame for all of the ills that prevail in the Bus Industry.Shameful!

It would be wrong to put all the blame at the door of ENCTS. Sure it hasn't helped, and no doubt has contributed to the deteriorating finances of running bus services. However there are many other government inspired changes, none of which in themselves are singly to blame, which have contributed. The straw that breaks the camel's back and all that. Here are a few:
1. Disabled access vehicles - more expensive to buy and more expensive to run per passenger seat/place.
2. Reduced emissions vehicles - more expensive to buy, and always more expensive to run.
3. Tougher Traffic Commissioner requirements on punctuality, service changes - more cost for compliance.
4. Drivers CPC - more cost of drivers wages in training/recruitment, and upward pressure on wages due to fewer drivers available.
5. Increasing costs of Insurance, as compensation culture becomes more widespread.
6. Reduced or eliminated subsidies for socially necessary services - overheads spread over smaller operation so this in turn becomes unprofitable.
7. Working time directive - increased costs of compliance.
8. Fuel duty rebate changed to Bus Service operators grant and reduced - more cost to be absorbed by the company and ultimately the passenger ( but not ENCTS holders as the Govt. have fixed their prices )

Costs cannot keep increasing and bus companies not take action (which is what is happening).

 

[RT4038]

True. It would be more difficult to justify getting rid of a bus service that is half full even though 90% of the passengers are using an ENCTS card. The local media would have a field day:- photos/ videos of pensioners (those using walking sticks to the fore, wheelchair user if possible) bemoaning the potential loss of their service; maps indicating how these pensioners are supposed to access medical care (with pictures of roads without pavements); MPs and council leaders asked to justify such heartless action. Explanations of how ENCTS works (or doesn't work) will be faded out with 'I'm sorry, we've run out of time' as the presenter stifles a yawn.

But it wouldn't happen quite like that..... Sure some services would be 'got rid of', but most will just reduce and reduce and reduce until hardly any pensioners are using it, and then 'got rid of' as an expensive anachronism. The pensioners would have got so used to hiring an 'Uber' because the reduced bus service didn't quite serve their need that they wouldn't complain either.

 

[overthewater]

I was told very wisly another BIG COST coming down the line again thanks to that awful George bloke...The Living wage, thus everyone that works for the bus companies including contracts have to get this so this is another price hit for the companies.

 

[Typhoon]

But it wouldn't happen quite like that..... Sure some services would be 'got rid of', but most will just reduce and reduce and reduce until hardly any pensioners are using it, and then 'got rid of' as an expensive anachronism. The pensioners would have got so used to hiring an 'Uber' because the reduced bus service didn't quite serve their need that they wouldn't complain either.

A lot depends on the area where the service operates. In rural areas, there might only be 2, 3 or 4 journeys a day - some only on certain days a week. Very little opportunity to reduce and reduce and reduce without making it perfectly obvious that you want to cut the route and in doing so you have a bus and a driver doing nothing before the school run.

Not all pensioners can easily afford an 'Uber' (other hire firms whose methods are more OAP friendly are available). The basic state pension is £122.30 for most; a pensioner could easily be paying £25-£30 on a private hire return journey.

 

[RT4038]

A lot depends on the area where the service operates. In rural areas, there might only be 2, 3 or 4 journeys a day - some only on certain days a week. Very little opportunity to reduce and reduce and reduce without making it perfectly obvious that you want to cut the route and in doing so you have a bus and a driver doing nothing before the school run.

Not all pensioners can easily afford an 'Uber' (other hire firms whose methods are more OAP friendly are available). The basic state pension is £122.30 for most; a pensioner could easily be paying £25-£30 on a private hire return journey.

A lot will depend on the area - but rural bus services have been reducing and reducing already - some areas have no formal bus service already. Those areas will just get bigger and bigger, then smaller towns will be affected, and so on. More and more pensioners have access to a car anyway, and lift clubs/voluntary sector will also play their part.
But all this is OK, because the informal transport sector does not have to comply with the same rules as the regulated sector......
4 journeys per day can be cut to 3, then 2, then only 4 days per week, then 3. Get a bit of complaint every time it is done, but soon forgotten.

 

[Dentonian]

It would be wrong to put all the blame at the door of ENCTS. Sure it hasn't helped, and no doubt has contributed to the deteriorating finances of running bus services. However there are many other government inspired changes, none of which in themselves are singly to blame, which have contributed. The straw that breaks the camel's back and all that. Here are a few:
1. Disabled access vehicles - more expensive to buy and more expensive to run per passenger seat/place.
2. Reduced emissions vehicles - more expensive to buy, and always more expensive to run.
3. Tougher Traffic Commissioner requirements on punctuality, service changes - more cost for compliance.
4. Drivers CPC - more cost of drivers wages in training/recruitment, and upward pressure on wages due to fewer drivers available.
5. Increasing costs of Insurance, as compensation culture becomes more widespread.
6. Reduced or eliminated subsidies for socially necessary services - overheads spread over smaller operation so this in turn becomes unprofitable.
7. Working time directive - increased costs of compliance.
8. Fuel duty rebate changed to Bus Service operators grant and reduced - more cost to be absorbed by the company and ultimately the passenger ( but not ENCTS holders as the Govt. have fixed their prices )

Costs cannot keep increasing and bus companies not take action (which is what is happening).

Obviously, these are ALL passed on to the fare paying passenger, but the first two are cons, and he last is just taking the p**s.
1. There is no point in spending billions(?) of mostly Adult passengers' money on Easy access buses, if Wardens deliberately refuse through either their own prejudice of their bosses' instruction to ticket vehicles blocking bus stops.
2. Similarly, massive strides have been made in reducing emissions with Euro6s apparently producing just 3-4% of NoX and PM10s that their 1960s predecessors did - AND as this thread illustrates, they are covering less miles anyway. Yet, the BBC (amongst others) have declared war on buses, claiming that before de-reg they were responsible for 10% of transport based pollution, but are now responsible for 16%. They then try and con the gullible public into thinking an infra-red video of a 60reg Enviro400 shows pollution, when any O-level Science student knows it just shows heat. And why BBC NW are using film of a London bus to demonstrate how dirty Stagecoach Hybrids are on Oxford Road, I haven't the faintest........ Oh! maybe I have.
8. It is NOT a grant ion any way shape or form. It is a rebate.

If I give you £1 today, and say you can invest it any way you want, provided you give me 63p back on 6th April 2019; I am subsidising YOU, not the other way round.

 

[RT4038]

Obviously, these are ALL passed on to the fare paying passenger, but the first two are cons, and he last is just taking the p**s.
1. There is no point in spending billions(?) of mostly Adult passengers' money on Easy access buses, if Wardens deliberately refuse through either their own prejudice of their bosses' instruction to ticket vehicles blocking bus stops.
2. Similarly, massive strides have been made in reducing emissions with Euro6s apparently producing just 3-4% of NoX and PM10s that their 1960s predecessors did - AND as this thread illustrates, they are covering less miles anyway. Yet, the BBC (amongst others) have declared war on buses, claiming that before de-reg they were responsible for 10% of transport based pollution, but are now responsible for 16%. They then try and con the gullible public into thinking an infra-red video of a 60reg Enviro400 shows pollution, when any O-level Science student knows it just shows heat. And why BBC NW are using film of a London bus to demonstrate how dirty Stagecoach Hybrids are on Oxford Road, I haven't the faintest........ Oh! maybe I have.
8. It is NOT a grant ion any way shape or form. It is a rebate.

If I give you £1 today, and say you can invest it any way you want, provided you give me 63p back on 6th April 2019; I am subsidising YOU, not the other way round.

What do you mean by the first two being cons? Are you saying that they are not additional costs to bus operators?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I was told very wisly another BIG COST coming down the line again thanks to that awful George bloke...The Living wage, thus everyone that works for the bus companies including contracts have to get this so this is another price hit for the companies.

oh how dare those nasty bus drivers expect to be paid a wage that they are able to live on without state aid? what for? just for taking the lives of up to 90 people in their hands and taking full responsibility for negotiating their way through all the idiots that they have to share the road space with?
Seriously, I don't see it as being THAT much of a burden... it just means that the bosses will have to take a smaller slice of the cake... after all I'm sure that Mr Souter can afford a pay cut from his millions... and as for shareholders.... why do they get first dibs on profits when all they do all day is sit on their arses gambling and {hopefully} watching their money grow... when the people who actually make the profits are living on poverty wages?

 

[carlberry]

I was told very wisly another BIG COST coming down the line again thanks to that awful George bloke...The Living wage, thus everyone that works for the bus companies including contracts have to get this so this is another price hit for the companies.

Yes, it's awful having to pay these people enough to live on, what are food banks for?

 

[overthewater]

tut tut tut... First off If I can kick that George bloke I will, Secondly most bus drivers are already paid above this rate.... thirdly a UK wide living wage is madness and pointless, It useless in London while in the highlands of scotland your be a rich man.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

tut tut tut... First off If I can kick that George bloke I will, Secondly most bus drivers are already paid above this rate.... thirdly a UK wide living wage is madness and pointless, It useless in London while in the highlands of scotland your be a rich man.

REALLY??? the rates locally in wales: First pay £8.43/hr Stagecoach £8-9/hr NAT £8.20-£8.50 IIRC the current living wage is £8.75 and is due to rise over the next few years to £10/hr. Considering that you can earn roughly the same for stacking shelves in the local supermarket I believe us bus drivers are grossly underpaid for a highly skilled and responsible job. As I have stated in other threads, us bus drivers are constantly being reminded by our supervisory staff that we are professionals... therefore we should be paid a professional wage... after all would you trust a doctor that is being paid barely above minimum wage? or would you employ a lawyer that only charges the same for his time? I doubt it very much... you would have serious questions about their ability.

The fact is that after deregulation and privatisation costs were stripped out of the industry and the easiest way of doing this was to "forget" to give an annual pay rise and now bus drivers wages are approximately 50% lower in real terms than they were 30 years ago.. I wonder if YOU would be prepared to do the job for the money offered?

Strange how there is never any money for a wage increase for the bus drivers in the big groups, but the same big groups pay their directors large salaries, pay a dividend to shareholders, and whenever held to ransom by their train drivers, offer the train drivers inflation busting pay increases {think southern where there was a strike over "safety" which was ended by offering the drivers a 28% pay increase- strange how as soon as the carrot of huge pay increases was dangled the safety fears melted away}

NO sorry... but bus drivers deserve to be paid much much more than the living wage, and any attempt to justify poverty wages is doomed to fail...

after all you know what they say... if you pay peanuts you get oo-oo--oh oo AH oo AH... sorry just having to learn chimpanzee for my next job interview.

As to the assertion that someone on the living wage in the highlands will be a rich man... that shows a great deal of ignorance of the issues of rural living...

 

[overthewater]

That is wales, I dont live there.. That like comparing apples to pears. The rates are much higher up here in central belt of Scotland, than what your saying. It was sweeping statement to highlight the pointlessness of single rate across the uk, I do believe it may need to be higher doon south or higher in pockets around Manchester, It' the same reason why council tax isn't the same all over. I can tell you people stacking shelves in the local supermarket get no where near what your saying, I know people in Tesco that £7.50 if there lucky.

SO taking the point, you now have the knowledge that I had while making said statement IE The driver are already ABOVE that pay right..... I was pointing out This living wage is coming down the road which will add cost additional contractor whatever there may be,