Half of bus routes could be scrapped because of underfunded free pass scheme

[InspectorBloke]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-could-scrapped-underfunded-free-pass-scheme/

Nearly half of bus routes in England could be scrapped due to a lack of funding, councils have claimed.

Analysis for the Local Government Association (LGA) found that the free bus pass scheme was underfunded by an estimated £652 million in 2017/18.

Councils say they are being forced to fill the gap between this government funding and what the scheme costs.

Free bus passes for off-peak travel are a legal entitlement for people aged over 65, or those with a disability.

But budgetary constraints mean councils are spending less on discretionary items such as free peak travel, post-school transport and supported rural services.

Nearly half of all bus routes in England receive partial or complete subsidies from councils.

The LGA warned that these services are at risk as local authorities will struggle to maintain current levels of support unless they are given more funding.

It wants the Government to reinstate the full funding of the costs of the national concessionary travel scheme.

LGA transport spokesman Martin Tett said: "An estimated funding gap of £652 million a year for concessionary travel is unsustainable for councils already struggling to protect other subsidised bus travel in rural areas, or helping young people with their travel costs.

"Properly funding the national free bus pass scheme is essential if the Government wants councils to be able to maintain our essential bus services, reduce congestion and protect vital routes.

"If this is not addressed in the Spending Review it could lead to older people having a free bus pass but no bus to travel on."

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder whether local government needs its own 'Barnett Formula', giving central Government a legal requirement to provide a certain proportion of funding to local Government for the various services it has responsibility for.

It's interesting that the article is worded in such a way as to blame the free bus pass scheme, rather than the underfunding of bus services per se. One gets the impression that the pensioners are helping to keep many of these routes going.

 

[SC43090]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-could-scrapped-underfunded-free-pass-scheme/

This story is also on the front page of the Daily Mirror....... Typical of the Telegraph to use a picture of a London bus rather than one from outside of London, London buses are run differntly to rest of the country....

SC 43090

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder whether local government needs its own 'Barnett Formula', giving central Government a legal requirement to provide a certain proportion of funding to local Government for the various services it has responsibility for.

It's interesting that the article is worded in such a way as to blame the free bus pass scheme, rather than the underfunding of bus services per se. One gets the impression that the pensioners are helping to keep many of these routes going.

That would work - or just remove capping.

 

[yorksrob]

That would work - or just remove capping.

You could remove capping. But as taxpayers, most of our tax goes to central government first, which decides how much it is going to throw our way for local services. I think there should be more legal responsibility placed on central Government to ensure that that funding is adequate.

 

[Typhoon]

Typical of the Telegraph to use a picture of a London bus rather than one from outside of London, London buses are run differntly to rest of the country....

Clearly not widely known to the press if this version is anything to go by (from HuffPost) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/half-of-all-english-bus-routes-at-risk-of-being-scrapped-councils-say/ar-BBTmcGX?ocid=spartanntp
Pictures of one London bus stop, one London bus passing a London bus stop, one London double decker, one London single decker, and one Stagecoach hybrid in Manchester.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And don`t forget Crossrail. London gets more transport investment than all the rest of the country put together.

Taking Crossrail out (it is a huge project, it is also urgently needed) the difference isn't so huge.

London Buses also have the same issue with the Freedom Pass and ENCTS.

This is nothing I've not been saying for all of the ten years ENCTS has existed, only to be shouted down. It's amazing how quickly an unaffordable election bribe turns into a sacred cow.

 

[overthewater]

Its not unaffordable, it's just the tories are trying to operate on the cheap, and its badly organised.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Its not unaffordable, it's just the tories are trying to operate on the cheap, and its badly organised.

It's costing £1.3bn and the LGA reckon it is underfunded by £0.7bn, and that's based on their low reimbursement rates. You can probably double or even treble that underfunding when you consider the burden passed on to bus companies, who then pass some of that burden on to those of us who pay for our bus travel.

So the true cost of ENCTS is what, £2.5bn a year? £3bn a year? That's more than we spend on benefits for unemployed people, and all so Derek and Mavis can leave the Jag at home?

Mind, we all know Generation Brexit would still vote to keep their free bus pass rather than give a decent benefit to people who are out of work. Which is where the problem lies. The bus pass has become a sacred cow. It'll take a courageous politician (meant in the Sir Humphrey way!) to bin this ludicrous scheme. So much easier to vilify unemployed people even though they cost less than a jolly to the seaside for Mabel.

 

[yorksrob]

It's costing £1.3bn and the LGA reckon it is underfunded by £0.7bn, and that's based on their low reimbursement rates. You can probably double or even treble that underfunding when you consider the burden passed on to bus companies, who then pass some of that burden on to those of us who pay for our bus travel.

So the true cost of ENCTS is what, £2.5bn a year? £3bn a year? That's more than we spend on benefits for unemployed people, and all so Derek and Mavis can leave the Jag at home?

Mind, we all know Generation Brexit would still vote to keep their free bus pass rather than give a decent benefit to people who are out of work. Which is where the problem lies. The bus pass has become a sacred cow. It'll take a courageous politician (meant in the Sir Humphrey way!) to bin this ludicrous scheme. So much easier to vilify unemployed people even though they cost less than a jolly to the seaside for Mabel.

I disagree that it is a ludicrous scheme. It helps to keep elderly people active and out and about. It also encourages some to give up driving when the time is probably right.

The key thing though, is to imagine what would happen if the scheme didn't exist.

Would the buses suddenly be filled with paying pensioners, leading to a self sustained and passenger funded network ?

Alas I doubt it. Inadequate though it is, the scheme is a subsidy to bus services, and were it to be removed, I strongly suspect there would be a lot fewer bus services !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly not widely known to the press if this version is anything to go by (from HuffPost) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/half-of-all-english-bus-routes-at-risk-of-being-scrapped-councils-say/ar-BBTmcGX?ocid=spartanntp
Pictures of one London bus stop, one London bus passing a London bus stop, one London double decker, one London single decker, and one Stagecoach hybrid in Manchester.

HuffPost is a nasty, Americanised, poorly-informed (electronic) rag. I wouldn't take anything they "print" as read and I don't understand why anyone in the UK reads them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the true cost of ENCTS is what, £2.5bn a year? £3bn a year? That's more than we spend on benefits for unemployed people, and all so Derek and Mavis can leave the Jag at home?

But Derek and Mavis then (a) don't cause congestion, (b) don't cause pollution, and (c) don't cause danger to other road users as with age their reactions etc become poorer.

It's a bit of a microcosm of what we'd have if we made all buses free for everyone, and in that regard it is quite beneficial. Personally, I'd rather charge Derek and Mavis more tax and keep it.

I agree it doesn't work as it is, but I'd rather change the system so it does work than bin it.

Regarding the bus companies themselves it is underfunded in that regard, but the passengers paying full single fare (which is the figure that they base it on) is just unrealistic. A realistic sum would be calculating the cost of an annual season ticket (or 12 monthlies, if one is not offered) for each user in their local areas. Use in other areas is effectively by "give or take" and so isn't so relevant other than in key tourist areas where a tourist tax and *everyone* getting free local travel (a la Switzerland) would work best.

 

[overthewater]

I also like how we have to bring brexit back into this for no good reason. BREXIT HAS NOTHING To do with this. I also dont see why we need to have either scheme of help the unemployed why not both?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also like how we have to bring brexit back into this for no good reason. BREXIT HAS NOTHING To do with this. I also dont see why we need to have either scheme of help the unemployed why not both? I cant point to lots of schemes that wasting money like HS2 for starters...

HS2 has nothing to do with it either. The problem is that tax increases are needed, but there is a "double whammy" preventing them - not only will the Tory Government nationally not rise taxes to properly fund things like this, but with capping, which I personally believe should be unconstitutional because it damages the application of local democracy, the Councils can't rise them either and are being forced to do things like farm street maintenance down to Parish Councils (who aren't capped) in order to be able to do so, which is the opposite of economies of scale.

The whole thing is a mess, and the main cause of it is not ENCTS, but is capping of Council Taxes, which is an affront to democracy, particularly that the general theme in politics is to vote right wing nationally (because national tax funded items don't directly affect as many people), but further left locally - but the latter are prevented from properly applying their policies because they can't set Council Tax to a level where they can be applied. There really does need to be a legal base that prevents any national meddling in local democracy at all.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's costing £1.3bn and the LGA reckon it is underfunded by £0.7bn, and that's based on their low reimbursement rates. You can probably double or even treble that underfunding when you consider the burden passed on to bus companies, who then pass some of that burden on to those of us who pay for our bus travel.

So the true cost of ENCTS is what, £2.5bn a year? £3bn a year? That's more than we spend on benefits for unemployed people, and all so Derek and Mavis can leave the Jag at home?

Mind, we all know Generation Brexit would still vote to keep their free bus pass rather than give a decent benefit to people who are out of work. Which is where the problem lies. The bus pass has become a sacred cow. It'll take a courageous politician (meant in the Sir Humphrey way!) to bin this ludicrous scheme. So much easier to vilify unemployed people even though they cost less than a jolly to the seaside for Mabel.

What figures are you using for benefits for unemployed people ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would the buses suddenly be filled with paying pensioners, leading to a self sustained and passenger funded network ?

The reimbursement rate is based on how many pensioners would have paid to travel, not how many pensioners did travel.

So yes, the buses would still have enough custom to support the core network.

And with ENCTS gone, there'd be money to support marginal services, like in the old days before ENCTS.

Alas I doubt it. Inadequate though it is, the scheme is a subsidy to bus services,

The trouble is, it isn't. The money goes on the busy trunk routes that are profitable and would operate anyway, because those are the routes that most people use. It's the marginal routes that struggle: falling reimbursement rates mean they're no longer commercially viable but there's no money left for direct subsidy.

The whole thing is a mess, and the main cause of it is not ENCTS, but is capping of Council Taxes

Council Tax is extortionate enough as it is, without passing more burden on to poor people. My local council now charges unemployed people 20% council tax and then wonders why destitution is a problem. Some councils make unemployed and poor people pay 30%+ council tax. Unless it becomes a local income tax, council tax should be capped.

Don't even get me started on the routine abuse experienced from bailiffs collecting council tax.

The main cause is the local government grants dropping. That's a central government decision.

Personally, I'd rather charge Derek and Mavis more tax and keep it.

If they did I'd be less against ENCTS.

But charging Generation Brexit (sorry @overthewater, I'm using it as shorthand for the self-centred selfish baby boomers not a Brexit discussion!) more tax is about as likely as taking a buss pass off them.

I also dont see why we need to have either scheme of help the unemployed why not both?

We could have both, I do agree. But we're in a situation where Universal Credit is leaving people destitute to save a tiny proportion of the money spent on letting the wealthy OAPs have a jolly day out in Whitby.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What figures are you using for benefits for unemployed people ?

ONS stats for 2016/17, the last figures I can find off a quick Google.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...rticles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16

£2.2bn was spent on benefits for unemployed people. This won't have changed much: unemployment benefit rates haven't risen since then.

 

[overthewater]

I do not believe if ENCTS was gone the money would magicaly all go to council bus routes, and lets be fair here some of them have been highly questionable for years. Look at North Yorkshire who were paying like £40 per passengers that is madness.

The reason Universal Credit is leaving people destitute is because of George osbourne and his demand to whack off another £12bn, Not even Iain duncan smith agreed with that and left. Its good to see you can see Weatlhy OAP, I dont see many. if any.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Its good to see you can see Weatlhy OAP, I dont see many. if any.

Guarantee pension credit (the minimum income for retired people) is pretty much double the amount working age people get. And that's for the poorest people. And before things like the winter fuel allowance and freebies like ENCTS (up here on Metro, unemployed people get charged full fares yet OAPs pay £12 a year and Nexus wonder why fare evasion is so high).

Occupational pensions are much higher than they will be for my generation.

So it's all relative. You certainly don't see OAPs in penury. We spend as much on the winter fuel allowance as we do on benefits for unemployed people!

I do share your cynicism. I'd make a chsnge to make bus subsidy a statutory function at the same time as scrapping ENCTS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Council Tax is extortionate enough as it is, without passing more burden on to poor people.

No, it's not. Council Tax cannot be "extortionate" unless it was exceeding covering the cost of the public services required or the services were provided profligately.

My local council now charges unemployed people 20% council tax and then wonders why destitution is a problem. Some councils make unemployed and poor people pay 30%+ council tax.

And the reason why this happens is because they have to get funding for the public services that they are required to provide. If there wasn't capping, they could charge working people more and thus would not have to do this.

Unless it becomes a local income tax, council tax should be capped.

I do agree with the idea of a local income tax (despite the fact that it would whack me hard - I would under most models see a rough doubling of what I pay). However, any attempt to influence local democracy on a national level is nothing short of antidemocratic meddling. The public elect their local Government and that local Government should be totally free and unimpinged to deliver their democratic mandate - which includes setting Council Tax at a level necessary to do so.

Don't even get me started on the routine abuse experienced from bailiffs collecting council tax.

If you pay your Council Tax on time you will not have bailiffs collecting it (I'm assuming you mean Court bailiffs and not debt collectors here, i.e. post-CCJ?). If of course it was a local income tax you wouldn't be able to not pay it (this is another reason in favour of that).

The main cause is the local government grants dropping. That's a central government decision.

It is, but it's dropping them and not allowing Councils to replace them that is the real problem.

We could have both, I do agree. But we're in a situation where Universal Credit is leaving people destitute to save a tiny proportion of the money spent on letting the wealthy OAPs have a jolly day out in Whitby.

Well, quite.

 

[yorksrob]

The reimbursement rate is based on how many pensioners would have paid to travel, not how many pensioners did travel.

So yes, the buses would still have enough custom to support the core network.

And with ENCTS gone, there'd be money to support marginal services, like in the old days before ENCTS.



The trouble is, it isn't. The money goes on the busy trunk routes that are profitable and would operate anyway, because those are the routes that most people use. It's the marginal routes that struggle: falling reimbursement rates mean they're no longer commercially viable but there's no money left for direct subsidy.



Council Tax is extortionate enough as it is, without passing more burden on to poor people. My local council now charges unemployed people 20% council tax and then wonders why destitution is a problem. Some councils make unemployed and poor people pay 30%+ council tax. Unless it becomes a local income tax, council tax should be capped.

The main cause is the local government grants dropping. That's a central government decision.



If they did I'd be less against ENCTS.

But charging Generation Brexit (sorry @overthewater, I'm using it as shorthand for the self-centred selfish baby boomers not a Brexit discussion!) more tax is about as likely as taking a buss pass off them.



We could have both, I do agree. But we're in a situation where Universal Credit is leaving people destitute to save a tiny proportion of the money spent on letting the wealthy OAPs have a jolly day out in Whitby.

In answer to your first point, that sounds like an error in the design of the scheme, rather than the scheme itself. Surely it should reimburse bus operators for the numbers that actually travel !

Also, given that pensioners have had free bus passes for several decades, including when the network was much wider, I cannot agree that the concept of a free bus pass for elderly citizens is in itself, damaging to the bus industry.

The real villain is either:

Lack of overall funding for local authorities, leading to lack of subsidy, or;

The inability of the de-regulated system to adequately cross-subsidise quieter routes.

Thirdly, I can't agree that the system overly subsidises already busy routes. At the very least, pensioners are equally spread over the whole country, infact, I rather suspect that they are more concentrated in quieter areas, rather than the trendy urban centres where buses thrive, so I expect the scheme disproportionately benefits lightly used routes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you pay your Council Tax on time you will not have bailiffs collecting it (I'm assuming you mean Court bailiffs and not debt collectors here, i.e. post-CCJ?).

I mean private bailiffs hired by the council.

And yes, it is true, IF you can pay it. Many people I work with cannot pay. Letting the LA add £100 "court costs" (actual cost: about three quid) and cowboy bailiffs add £310 fees really helps...not.

No, it's not. Council Tax cannot be "extortionate" unless it was exceeding covering the cost of the public services required or the services were provided profligately.

Most council income is from central government. Council tax is just one revenue stream, alongside business rates, etc
If we want council tax to cover the whole cost of local government then fine, but I'd be expecting the appropriate cut to my income tax.

We're well off topic now though!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also, given that pensioners have had free bus passes for several decades, including when the network was much wider,

ENCTS started on 1 April 2008. It is only ten years old. Between April 2006 and April 2008 there was free travel, but only in the immediate areathe passholder lived in. Before 2006 there was no free travel for pensioners. Pensioners with a bus pass got concessionary fares; up here and also in West Yorkshire the fare was 30p per journey or about £1 for a day ticket, in other areas the discount varied. Outside the local area commercial reduced fares were charged.

As I said, its amazing how quickly an electoral bribe changed into a sacred cow. People think the "free bus pass" has always been with us. It hasn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yes, it is true, IF you can pay it. Many people I work with cannot pay.

Cannot pay (i.e. income minus the cost of rent, heating/hot water, basic food and basic clothing does not leave over enough to pay it), or choose not to pay as something else is of higher priority?

Anyone who has Sky Television, who wears lots of branded sportswear and similar, who has an Apple smartphone, or who smokes cigarettes regularly, can afford to pay by giving up those things. There are quite a lot of people who have one or all of those things who regularly default on other required payments. Not everyone, I accept, but quite a lot.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Cannot pay, or choose not to pay as something else is of higher priority?

Benefit income for a single unemployed person is £73.10 per week. Additional help will also be given towards housing costs but, in many cases, will not cover the full rent: the bedroom tax for social tenants can reduce this help by up to 25%.For private tenants the help is paid based on the local housing allowance (LHA), which is the lower of either the most recent LHA or the 30th centile of market rents (i.e. the cheapest rent paid by 30%). This means if rents go up, the LHA doesn't.

Gas and electric is at least a tenner a week each if you're on pre-payment meters, the council want £3 a week council tax, you need to pay £10-£15 a week towards your rent (social rents here are £75-£100 a week). So that's half your money gone already.

The people I work with don't generally have Sky, they don't pass the credit checks. But don't forget you do need internet and a mobile phone to meet your obligations under Universal Credit, and if you don't meet those all your benefits stop. And the "plasma TV" (having a TV is not a luxury and it's not like CRT TVs exist anymore) is on HP from BrightHouse at 199% APR.

I know fine well I couldn't eat, clothe myself and travel about on £35 a week. Not when a week's Metro pass is £20!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the "plasma TV" (having a TV is not a luxury and it's not like CRT TVs exist anymore) is on HP from BrightHouse at 199% APR

Having a large screen TV certainly is a luxury when old CRTs with Freeview boxes are basically free. But having any TV is certainly not a priority over paying the taxation due of you. A fancy smartphone is not necessary; the very cheapest Android phone (potentially even used) can be used with a PAYG SIM, and there is plenty of free Wifi about to get it connected without any cost.

I'm not saying it would be a nice life (and TBH I don't support charging any tax to people on benefits as it's a rather silly money-go-round to give with one hand and take with the other; it's one reason why I despise VAT), but dues come first.

 

[yorksrob]

ENCTS started on 1 April 2008. It is only ten years old. Between April 2006 and April 2008 there was free travel, but only in the immediate areathe passholder lived in. Before 2006 there was no free travel for pensioners. Pensioners with a bus pass got concessionary fares; up here and also in West Yorkshire the fare was 30p per journey or about £1 for a day ticket, in other areas the discount varied. Outside the local area commercial reduced fares were charged.

As I said, its amazing how quickly an electoral bribe changed into a sacred cow. People think the "free bus pass" has always been with us. It hasn't.

I'm sure the phrase 'free bus pass' has been in use for pensioners a lot longer than 2008. Perhaps Kent was more generous (I understand the schemes used to be county, rather than Nationwide in those days).

Anyhow, you haven't challenged any of my other points !

 

[ag51ruk]

Most council income is from central government. Council tax is just one revenue stream, alongside business rates, etc
If we want council tax to cover the whole cost of local government then fine, but I'd be expecting the appropriate cut to my income tax.

This is no longer true - government funding to councils has been reducing significantly every year since "austerity" became a thing. In Cheshire East, for example, in the current year council tax makes up £206m of total revenue of £268m, over 75%. Central government funding is only £18m, and business rates £43m.

That is why so many councils are struggling, they can't increase council tax to make up anywhere near the shortfall

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure the phrase 'free bus pass' has been in use for pensioners a lot longer than 2008. Perhaps Kent was more generous (I understand the schemes used to be county, rather than Nationwide in those days).

Before 2006 it certainly wasn't free anywhere that I've lived. The PTEs up here all charged a flat fare. But that doesn't mean it wasn't free somewhere.

The inability of the de-regulated system to adequately cross-subsidise quieter routes.

Thirdly, I can't agree that the system overly subsidises already busy routes. At the very least, pensioners are equally spread over the whole country, infact, I rather suspect that they are more concentrated in quieter areas, rather than the trendy urban centres where buses thrive, so I expect the scheme disproportionately benefits lightly used routes.

There's less cross-subsidy than before, definitely, but using profits to mop up losses elsewhere rather than invest in the business is why the NBC was so bad by the end.

As for busy routes, the scheme reimburses based on how many OAPs would have travelled. It was designed this way.

More OAPs would, and did, travel on the busiest routes (this is fairly obvious, busy routes are busy for a reason), so the money is directed towards those. Fewer would use the little town buses or minibuses round the estates, so less money goes there.

The busy routes already survive commercially with fare payers, so the money doesn't need to go there. But it has to otherwise it wouldn't be fair on those operators who are carrying a lot of OAPs and always have.

The town buses and estate buses were mostly used by OAPs, not commercial fare-payers. As the reimbursement rate drops, they change from marginal service to massive loss-makers. So they get withdrawn as there's no subsidy to keep them going. They don't benefit from ENCTS, it's exactly the opposite.

The scheme is a mess alright!

 

[tbtc]

I don't know about the rest of the UK, but in South Yorkshire the Pensioner fare used to be the same as a child fare - which was about 30p in 2008 - but has risen to 80p (i.e the child fare has gone up in line with roughly the cost of a third of a typical adult fare).

I'd be interested to see what revenues 80p per pensioner would bring in in 2019.

I disagree that it is a ludicrous scheme. It helps to keep elderly people active and out and about

It's an incredibly expensive way of keeping elderly people active (and also you've got to wonder how active they are when sat on a bus).

It also encourages some to give up driving when the time is probably right

I'd be a lot more in favour of the "carrot" of free bus tickets if it came with the "stick" of regular driving tests when people reach age sixty - given the damage that just one crash can cause. There were some scary sounding figures doing the rounds after the Prince Phillip smash last month re how many elderly people refuse to give up their cars.

(that said, I'm all for regular re-tests of all motorists - the requirements have changed a lot since people sat tests in the 1970s/1980s/1990s - people have forgotten a lot since they were seventeen - people have picked up a lot of bad habits over the decades - but I appreciate that this is a whole other discussion!

Would the buses suddenly be filled with paying pensioners, leading to a self sustained and passenger funded network ?

Part of the problem is that, now people have had over a decade of free travel, it'll be very hard to get them to accept paying *anything* - pensioners under seventy five might not have had any experience of paying for a OAP bus ticket - once people are used to freebies, the value that they put on the product is devalued.

For example, I read the Metro on a bus.train, it's an okay newspaper - I benefit from reading it - but if the bus/train company started charging a token amount (say half of the cost of a regular tabloid, maybe thirty pence?) then I'd resent that because I've never paid for a Metro and therefore don't place much "value" on the newspaper (despite all of the copies that I've read).

Same goes for car parking - now that people are used to parking for free at Retail Parks/ Out Of Town Malls, the idea of paying a whopping fifty pence to park in a city centre is enough to bring people out in a rash - once you give people something for nothing it becomes very hard to get them to pay money for it.

I think that, unfortunately, we've created a situation that will be very difficult to get out of - pensioners expect their freebies - pensioners are so used to the freebies that they don't consider a journey to be worth a quid - pensioners won't pay a quid - but bus companies get paid so little in reimbursement that even a bus full of pensioners isn't that lucrative for them - I don't think there's an easy answer (without seriously annoying a very vocal demographic who vote in large numbers and have high expectations of the kind of things they expect for nowt).