Should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel?

[AM9]

In Ireland you have to pay EUR50 to see your GP ...

For those that didn't know, that's about £50, - maybe more soon!

 

[Robertj21a]

Indeed, but they had a choice and decided not to. Tourists are definitely an issue, but that still doesn't alter the fact that many routes wouldn't exist without the subsidy.

It may just be me, or terminology, but when you say 'subsidy' do you mean the reimbursement to operators for those ENCTS passes accepted ? - if so, it's not a subsidy at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

that still doesn't alter the fact that many routes wouldn't exist without the subsidy.

I think you're missing my point. The ENCTS is a reimbursement for the fares that concessionary bus pass holders would have paid had the scheme not existed. It is based on how many people would have (hypothetically) still chosen to travel if they'd had to pay, with a small uplift for generated journeys.

ENCTS reimbursement does not pay operators for running services that would otherwise be a commercial failure. If the twirlies wouldn't have caught it without their free bus pass, there shouldn't be much reimbursement paid.

IME the summer Whitby buses used to be full of older people on £5 North East Explorer tickets (although smaller buses were used), and now the bigger buses are full of people on free passes. The Explorer is now a tenner. That's what happens; there's no such thing as a free lunch.

I think paying for people to have "free" bus travel when they have sufficient income to pay for it themselves is a spectacular waste of money. The idea of extending it to nationwide train travel is, quite frankly, laughable.

 

[PeterC]

So the arguement seems to be that because there are some quite lengthy "local" services to Whitby that attract ENCTS users from Teesside and W Yorkshire then the entire scheme is flawed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

think the entire scheme is flawed because it is uncosted and unaffordable, paying people to have something that they're perfectly capable of paying for themselves.

The results of this are clear to see. Evening buses disappearing, Sunday buses disappearing, brilliant frequencies on corridor routes 8am-6pm and then hardly anything afterwards, and nothing away from the corridor routes.

Maybe some of this would happen anyway, with the changes to evening leisure activities and work patterns. But I think ENCTS has killed off a lot of marginal routes, especially in rural areas, because the money is instead being spent on giving people a free ride on a bus that they would have happily paid for and until a few years ago did happily pay for.

As for the rest, the reason why single fares on buses are now so high is because of the ENCTS reimbursement system. The fares need to be high to keep the bus companies' revenues up.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If huge numbers of passholders are not paying for their bus travel, the burden falls on those of us who DO have to pay for our travel. The taxpayer picks up some of the burden- money that would be better spent elsewhere- and what they can't pick up farepayers have to pay for.

I think the tourist trap routes are just a symptom of a wider problem. I've been saying this ever since ENCTS came in and I'm yet to see anything that has changed my mind. It's an unaffordable election bribe that should never have seen the light of day.

 

[HH]

I think you're missing my point. The ENCTS is a reimbursement for the fares that concessionary bus pass holders would have paid had the scheme not existed. It is based on how many people would have (hypothetically) still chosen to travel if they'd had to pay, with a small uplift for generated journeys.

TCAs are required by law to reimburse bus operators for carrying concessionary passengers, on the principle that the operators are "no better off and no worse off" by taking part in concessionary travel schemes. The aim is not to subsidise bus operators, but to pay for any increased costs that they have incurred.

You're right, but it still walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Also the principle is clear that Operators are not supposed to be worse off, so it's hard to see how blame can be attached to the scheme for the loss of Evening or Sunday buses - if they disappear it's because no-one wants to use them. Nor are the Operators supposed to be better off; they will have to justify increased fares.

As for whether it provides value I couldn't say, but I found this paper by the experts. They seem to think that it's good value.

 

[brompton rail]

That's how the bus pass began, but as with it, there would inevitably be pressure from people living just outside an 'area' boundary for cross-boundary travel. In West and South Yorkshire concessionary fares have had to be cut back - to free up capacity for fare-paying passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Who would count as disabled ? If people on ESA, that's 2.5 million people !

South Yorkshire reduced their concessioniary travel to the statutory minimum (I.e. Buses after 09.30) in order to meet a shortfall in funding from HM Government, and NOT because trains were full! However the PTE did continue the addition concession of free travel on Sheffield Supertram.

Following protests rail concessions were re-introduced for some 'disabled' residents, but not pensioners. Apart from getting arrested the pensioner protesters from Barnsley and Sheffield achieved little change. No court action was later taken.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

South Yorkshire reduced their concessioniary travel to the statutory minimum (I.e. Buses after 09.30) in order to meet a shortfall in funding from HM Government, and NOT because trains were full! However the PTE did continue the addition concession of free travel on Sheffield Supertram.

Following protests rail concessions were re-introduced for some 'disabled' residents, but not pensioners. Apart from getting arrested the pensioner protesters from Barnsley and Sheffield achieved little change. No court action was later taken.

If I was their MP, the scheme would have been scrapped completely in the SYPTE area due to the lack of avaliable funds. Then the angry foaming at the mouth pensioners would be having an even bigger tantrum over the fact that they can't get anywhere at all for nowt. They'd still vote me in though.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

think the entire scheme is flawed because it is uncosted and unaffordable, paying people to have something that they're perfectly capable of paying for themselves.

The results of this are clear to see. Evening buses disappearing, Sunday buses disappearing, brilliant frequencies on corridor routes 8am-6pm and then hardly anything afterwards, and nothing away from the corridor routes.

becasue the councils are hamstrung by ENCTS and in particulat the twirlies into spending what money that had on public transport on paying operators for ENCTS journies rather than beign able to support the evening./ sunday / none corridor services ...

 

[HH]

becasue the councils are hamstrung by ENCTS and in particulat the twirlies into spending what money that had on public transport on paying operators for ENCTS journies rather than beign able to support the evening./ sunday / none corridor services ...

The councils don't spend any money because they get it from central government. The scheme is deemed a success because it has encouraged bus use, which we should not forget has been constantly declining outside London.

Should central government instead be supporting Evening/Sunday buses that nobody uses? You'll have to enlighten me why.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Should central government instead be supporting Evening/Sunday buses that nobody uses? You'll have to enlighten me why.

social and societal need ?

but i suppose in your champagne socialist islington lifestyle cab / uber fars are just a drop in the ocean ... not like people migh tneed to get to or from work at 10 pm is it ... or maybe young people should be confined to their villages to maraude antisocially because they can' t get a bus to go to the cinema/ theatre / bowling ...

or perhaps you should encourage people to risk that pint becasue the cab fare is 20 + quid

 

[Robertj21a]

The councils don't spend any money because they get it from central government. The scheme is deemed a success because it has encouraged bus use, which we should not forget has been constantly declining outside London.
.

I think you will find that they do *not* now get it from central government. They used to, but it was then changed to make it a local council responsibility - with only reduced funding from the government (possibly part of a more general block funding arrangement - not sure).

 

[Busaholic]

Can anyone provide any examples of councils whose reimbursements to bus companies for pass use have increased from, say, 2014/5 to 2015/6? I expect there are a very few, but they will not be representative. The percentage of the full fare reimbursed has, on average, more than halved since introduction of the scheme, and there are of course overall fewer services anyway, particularly on Saturdays and in the evenings. It is a scheme which, unusually, costs less and less to run every year and the motivation of many who oppose the scheme I am afraid to say has an unsavoury tinge to it imo.

 

[6Gman]

I think you will find that they do *not* now get it from central government. They used to, but it was then changed to make it a local council responsibility - with only reduced funding from the government (possibly part of a more general block funding arrangement - not sure).

I believe you are correct.

 

[gareth950]

think the entire scheme is flawed because it is uncosted and unaffordable, paying people to have something that they're perfectly capable of paying for themselves.

....... the money is instead being spent on giving people a free ride on a bus that they would have happily paid for and until a few years ago did happily pay for.

It's an unaffordable election bribe that should never have seen the light of day.

Along with free TV licenses (which the BBC no longer get the funding for!) and winter fuel payments.

The railways have got it just right - nobody gets free travel, but certain groups can get discounted travel through the railcard schemes. Although Senior railcards should be subject to the same minimum fare restrictions before 10am as young persons railcards are.
Aren't free bus passes aimed at the wrong age group? If anyone should get free bus travel it should be young people, who are often struggling with low wages from being excluded from the full national minimum wage, benefit cuts and exclusions (eg. housing benefit), high rents, the high costs of studying and insecure employment. Giving free bus travel to young people might also delay them taking up driving and encourage more sustainable travel habits.

I distinctly remember my Nan taking me and my brother out on the bus as children in the 90s and she would always ask for "one and 2 halves". She didn't have much money but could always manage to pay for herself and us on the bus. Today's over 60s shouldn't be any different.

 

[HH]

Apocryphal stories about grannies? Is that what it's come down to? :roll:

Those who really need the bus pass are unlikely to be readers of this forum. Those who don't will generally not make much use of it. I fail to see why it's such a big problem; it simply looks like the politics of envy. Personally I'd rather be 18 and not have the bloody pass!

 

[fowler9]

Apocryphal stories about grannies? Is that what it's come down to? :roll:

Those who really need the bus pass are unlikely to be readers of this forum. Those who don't will generally not make much use of it. I fail to see why it's such a big problem; it simply looks like the politics of envy. Personally I'd rather be 18 and not have the bloody pass!

I'm with you. Some people don't want to spend a penny on anything that isn't being spent on them though.

 

[miami]

It's an unaffordable election bribe that should never have seen the light of day.

Most policies aimed at the grey vote are unaffordable election bribes. They grey ones are the wealthiest in society (often but not entirely thanks to house prices rising, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/556637/WealthStatisticsCommentary.pdf), pay the least amount of tax, yet things like free transport, free tv licenses, and ever-rising pensions (often on top of final salary pensions that are just legend for today's workforce) are all paid for from taxes of the young, whose incomes go on rent, not on wealth building, won't get to retire at 60, and probably not even 70, have been saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of student debt (no, university isn't free), and have just been dragged out of the EU by a generation who won't have to live with it.

These bribes should be funded from a massive wealth/inheritance tax aimed at the retired, alas it's the working population and the future generations that suffer.

 

[Robertj21a]

Most policies aimed at the grey vote are unaffordable election bribes. They grey ones are the wealthiest in society (often but not entirely thanks to house prices rising, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/556637/WealthStatisticsCommentary.pdf), pay the least amount of tax, yet things like free transport, free tv licenses, and ever-rising pensions (often on top of final salary pensions that are just legend for today's workforce) are all paid for from taxes of the young, whose incomes go on rent, not on wealth building, won't get to retire at 60, and probably not even 70, have been saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of student debt (no, university isn't free), and have just been dragged out of the EU by a generation who won't have to live with it.

These bribes should be funded from a massive wealth/inheritance tax aimed at the retired, alas it's the working population and the future generations that suffer.

Good to see that, under your name, you call yourself 'Grumpy'......

 

[AM9]

... They grey ones are the wealthiest in society (often but not entirely thanks to house prices rising, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/556637/WealthStatisticsCommentary.pdf), pay the least amount of tax, yet things like free transport, free tv licenses, and ever-rising pensions (often on top of final salary pensions that are just legend for today's workforce) are all paid for from taxes of the young, whose incomes go on rent, not on wealth building, won't get to retire at 60, and probably not even 70, have been saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of student debt (no, university isn't free), and have just been dragged out of the EU by a generation who won't have to live with it.

Wow! That sentence of 113 words plus a 15 word URL just looks like a rant. But to comment on what looks like the nub of the text, 'grey ones' are taxed on the same basis as everybody else, as in income. Their life expectancy is statistically shorter so their life living on pensions and other savings is probably similar to that of the next two generations despite their later retirement dates. The notion of income deductions today paying for currently retired citizens is nothing new and has been the case since I was in my '20s at least, so no difference there. The only thing that has been neglected was to gradually increase the retirement age in line with life expectancy, but that is being fixed with a not inconsiderable burden being placed on the current 'fifty somethings'.
As far a univerity fees go, nobody has to go there. Current indications are that there just aren't enough jobs around that need degree qualifications, so spending 5+ years of early adulthood in non-earning roles doesn't do much for the country. Further education is not a substitute for employment.

These bribes should be funded from a massive wealth/inheritance tax aimed at the retired, alas it's the working population and the future generations that suffer.

Despite all the complaining about the poor overburdened youth, they still haven't learnt a basic rule of a democracy, governments try to appeal to their voters. By definition, unless this country is very rich, there can't be a majority of rich people, so obviously those who are making the most noise about their perceived parlous state, still don't see the importance of voting.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some people don't want to spend a penny on anything that isn't being spent on them though.

Nonsense. It's not about the "politics of envy", although yes, it does grate that I'm paying through the nose for a perk that quite simply will not exist when I get to retire (significantly later than current retirees, too, I should add).

It's about blowing a fortune on something that most people can afford to pay for, and the consequences of that for other services. Swimming pools and libraries are closing down, evening and Sunday bus services are gone, council advice services are gone.

ENCTS is not separately funded, but it is a statutory obligation, which means that councils don't get enough money to pay for it but they have no choice BUT to pay for it. That has implications for anything that the council does in addition to its statutory obligations: so you can kiss goodbye to your street cleaners and your libraries.

The ENCTS scheme cost £1.2bn last year. For comparison, that is four times the amount saved from the welfare budget by the Bedroom Tax. There are 12 million eligible pass holders, but only about 11% of these eligible pass holders are defined as being on a low income without access to a car. So nearly 90% of these eligible passholders don't need the pass at all, and are perfectly capable of paying for their own public transport.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-travel-statistics-year-ending-march-2015.pdf

The whole thing is a waste of money, handing out an unaffordable expensive freebie to people who don't need it and can do without it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Despite all the complaining about the poor overburdened youth, they still haven't learnt a basic rule of a democracy, governments try to appeal to their voters. By definition, unless this country is very rich, there can't be a majority of rich people, so obviously those who are making the most noise about their perceived parlous state, still don't see the importance of voting.

There are more people aged over 65 than there are aged between 20 and 35. About a third of adults in the UK are aged over 65. This is only going to increase in the next ten years.

Quite simply, younger people get outvoted.

 

[AM9]

... There are more people aged over 65 than there are aged between 20 and 35. About a third of adults in the UK are aged over 65. This is only going to increase in the next ten years.

Quite simply, younger people get outvoted.

There are more people without passes than just those between 20 and 35. However, in that group, a large number of them make the imbalance worse by refusing (or not bothering) to vote. Even a spoilt ballot paper says something. A no-show just says "I don't care", so how do you expect politicians to react to that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... The ENCTS scheme cost £1.2bn last year. For comparison, that is four times the amount saved from the welfare budget by the Bedroom Tax. There are 12 million eligible pass holders, but only about 11% of these eligible pass holders are defined as being on a low income without access to a car. So nearly 90% of these eligible passholders don't need the pass at all, and are perfectly capable of paying for their own public transport.

That's the problem, those arguing against bus passes only see the cost and forget the value. £100 per person per year to improve mobility of the elderly is good value. It reduces potential benefit claims, improves health prospects, (including mental health issues like dementia), reduces road accidents, reduces traffic and pollution, etc..

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Most policies aimed at the grey vote are unaffordable election bribes. They grey ones are the wealthiest in society (often but not entirely thanks to house prices rising, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/556637/WealthStatisticsCommentary.pdf), pay the least amount of tax, yet things like free transport, free tv licenses, and ever-rising pensions (often on top of final salary pensions that are just legend for today's workforce) are all paid for from taxes of the young, whose incomes go on rent, not on wealth building, won't get to retire at 60, and probably not even 70, have been saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of student debt (no, university isn't free), and have just been dragged out of the EU by a generation who won't have to live with it.

These bribes should be funded from a massive wealth/inheritance tax aimed at the retired, alas it's the working population and the future generations that suffer.

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.

Anyway, there'll be a bit more cash once we fully leave the EU as some of the cash can be used to properly fund the National Pass scheme.

 

[AlterEgo]

Anyway, there'll be a bit more cash once we fully leave the EU as some of the cash can be used to properly fund the National Pass scheme.

You should be on stage!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

You should be on stage!

So should the pro EU lot, their "scare stories" are a joke in itself.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So should the pro EU lot, their "scare stories" are a joke in itself.

So the news is all lies to you, then? What money?

 

[GatwickDepress]

As much as I would love to have free train travel for kids, OAPs, disabled passengers, organ donors etc; I don't honestly think that free train travel would sit well with the general public, especially when a lot of off-peak services are close to capacity. The current railcards seem to do well enough, especially when it comes to senior railcards and first class tickets.

Anyway, there'll be a bit more cash once we fully leave the EU as some of the cash can be used to properly fund the National Pass scheme.

How about 350 million a week to spend on the NHS instead?

 

[HH]

How about 350 million a week to spend on the NHS instead?

We'll need that, and more, to cope with all the extra illnesses if the OAPS sit at home all day after taking away their bus passes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's the problem, those arguing against bus passes only see the cost and forget the value. £100 per person per year to improve mobility of the elderly is good value. It reduces potential benefit claims, improves health prospects, (including mental health issues like dementia), reduces road accidents, reduces traffic and pollution, etc..

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.

 

[HH]

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).

This is clearly nonsense. Either they don't use the bus, in which case it costs nothing, or they do, in which case traffic is reduced.