RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > Other Rail & Transport > Other Public Transport > Buses & Coaches


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10th February 2017, 16:19   #16
Harpers Tate
Member
 
Join Date: 10 May 2013
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlberry View Post
The operators do not receive a subsidy, the ENCTS holder is the person receiving the subsidy.....
The ENCTS holder receives nothing. They are transported for "free" and the carrier is given a subsidy to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the101 View Post
Yet again, we are treated to something straight out of the 'opinion presented as fact' bin as is so common on here.
As Carl points out, you don't even realise that concessionary reimbursement is not a subsidy.
Opinion presented as fact. I represent information given to me by someone who I believe and who is in a position to know. I am not prepared to offer details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc View Post
this is wrong. initial calculations take in to account single, return, day, multiple journey and season tickets all weighted at different levels according to their percieved use..
this is wrong.
In fact, there are several models that can be used for this calculation. Yours is one; mine is another.

Last edited by Harpers Tate; 10th February 2017 at 16:30.
Harpers Tate is offline   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 10th February 2017, 16:23   #17
jcollins
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 22,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Sidorczuk View Post
The so-called ENCTS "free travel" which you make mention of does not cover any of the journeys on Mondays to Fridays prior to the 0930 peak-period time when the holders of these passes are liable to pay the full adult fare.
In Cheshire East holders of such passes pay 50% of the adult fare, while in Greater Manchester it's full fare.
__________________
This signature has been cancelled due to a keyboard fault.
jcollins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 16:29   #18
jcollins
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 22,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philthetube View Post
yes,but single fares seem to be increasing in price way above inflation, wages, fuel and daily,weekly etc. tickets don't seem to be rising at the same rate.
Returns/Day tickets have gone up a lot as well. In 2007 an Arriva North West day ticket costed 3.50, today it costs 5.30.

In the case of the bus operator High Peak buses they think if you charged a return fare of 3.50 in 2012 you can charge 6.55 in 2017.
__________________
This signature has been cancelled due to a keyboard fault.
jcollins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 16:29   #19
Arctic Troll
Established Member
 
Arctic Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 Sep 2013
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 7,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpers Tate View Post
The ENCTS holder receives nothing. They are transported for "free" and the carrier is given a subsidy to do so.
We're probably arguing over semantics here, but ENCTS reimbursement isn't a subsidy, it is payment in lieu of fares for the passholders who travel for free.

The passholder receives the benefit of the service, transportation for free, not the operator (many of whom would privately- and not so privately in the case of Martin Griffiths- like to see the back of ENCTS).
__________________
"This train has been delayed by a flow of unusually large passengers."
Arctic Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 17:09   #20
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 5,965
Default

ENCTS is not compatible with bus deregulation as it is impossible to calibrate an appropriate reimbursement rate which is fair to the taxpayer, operator and other passengers at the same time. Reimbursement is not required where the operator is simply paid the cost of running the service.
radamfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 17:54   #21
TheGrandWazoo
Established Member
 
TheGrandWazoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 18 Feb 2013
Location: Somerset with international travel (e.g. across the Severn)
Posts: 6,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
ENCTS is not compatible with bus deregulation as it is impossible to calibrate an appropriate reimbursement rate which is fair to the taxpayer, operator and other passengers at the same time. Reimbursement is not required where the operator is simply paid the cost of running the service.
I could have guessed The answer is re-regulation and state control....now what's the question?

The idea that a commercial operator cannot be adequately reimbursed is rubbish. Working on that basis, housing benefit to private landlords would also not be feasible.

The issue is funding and has been since the nasty party got into power. The cuts are only going to get worse too. I'm now of the opinion that the ENCTS needs to be fundamentally restructured - perhaps to remove it being wholly free at point of use. However, grey haired people vote.....
TheGrandWazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 17:56   #22
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 514
Default

so we have another round of "my bus fare is being pushed up by free travel for pensioners" do we?

this oft trotted out argument is flawed on one historical fact... single cash fares had been going up faster than inflation for years before the national free pass schemes started in ALL constituent parts of the UK.

The truth is that since deregulation there has been competition... as part of their strategy for passenger loyalty many network operators have, over the years, put up their single and return fares at a faster rate than their day and period tickets. There is a simple reason for this... once you have bought a pass from an operator you are highly unlikely to pay again to use a competitors service.

It has obviously now got to the point where a day ticket is cheaper than 2 singles or (where available) a day return.

It works on the same principle as many amusement parks work on... look at an amusement park that offers single ride tickets and a day pass.. and then work out how few rides you need to make before a day ticket becomes the cheaper option.

In fact the argument that free travel schemes are pushing fares up is also flawed because of a false premise... re-imbursement rates do not go up every time fares go up... the usual practice is for a re-imbursement rate to be agreed on the average single fare at the time the council decides to make it's survey.... and then is fixed until the council can be bothered to re survey the network... here in wales some councils that I know of haven't done so in the last 5 years!

To those who say that the travel schemes are a subsidy to operators... quite simply they are NOT. They are a payment for a service that the operators HAVE to provide by law... if an operator were to refuse to participate in the scheme they would not be entitled to BSOG. I wonder how many people who think these schemes are subsidy would like to be told they HAD to provide a service and that they would be paid x amount.....no negotiation...no consultation.... take it or leave it.

Perhaps someone would like to try going into Tesco's, load up a trolley with a weeks shopping... and then telling the store manager that seeing as though his costs would have been the same whether you'd shopped there or not, you'll only pay 20 for your shopping because you believe that will cover the store's costs and leave it no better or worse off? If anyone does... please tell me what his answer was
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 18:10   #23
Paul Sidorczuk
Xenophon philosopher
Veteran Member
 
Paul Sidorczuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: 17 Apr 2011
Location: Very rural Cheshire
Posts: 21,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcollins View Post
In Cheshire East holders of such passes pay 50% of the adult fare, while in Greater Manchester it's full fare.
I used the full fare example, as this is how matters are dealt with in the TfGM area. It is not often that our own council of Cheshire East are seen as more lenient than TfGM...
__________________
"A cynic, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin"..H.L.Mencken.
Sent from my stone monolith using cuneiform and runic symbols.
Paul Sidorczuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 18:17   #24
johnnychips
Established Member
 
Join Date: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 1,319
Default

Arctic Troll, I sort of see where you're getting at, but who calculates and how, "people who would have paid to travel?"

Last edited by johnnychips; 10th February 2017 at 18:20.
johnnychips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 18:44   #25
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 5,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrandWazoo View Post
The idea that a commercial operator cannot be adequately reimbursed is rubbish. Working on that basis, housing benefit to private landlords would also not be feasible.
Housing benefit is different as it is easy to compare with market rents in the area. Most renting is not paid for by housing benefit so private renting paid for by housing benefit doesn't really distort the rental market so much, except perhaps in a few isolated areas. There is also no obvious alternative to housing benefit whereas of course bus deregulation is an anomaly confined to very few developed countries.

Last edited by radamfi; 10th February 2017 at 19:14.
radamfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 19:11   #26
Busaholic
Established Member
 
Join Date: 7 Jun 2014
Posts: 5,049
Default

I could have quite a lot to say on this subject but, in this instance, I'll restrict it to this. London accounts for about half the bus journeys made in England, if not the UK, and there is and has been a freeze on bus fares there, with (arguably) a decrease for some with the advent of the Hopper concession. In London, bus travel is free 24 hours per day not only for Freedom Pass holders (i.e. Greater London residents) but anyone with an English national pass. This ought to be borne in mind before pontificating about the effects on bus operation of the scheme, particularly by those who make the statement it is 'unaffordable' which is a political, subjective judgement, and can be easily countered.
Busaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 20:02   #27
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
Housing benefit is different as it is easy to compare with market rents in the area. Most renting is not paid for by housing benefit so private renting paid for by housing benefit doesn't really distort the rental market so much, except perhaps in a few isolated areas. There is also no obvious alternative to housing benefit whereas of course bus deregulation is an anomaly confined to very few developed countries.
a strange contention there that housing benefit doesn't distort the rental market... and the inference that the housing market isn't deregulated.

Since the mid 80's social housing stock has been sold to tenants without much replacement... therefore forcing more and more people into private rent... are you telling me that the unaffordable rents charged in some areas would still be as high if landlords didn't have the difference made up by housing benefit? surely if there was more social housing and no housing benefit landlords would have to charge affordable rents otherwise their properties would stay empty... unlike free pensioner travel which is a service paid for by councils and NOT subsidy... arguably housing benefit IS a subsidy to fund the greed of landlords and to hide the failure of housing policy over the last 30 odd years!
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 20:18   #28
Starmill
K927 is the best
Established Member
 
Join Date: 17 May 2012
Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 7,600
Default

The thing that I find most inequitable is free rail travel for ENCTS pass holders in areas where we are constantly told there is not enough revenue (despite much of it walking out of the door because of a lack of ticket issuing facilities) and that prices are too low. Why has free rail travel (as opposed to a generous 50% discount on the normal fare) survided while fares for everyone else have skyrocketed by the imposition of restrictions and <30% rises in off-peak tickets?

Sure I would love for ENCTS pass holders to get as much free travel as they can because it enhances their quality of life. I would also love for the Government not to persist with the crazy notion that public transport must pay for itself entirely. As it seems that's not the way things are going why do we have to make up all of the shortfall? I'm looking at you TfGMC. What's the bill to rail companies for free ENCTS travel, and what could you spend that money on instead?
__________________
Humour is integral to wisdom.
Starmill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 20:21   #29
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 5,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post
a strange contention there that housing benefit doesn't distort the rental market... and the inference that the housing market isn't deregulated.

Since the mid 80's social housing stock has been sold to tenants without much replacement... therefore forcing more and more people into private rent... are you telling me that the unaffordable rents charged in some areas would still be as high if landlords didn't have the difference made up by housing benefit? surely if there was more social housing and no housing benefit landlords would have to charge affordable rents otherwise their properties would stay empty... unlike free pensioner travel which is a service paid for by councils and NOT subsidy... arguably housing benefit IS a subsidy to fund the greed of landlords and to hide the failure of housing policy over the last 30 odd years!
Most landlords don't want tenants who pay housing benefit so you can simply look at the rent paid by such tenants as the "market rent". Housing benefit will rarely pay more than this. Whereas with bus fares there is it openly conceded that single fares have risen in order to maximise the free pass reimbursement. For a while, First in Greater Manchester actually had single fares *higher* than the price of a day ticket in order to profit from the funding formula. Suppose the reimbursement rate was increased. Would single fares get cut? I doubt it!
radamfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 20:26   #30
johnnychips
Established Member
 
Join Date: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 1,319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
Most landlords don't want tenants who pay housing benefit so you can simply look at the rent paid by such tenants as the "market rent". Housing benefit will rarely pay more than this. Whereas with bus fares there is it openly conceded that single fares have risen in order to maximise the free pass reimbursement. For a while, First in Greater Manchester actually had single fares *higher* than the price of a day ticket in order to profit from the funding formula. Suppose the reimbursement rate was increased. Would single fares get cut? I doubt it!
Please could you provide examples of where the single ticket price was greater than a day ticket price? Not doubting you, but if true, this is barmy.
johnnychips is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:48.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright © 2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017