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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10th February 2017, 21:28   #31
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 520
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!
I suggest you read my previous post (#22)
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 10th February 2017, 21:32   #32
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 6,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnychips View Post
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.
After a fare rise they would put up posters giving old and new fares. The highest fares would be higher than a day ticket. That was a few years ago now so I can't give specific details. I'm sure locals will still remember this and may be able to quote the exact numbers.
radamfi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 21:34   #33
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 6,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post
I suggest you read my previous post (#22)
Your argument was that it is OK to have silly single fares because of the existence of a day ticket to deter people using competing operators. This is hardly a good thing for passengers! Particularly those who need to use more than one operator, or those just making a single trip in a day, because for example they are getting a lift back.
radamfi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:09   #34
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
Your argument was that it is OK to have silly single fares because of the existence of a day ticket to deter people using competing operators. This is hardly a good thing for passengers! Particularly those who need to use more than one operator, or those just making a single trip in a day, because for example they are getting a lift back.
Not at all... my argument is that the rapid increase in single/ day return fares compared to day and period tickets is something that predates nationwide concessionary travel and is a tool that has increasingly been used to lock people into a particular operators services since deregulation... in short a marketing and competitive tool.... and nothing to do with the concessionary travel schemes... as to your argument that having a day ticket cheaper than a day return (or even a single) penalises those who have to use 2 operators... well I should think the percentage of people making a trip that involves HAVING to use 2 operators AND only 2 journeys will be negligently small... after all, to paraphrase a saying... what goes there has to come back!

Last edited by Teflon Lettuce; 10th February 2017 at 22:13.
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:13   #35
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 6,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post
Not at all... my argument is that the rapid increase in single/ day return fares compared to day and period tickets is something that predates nationwide concessionary travel and is a tool that has increasingly been used to lock people into a particular operators services since deregulation... in short a marketing and competitive tool.
But before the current nationwide scheme there were local schemes in most areas.
radamfi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:14   #36
Busaholic
Established Member
 
Join Date: 7 Jun 2014
Posts: 5,553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starmill View Post
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?
Geographically, very few pass issuers allow free or even discounted rail travel. It is only a few metropolitan areas, who restrict it to their own populace, in England anyway. I've had a pass for nine years, never had the possibility of a penny off a train fare.

Last edited by Busaholic; 10th February 2017 at 22:15.
Busaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:18   #37
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
But before the current nationwide scheme there were local schemes in most areas.
and in MOST areas those schemes were not free travel schemes... there was usually a fare for the pass holder to pay... either a flat fare or half fare...

no matter what arguments you put forward NONE alter the fact that the over inflation rate increases in single/ day return fares predates the national concessionary schemes... and the argument put forward at the head of this thread is that it is the concessionary scheme that has caused these increases... this is not so and that is historical fact.
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:20   #38
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 6,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post
and in MOST areas those schemes were not free travel schemes... there was usually a fare for the pass holder to pay... either a flat fare or half fare...
But even though the discount was not 100%, there was still a reimbursement system in place.
radamfi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2017, 22:31   #39
Teflon Lettuce
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
But even though the discount was not 100%, there was still a reimbursement system in place.
so your argument is that ANY concessionary scheme inflates fares and distorts the market so there should be NO concessionary scheme?

in any case, in previous schemes the usual practice was to make the payments dependant on mileage operated not passenger journeys...

as I said before... the argument is that the NATIONWIDE travel scheme has caused the price hikes in single/ day return fares... nothing you have argued so far has addressed MY contention that the start of price hiking pre-dates the introduction of the NATIONWIDE scheme...

I am going to leave it here as I see it a pointless exercise in debating with someone who willfully ignores the crux of the argument and tries to make the facts fit their opinion rather than the other way round
Teflon Lettuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 00:47   #40
Paul Sidorczuk
Xenophon philosopher
Veteran Member
 
Paul Sidorczuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: 17 Apr 2011
Location: Very rural Cheshire
Posts: 22,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starmill View Post

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?
Look at the political ethos of TfGM.

On a personal basis, as one resident exterior to the boundaries of the TfGM empire, we neither have free rail or Metrolink travel within TfGM on our Cheshire East issued ENCTS passes, but we, at our own cost, have purchased three-year Senior Citizen Railcards to help rail travel costs.
__________________
"A cynic, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin"..H.L.Mencken.
Sent from my stone monolith using cuneiform and runic symbols.

Last edited by Paul Sidorczuk; 11th February 2017 at 00:48.
Paul Sidorczuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 14:19   #41
TheGrandWazoo
Established Member
 
TheGrandWazoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 18 Feb 2013
Location: Somerset with international travel (e.g. across the Severn)
Posts: 7,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radamfi View Post
But even though the discount was not 100%, there was still a reimbursement system in place.
Yep, and that was even the case in the rose tinted uplands of pre-deregulation

Essentially, that was how National Transport Tokens worked.
TheGrandWazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 14:25   #42
TheGrandWazoo
Established Member
 
TheGrandWazoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 18 Feb 2013
Location: Somerset with international travel (e.g. across the Severn)
Posts: 7,385
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!
Housing Benefit varies according to your situation and is paid to the claimant or direct to the landlord. What it isn't is a blank cheque.

I don't see anyone talking of the government requiring to take on housing stock from the private sector.
TheGrandWazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 14:30   #43
TheGrandWazoo
Established Member
 
TheGrandWazoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 18 Feb 2013
Location: Somerset with international travel (e.g. across the Severn)
Posts: 7,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post

I am going to leave it here as I see it a pointless exercise in debating with someone who willfully ignores the crux of the argument and tries to make the facts fit their opinion rather than the other way round
Indeed - I appreciate Radamfi's ideological bent and wide eyed view of the world. However, it is, as I intimated before, usually predicated by an ideologically held view and then supporting that answer via a selective interpretation of the facts.

Not quite alternative facts, just selected ones.
TheGrandWazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 14:36   #44
radamfi
Established Member
 
Join Date: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 6,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrandWazoo View Post
Yep, and that was even the case in the rose tinted uplands of pre-deregulation

Essentially, that was how National Transport Tokens worked.
The pre-deregulation situation was not ideal and so privatisation and competitive tendering would surely have happened by now given that privatisation has become the fashion for most public services. Had deregulation not happened instead, a policy of privatisation and tendering would be considered very right-wing. Nobody calls rail privatisation a form of socialism.
radamfi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2017, 14:59   #45
RT4038
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Feb 2014
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teflon Lettuce View Post
as I said before... the argument is that the NATIONWIDE travel scheme has caused the price hikes in single/ day return fares... nothing you have argued so far has addressed MY contention that the start of price hiking pre-dates the introduction of the NATIONWIDE scheme...
No doubt you are right that the start of 'price hiking' pre-dates the nationwide concessionary fare scheme - it probably started in the 1960s when off-peak traffic started to fall off alarmingly, through the 1970s with massive general inflation and rising expectations of crew wages, reductions of subsidies in the 1980s, and increasing regulation (inter alia H&S, DDA, Drivers CPC, concessionary fares scheme etc etc) since then. I think it true to say that all government financial interventions cause distortions in the market (be it housing benefit, tax policy, concessionary fares schemes) and undoubtedly ordinary adult bus fares are higher now because of the ENCTS scheme. However, this is not the only cause!
RT4038 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 +1. The time now is 21:41.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright © 2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017