Derbyshire CC propose axing all scheduled subsided bus services

[Tetchytyke]

Prior to it there were too many regional variants of the rules for free bus travel for the over 60s.

Free travel was brought in in two stages: initially for travel within a local area, and then (when it became apparent that that caused more problems than it solved) nationally.

Before ENCTS in its local form some councils will have offered free travel, but more generally it was subsidised travel. TWPTE and WYPTE schemes were flat fare for pensioners, about 30p per journey. Even going back to that- the "free" bus pass giving you a 50p bus ride- would be an improvement on the current situation and might take the pressure off council budgets.

As for bus operators charging ENCTS pass holders, Arriva Teesside had a "suggested donation" of £1 on their evening and Sunday Whitby town bus services, arguing that without a donation the bus would no longer be economically viable. DafT came back and said it was unlawful, so Arriva pulled the service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I might be a bit polarised in my view, but I really don't like partial regulation of this kind.

Either: the service is fully regulated and the local authority can introduce the concessions they wish, which is part of the tendering process. So a bit like the railway.

Or: it is a fully commercial service in which local authorities are not in any way involved except on matters of safety and provision of road infrastructure, with discounts and concessions at the sole commercial discretion of the operator.

The "bit in the middle" of the way bus services are often operated in the UK to me really doesn't work well.

(I don't mind BSOG as an exception as that isn't a subsidy in a sense - it's effectively simply not collecting a tax for carrying out an activity beneficial to society, just as road tax is not collected for some kinds of car)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I might be a bit polarised in my view, but I really don't like partial regulation of this kind.

Either: the service is fully regulated and the local authority can introduce the concessions they wish, which is part of the tendering process. So a bit like the railway.

Or: it is a fully commercial service in which local authorities are not in any way involved except on matters of safety and provision of road infrastructure, with discounts and concessions at the sole commercial discretion of the operator.

The "bit in the middle" of the way bus services are often operated in the UK to me really doesn't work well.

(I don't mind BSOG as an exception as that isn't a subsidy in a sense - it's effectively simply not collecting a tax for carrying out an activity beneficial to society, just as road tax is not collected for some kinds of car)

ENCTS isn't a subsidy. It is re-numeration for services provided. Are we now going to specify government interference in Aldi or Lidl to ensure that the money we give to pensioners for food is well spent?

As for the scheme, the fact was Mr Brown forgot fundamental economics in terms of price elasticity of demand. The solution for this government is to say "hey, we're funding the scheme" but at the same time cutting central CLG grants to LAs so that there are fewer services supported and so ENCTS is duly affected. Of course, it's the LAs that get the blame (under the guise of devolving local decision making).

There are two ways to explore...

• A stored value card that provides £150 p.a. to each pass holder for half priced journeys OR
• Increasing the weekly pension by the projected amount less £2 per week

The latter won't happen as the treasury hates hypothecation but the former is not without it's challenges. Not least that the current scheme expenditure is probably used by some people a lot and/or who have longer journeys and that some never use it at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

ENCTS isn't a subsidy. It is re-numeration for services provided.

I think this is the main issue with ENCTS. It isn't subsidy but it isn't a simple payment for services either. ENCTS isn't paid per passenger journey, it is aggregated based on how many people would have travelled if they'd had to pay. It looks and acts far more like a subsidy than a payment for services.

I think it is clear that this hybrid doesn't work. Either the discount offered to OAPs should be set commercially, as it is for many child fares on buses and how it is on the railways, or the payment should become a full and transparent subsidy.

My view is very much that ENCTS should be abolished and the discount offered to pensioners should be a matter of commercial discretion. The idea of councils paying operators to carry pensioners on commercial routes is absolutely ludicrous. But it will be a very brave government indeed that does that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think this is the main issue with ENCTS. It isn't subsidy but it isn't a simple payment for services either. ENCTS isn't paid per passenger journey, it is aggregated based on how many people would have travelled if they'd had to pay. It looks and acts far more like a subsidy than a payment for services.

I think it is clear that this hybrid doesn't work. Either the discount offered to OAPs should be set commercially, as it is for many child fares on buses and how it is on the railways, or the payment should become a full and transparent subsidy.

My view is very much that ENCTS should be abolished and the discount offered to pensioners should be a matter of commercial discretion. The idea of councils paying operators to carry pensioners on commercial routes is absolutely ludicrous. But it will be a very brave government indeed that does that.

It is levied per journey but the calculation per journey is made in the convoluted way you mention. However, I do tend to agree with you. It was a badly thought out electoral bribe but I don't know how you get that genie back in the bottle without riots in the streets of Bexhill

 

[northwichcat]

Before ENCTS in its local form some councils will have offered free travel, but more generally it was subsidised travel. TWPTE and WYPTE schemes were flat fare for pensioners, about 30p per journey. Even going back to that- the "free" bus pass giving you a 50p bus ride- would be an improvement on the current situation and might take the pressure off council budgets.

Do you actually mean ENCTS (introduced in 2008.) Are you saying in 2007 WYPTE charged pensioners at the same time SYPTE and GMPTE were not only offering pensioners free bus travel but were offering free tram travel as well?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you actually mean ENCTS (introduced in 2008.)

The initial free bus pass scheme started in April 2006, restricted to the local area, before being expanded to any area in 2008.

Before 2006 pensioners paid a charge in Tyne and Wear, which was 50p per single journey, regardless of whether that was on bus, Metro or ferry, with a day rover priced at £1.50. WYPTE, if I remember correctly, charged 40p per journey, including on trains.

I would like to see it go back to that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ENCTS isn't a subsidy. It is re-numeration for services provided.

On business terms that the bus company has no control over, and where there is no control over the amount of it consumed by the individual. Thus, Councils are subjected to an open-ended financial risk, and bus companies are usually inadequately remunerated.

It is a subsidy, in any case. Just one effectively paid to the individual, not to the bus company (to the latter it is just passenger income).

Are we now going to specify government interference in Aldi or Lidl to ensure that the money we give to pensioners for food is well spent?

A fixed amount of money is given in the pension to be spent on food etc. It is the open-ended nature of this that is an issue. Should we give pensioners unlimited free food from Aldi/Lidl with those forced to give a discount on it? Clearly not.

[*]A stored value card that provides £150 p.a. to each pass holder for half priced journeys

Or indeed for free ones. Or perhaps trains and taxis, levelling the playing field a little for those with no bus service. The point is the value is fixed, and it would be redeemed against the commercial fare, day ticket price, weekly price etc.

[*]Increasing the weekly pension by the projected amount less £2 per week

I would generally favour this (my view is in favour of abolition of all non-commercial concessions across the board, not just transport, to be replaced with a proper liveable pension), but one side benefit of the scheme is that it takes people who perhaps shouldn't be driving out of cars. So perhaps paying specific public transport/taxi funding is better.

 

[Deerfold]

The initial free bus pass scheme started in April 2006, restricted to the local area, before being expanded to any area in 2008.

Before 2006 pensioners paid a charge in Tyne and Wear, which was 50p per single journey, regardless of whether that was on bus, Metro or ferry, with a day rover priced at £1.50. WYPTE, if I remember correctly, charged 40p per journey, including on trains.

I would like to see it go back to that.

WYPTE passengers could also travel in GMPTE upon payment of their subsidised fare.

This facility was lost when the local free travel was introduced, until the nationwide free travel came in, much reducing travel on cross-border routes for a couple of years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

On business terms that the bus company has no control over, and where there is no control over the amount of it consumed by the individual. Thus, Councils are subjected to an open-ended financial risk, and bus companies are usually inadequately remunerated.

It is a subsidy, in any case. Just one effectively paid to the individual, not to the bus company (to the latter it is just passenger income).



A fixed amount of money is given in the pension to be spent on food etc. It is the open-ended nature of this that is an issue. Should we give pensioners unlimited free food from Aldi/Lidl with those forced to give a discount on it? Clearly not.



Or indeed for free ones. Or perhaps trains and taxis, levelling the playing field a little for those with no bus service. The point is the value is fixed, and it would be redeemed against the commercial fare, day ticket price, weekly price etc.



I would generally favour this (my view is in favour of abolition of all non-commercial concessions across the board, not just transport, to be replaced with a proper liveable pension), but one side benefit of the scheme is that it takes people who perhaps shouldn't be driving out of cars. So perhaps paying specific public transport/taxi funding is better.

Working on that principle, a pension is a life subsidy for older people...but I was thinking more on the basis of the company; it's not a subsidy for them!

I was thinking the half price aspect as it would a) introduce a level of price elasticity of demand and so reducing the "open ended" nature of things as you say and b) the current cost is equates to £103 per person p.a. but that's just the average

As I say, the treasury don't like hypothecation so imagine if they did reduce the pension by £2/wk? It would probably just end up in the pot with all the other competing needs like social care.

 

[Deerfold]

Working on that principle, a pension is a life subsidy for older people...but I was thinking more on the basis of the company; it's not a subsidy for them!

I was thinking the half price aspect as it would a) introduce a level of price elasticity of demand and so reducing the "open ended" nature of things as you say and b) the current cost is equates to £103 per person p.a. but that's just the average

As I say, the treasury don't like hypothecation so imagine if they did reduce the pension by £2/wk? It would probably just end up in the pot with all the other competing needs like social care.

Of course the value of the subsidy varies enormously by region, depending on how expensive their buses are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course the value of the subsidy varies enormously by region, depending on how expensive their buses are.

And depending on who it is available to. If there is no bus service you can use, it is irrelevant. A few local schemes (e.g. Conwy Valley) have introduced acceptance on rail, but in most non-PTE areas of the UK, certainly England, all it has resulted in is money paid to bus companies to compete with the railway service that the pensioner would actually be better off using.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And depending on who it is available to. If there is no bus service you can use, it is irrelevant. A few local schemes (e.g. Conwy Valley) have introduced acceptance on rail, but in most non-PTE areas of the UK, certainly England, all it has resulted in is money paid to bus companies to compete with the railway service that the pensioner would actually be better off using.

Even in the PTE areas, buses are often more convenient than the train so not really certain that it is the result or that trains are "better off using". Away from the Metro, much of Tyne and Wear is train free and even in places like West Yorkshire which has a more comprehensive network, the bus takes anywhere from 3 to 5 times the passengers into the main centres.

 

[Busaholic]

The increase in state pension age, only for women at present but to extend to men in due course, means fewer people being eligible for a concessionary pass in England as a whole. The increase in age eligibility does, of course, not apply in Wales or Scotland, nor for the lucky residents of Greater London who get free public transport at all hours (except National Rail in the a.m. peak) as long as they stay within London. In Scotland long distance coach travel is also free. Thus, citizens of GB paying the same income tax rates and much the same council tax charges are being offered different levels of concession purely based on where they happen to live.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We have had a General Election and a Government is in power, so what have THEY said in recent statements concerning the ENCTS passes. Is there likely to be a surprise budget announcement that may concern this type of pass?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The increase in state pension age, only for women at present but to extend to men in due course, means fewer people being eligible for a concessionary pass in England as a whole. The increase in age eligibility does, of course, not apply in Wales or Scotland, nor for the lucky residents of Greater London who get free public transport at all hours (except National Rail in the a.m. peak) as long as they stay within London. In Scotland long distance coach travel is also free. Thus, citizens of GB paying the same income tax rates and much the same council tax charges are being offered different levels of concession purely based on where they happen to live.

And on a much simpler level - the pass isn't much use if you don't have a local bus service.

 

[radamfi]

If ENCTS is not a subsidy, then the operator should be no better off as a result of it. But if they losing money as a result of the scheme so they are putting up commercial fares as a result, then there is effectively a direct subsidy from the full fare payer to the pass holder. Avoiding this kind of ransom is another reason to boycott commercial services.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If ENCTS is not a subsidy, then the operator should be no better off as a result of it. But if they losing money as a result of the scheme so they are putting up commercial fares as a result, then there is effectively a direct subsidy from the full fare payer to the pass holder. Avoiding this kind of ransom is another reason to boycott commercial services.

They are no better off - that much is evident. However, if subsidy is abhorrent, then perhaps that afforded to the UK rail network is even worse, levied on every taxpayer?

I do respect your views and your zeal in pursuit of your ideals but most people have neither the means nor inclination to follow suit. Talk of ransoms and boycotts sounds a bit overblown. I will soon be on holiday in Cornwall and will look to use public transport where possible but if I say to my better half "Sorry, we can't go to Mevagissey except on Sunday as I won't use a commercial bus service" she'd be rightly bemused.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

And depending on who it is available to. If there is no bus service you can use, it is irrelevant. A few local schemes (e.g. Conwy Valley) have introduced acceptance on rail, but in most non-PTE areas of the UK, certainly England, all it has resulted in is money paid to bus companies to compete with the railway service that the pensioner would actually be better off using.

So what about Combined Authorities? Since West Yorshire is no longer a PTE area. The same could be said for the Greater Bristol Combined Authority - aka Travelwest and Hertfordshire's Intalink.

 

[radamfi]

They are no better off - that much is evident. However, if subsidy is abhorrent, then perhaps that afforded to the UK rail network is even worse, levied on every taxpayer?

I do respect your views and your zeal in pursuit of your ideals but most people have neither the means nor inclination to follow suit. Talk of ransoms and boycotts sounds a bit overblown. I will soon be on holiday in Cornwall and will look to use public transport where possible but if I say to my better half "Sorry, we can't go to Mevagissey except on Sunday as I won't use a commercial bus service" she'd be rightly bemused.

I'm all for subsidy if it is for the common good. If subsidy for public transport gets cars off the road then that's good, and if it comes out of national taxation then the burden falls mostly on the well off. Whereas with free passes, it is the bus passenger who pays the subsidy, and typically they are amongst the poorest in society. So fiscally it is highly regressive.

20 years ago I was very anti-car and I probably would have supported an outright ban. But now, I wonder if it may actually be more ethical to use your own car instead of using a commercial bus service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm all for subsidy if it is for the common good. If subsidy for public transport gets cars off the road then that's good, and if it comes out of national taxation then the burden falls mostly on the well off. Whereas with free passes, it is the bus passenger who pays the subsidy, and typically they are amongst the poorest in society. So fiscally it is highly regressive.

Well, sort-of - the bus passenger is often hit with artificially inflated single fares to skew reimbursement, but it is the Council Tax payer that is nominally paying for it, albeit with some money from the bus company because the reimbursements are often short of what is necessary to make a profit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But now, I wonder if it may actually be more ethical to use your own car instead of using a commercial bus service?

I wouldn't agree with that, but I would say I think the car will have a far greater role in rural areas with the cuts - and I don't just mean the private use of the car, I mean things like ride-sharing and even Uber Pool and the likes if they find a way around UK taxi legislation for that.

Indeed, if a small group of non-car-owning rural pensioners are left high and dry by the loss of a bus service, I imagine some might club together to arrange a shared taxi to the shops at a mutually convenient time? Edit: And, thinking on, if they do, at a lower cost than running a timetabled bus service, why should they not get a concession on that when a city pensioner gets a concession on their bus running every 10 minutes?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm all for subsidy if it is for the common good. If subsidy for public transport gets cars off the road then that's good, and if it comes out of national taxation then the burden falls mostly on the well off. Whereas with free passes, it is the bus passenger who pays the subsidy, and typically they are amongst the poorest in society. So fiscally it is highly regressive.

20 years ago I was very anti-car and I probably would have supported an outright ban. But now, I wonder if it may actually be more ethical to use your own car instead of using a commercial bus service?

Bizarre.... Boycotting commercial services could seethe withdrawal of the marginal ones and the burden falling onto an already slashed budget so those routes already on the cusp of cessation get pulled.

Just as well you don't have to visit North Yorkshire. A long time to wait of a weekend for a bus whilst contemplating.... Or the Peak District for that matter

 

[radamfi]

Bizarre.... Boycotting commercial services could seethe withdrawal of the marginal ones and the burden falling onto an already slashed budget so those routes already on the cusp of cessation get pulled.

Just as well you don't have to visit North Yorkshire. A long time to wait of a weekend for a bus whilst contemplating.... Or the Peak District for that matter

The idea is that the end of commercial services would mean that the whole network becomes tendered. Obviously you will say that there's no money for it. That's the catch all argument. If Britain can't find a relatively small amount of money for a decent bus service, then it is not a civilised country. Countries of all economic circumstances can run a bus service. Rich countries with good public finances, rich countries with a lot of debt and poorer countries with a small amount of debt. It seems hard to believe that Britain is in such an economic sweet spot between rich and poor, high and low debt that it can't afford a bus service.

 

[Busaholic]

And on a much simpler level - the pass isn't much use if you don't have a local bus service.

True, but if one was to argue that the most use made of concessionary passes then resulted in the withdrawal of bus services then Transport for London would have had to arrange for the 2,000 extra buses that they have put on over the last decade to go. The total amount reimbursed by English shire counties to bus operators per annum for concessionary pass use would pay for the construction of a couple of hundred yards of HS2, at most, so it's all a matter of political choice.

Has anyone on this forum ever suggested that transport staff and their families lose all their free travel concessions? I think I can foresee the outcry if anyone did (I'm NOT proposing that, by the way) and it's not just a question of conditions of employment, which are not set in stone after all.

 

[RT4038]

The idea is that the end of commercial services would mean that the whole network becomes tendered. Obviously you will say that there's no money for it. That's the catch all argument. If Britain can't find a relatively small amount of money for a decent bus service, then it is not a civilised country. Countries of all economic circumstances can run a bus service. Rich countries with good public finances, rich countries with a lot of debt and poorer countries with a small amount of debt. It seems hard to believe that Britain is in such an economic sweet spot between rich and poor, high and low debt that it can't afford a bus service.

Seems a bit of a risky strategy to me. You may think the lack of a 'decent' [whatever that means] bus service makes Britain uncivilised, but I bet there are lots (a majority?) of (car owning) people who couldn't care less about the bus service, save possibly the morning and afternoon journey that takes their children to and from school. A fully tendered system could end up with a superb school bus service and a begrudged infrequent circuitous (in order to serve the maximum amount of settlements fairly) ordinary service, running in the middle part of weekdays only. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The idea is that the end of commercial services would mean that the whole network becomes tendered. Obviously you will say that there's no money for it. That's the catch all argument. If Britain can't find a relatively small amount of money for a decent bus service, then it is not a civilised country. Countries of all economic circumstances can run a bus service. Rich countries with good public finances, rich countries with a lot of debt and poorer countries with a small amount of debt. It seems hard to believe that Britain is in such an economic sweet spot between rich and poor, high and low debt that it can't afford a bus service.

So because we don't have a centrally controlled bus service, the U.K. is not a civilised country? Really? A health service free at the point of use? Education? Freedom of speech? We have many challenges (like social care or expenditure on mental health) but that's what makes uncivilised?

We spend our money on other things and the country exercised its democratic right last year. Higher public spending didn't win out (and I predicted so beforehand).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has anyone on this forum ever suggested that transport staff and their families lose all their free travel concessions?

That is part of their overall compensation package, just as Tesco employees getting in-store discount is. As such, if that was considered, no doubt salaries would need to increase.

 

[radamfi]

Seems a bit of a risky strategy to me. You may think the lack of a 'decent' [whatever that means] bus service makes Britain uncivilised, but I bet there are lots (a majority?) of (car owning) people who couldn't care less about the bus service, save possibly the morning and afternoon journey that takes their children to and from school. A fully tendered system could end up with a superb school bus service and a begrudged infrequent circuitous (in order to serve the maximum amount of settlements fairly) ordinary service, running in the middle part of weekdays only. Be careful what you wish for.

The way I look at it, there is nothing to lose. The bus service is unacceptable now. I'm not prepared to use it, and I'm an enthusiast. A good bus service with reasonable fares is possible and exists, today, but outside the UK. So for now, I'll use buses abroad instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way I look at it, there is nothing to lose. The bus service is unacceptable now. I'm not prepared to use it, and I'm an enthusiast. A good bus service with reasonable fares is possible and exists, today, but outside the UK. So for now, I'll use buses abroad instead.

A good bus service with reasonable fares (albeit not the precise fares structure I would choose, as you know) exists in parts of the UK as well.

Just because UK-style commercial/tendered operation isn't my first choice of operation style doesn't make it completely useless.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To return to the subject of the thread concerning the Derbyshire County Council option discussions, I did note in the report of the Strategic Director - Economy, Transport and Environment dated 26th January 2016 that can be accessed by a link, that some local bus contracts are due to expire in March 2017, so this gives plenty of time for the responses to these option discussions to be read and noticed with regard to the section that deals with bus services, provided that council procrastination does not rear its ugly head.