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

[Ianno87]

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 !

West Midlands was free pre-2006.

 

[yorksrob]

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.



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 So they get withdrawn as there's no subsidy to keep them going.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!

Yes, the busy routes are more busy than the non busy routes, that is a given, but that doesn't mean to say that there aren't pensioners propping up the less busy routes.

If this scheme were to dissappear tomorrow, would the missing funds be replaced by something to prop up the quieter lines ? Probably not.

I disagree fundamentally with your point that it is bad for a busy route to cross-subsidise a less busy one. For any network, the trunk will need to support the branch so that the branch can get passengers to the trunk. Cross-subsidy is the natural state of any transport network and any system that does away with it is ultimately unsustainable.

 

[yorksrob]

West Midlands was free pre-2006.

Thank you. I think there were quite a few others as well.

 

[yorksrob]

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.



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).



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!



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).

I think the point is that the free bus pass scheme provides a subsidy to the bus network that simply wouldn't be there, were it to be replaced.

I know I'm a train obsessive, but I do believe that buses are important and need to be subsidised where necessary.

This scheme effectively provides central Government with a means and an imperative to subsidise bus transport where it otherwise wouldn't exist, and I think that's necessary.

 

[duncanp]

Having just been issued with a disabled bus pass (for the West Midlands) I for one would be quite happy to pay a reasonable sum for the bus pass in future, or to pay discounted fares.

For example, in Birmingham if an ENCTS pass holder needs to travel before 09:30 Monday - Friday, they pay a fare of £1 instead of £2.40. For those that need to travel regularly before 09:30, you can get an add on to your ENCTS pass for £33 per month.

I would be quite happy for these concessions to apply all day, and perhaps the pass could still be made free to those on really low incomes.

Ultimately there is not much point in having a free bus pass if there are no buses on which to use it.

 

[6Gman]

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

It has been funded "on the cheap" throughout, not just under the Tories.

 

[overthewater]

Should councils be paying for pointless bus routes? Many areas are better off with community run service or Taxi-buses. Plus many routes are disappearing because people are no longer wanting to travel to those places.

 

[175mph]

Should councils be paying for pointless bus routes? Many areas are better off with community run service or Taxi-buses. Plus many routes are disappearing because people are no longer wanting to travel to those places.

What, like that once a week service to a village with a population of three or four and there being no return journey for that bus route?

 

[peterblue]

Instead of having ENCTS be completely free, why not charge pensioners a small flat fare of e.g. 20p or 50p? It would hardly make a difference to pensioners (who usually have more disposable income than the average worker) and it would relieve some of the financial pressure thrust upon the government. Seems like a win-win.

 

[Bletchleyite]

West Midlands was free pre-2006.

Generally the metropolitan cities were free (the PTE areas plus London) - Merseyside has been for years. But not all of them - I forget the deal for trains in Greater Manchester, but the concessionary bus fare was 34p in the late 1990s (for kids and for pensioners equally).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Instead of having ENCTS be completely free, why not charge pensioners a small flat fare of e.g. 20p or 50p? It would hardly make a difference to pensioners (who usually have more disposable income than the average worker) and it would relieve some of the financial pressure thrust upon the government. Seems like a win-win.

Because, as the 5p charge for carrier bags demonstrates, putting any price on something, however small, dissuades use, and so Old Mrs Smith starts being a hazard on the roads once more.

The correct answer is for national Government to stop meddling in the affairs of Councils (who after all are elected on the basis of what they said they will do locally, including, if applicable, raising Council Tax) and remove the cap. Or to deal with the issues some have raised with poorer people, remove the cap on band C properties and above but retain it on bands A and B.

 

[peterblue]

Because, as the 5p charge for carrier bags demonstrates, putting any price on something, however small, dissuades use, and so Old Mrs Smith starts being a hazard on the roads once more.

I've still been buying carrier bags when I shop each week.

The comparison isn't really fair; people don't have to buy a new bag each week but nearly everyone has to pay for their travel needs, whether that's for an appointment, for work, or for leisure.

It's more expensive to drive a car though than a bus ticket flat fare. Insurance, Petrol, Finance payments, etc. I believe if the price is right it won't push pensioners back to their car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've still been buying carrier bags when I shop each week

You might, but most people don't - people taking bags in is now far, far more common. The sugar tax, while also quite low, is also demonstrably having an effect on peoples' choices with regard to fizzy drinks and the likes.

It's more expensive to drive a car though than a bus ticket flat fare. Insurance, Petrol, Finance payments, etc. I believe if the price is right it won't push pensioners back to their car.

I don't as that's simply not how anyone I have ever met in my whole life thinks about car use - it is a model that only ever comes up on forums like this. Owning and running a car is a lifestyle choice which has a monthly or annual cost for things like servicing, which most people (certainly OAPs) don't do anywhere near enough miles to get onto it being mileage based rather than annual. The cost of an individual car journey is then simply fuel (and a tiny, tiny bit of brake pad wear, probably less than 1p's worth), which isn't even felt directly because most people fill up on pay/pension day and just drive all week/month on what's in the tank.

Only if you had a road pricing model based on needing to book your journey at the time of use (I jest but this is precisely how Germany's HGV road pricing works - you even have to book a route and stick to it!) could you make this comparison seem real to most people.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because, as the 5p charge for carrier bags demonstrates, putting any price on something, however small, dissuades use, and so Old Mrs Smith starts being a hazard on the roads once more.

But equally charging nothing makes people see novalue in the product and care not abojt the consequences of use. Carrier bags started to be charged precisely because they were being handed out like confetti, causing huge environmental pollution. Now there's a small charge people will only take one if needed.

It's the same with ENCTS. It's free so it has no value and people are blind to the cost and consequences of the scheme. You see it in the NHS. You see it in my job.

As for Doris driving, if she can afford to drive she can afford to pay her own bloody bus fare, can't she?

Or to deal with the issues some have raised with poorer people, remove the cap on band C properties and above but retain it on bands A and B.

Property value =/= wealth.

But it brings us back round in circles. People see no value in the product if someone else is paying. People who miss GP appointments as someone else is paying wouldn't dream of missing hair or nail appointments because they pay the cost out of their own pocket.

I think the point is that the free bus pass scheme provides a subsidy to the bus network that simply wouldn't be there, were it to be replaced.

This is the fallacy though. It doesn't. It is specifically designed not to. It is designed to compensate bus companies for their lost revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

The whole scheme is designed on the premise of "no better off, no worse off", but reimbursement rates are now only a percentage of the lost revenue. The lost revenue is hypothetically based on how many people would have paid to travel, not how many people did travel. It doesn't matter that fewer people would pay, the scheme has already reduced payments to that level.

It doesn't subsidise anything, it merely gives bus operators the money they'd have got in the absence of the scheme.

The DfT guidance explains the formula better than I can: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ursing-bus-operators-for-concessionary-travel

 

[Tetchytyke]

The sugar tax, while also quite low, is also demonstrably having an effect on peoples' choices with regard to fizzy drinks and the likes.

Is it? Sugar-free versions of fizzy drinks are, in my experience, charged at the same rate as the sugary drinks. It's just inflationary.

Owning and running a car is a lifestyle choice which has a monthly or annual cost for things like servicing, which most people (certainly OAPs) don't do anywhere near enough miles to get onto it being mileage based rather than annual.

People who go to the trouble of paying the sunk costs for a car are still driving said car. The only time they won't is when parking is charged for.

And as I've always said on here, people who can afford a car can afford to pay their own bus fare. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise their jollies. I don't earn enough for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But equally charging nothing makes people see novalue in the product and care not abojt the consequences of use. Carrier bags started to be charged precisely because they were being handed out like confetti, causing huge environmental pollution. Now there's a small charge people will only take one if needed.

It's the same with ENCTS. It's free so it has no value and people are blind to the cost and consequences of the scheme. You see it in the NHS. You see it in my job.

As for Doris driving, if she can afford to drive she can afford to pay her own bloody bus fare, can't she?

But the point is that she won't. She will fuel her car instead. The behavioural change from free public transport is the primary benefit, and the benefit is much wider than who is on the bus itself. It's about the benefits from the car journey that does not occur.

Property value =/= wealth.

It doesn't equal it but it's a very close approximation. If you're badly off financially long-term (which is what really applies here) and you own and maintain a large house, you will benefit from downsizing - you'll get some cash up front if you own outright, or you'll pay a smaller mortgage if you don't. If you're living in an unnecessarily oversized Council house, not only you will benefit from downsizing by releasing some rent and running costs, but so will that family on the waiting list for a larger property having had a child and needing to move out of the small flat they're stuck in on the waiting list.

But it brings us back round in circles. People see no value in the product if someone else is paying. People who miss GP appointments as someone else is paying wouldn't dream of missing hair or nail appointments because they pay the cost out of their own pocket.

But there is not a disbenefit from them using the bus. There are only benefits provided the scheme is funded properly (which I agree it should be, and tax increases either locally or nationally are the way to achieve that).

 

[yorksrob]

But equally charging nothing makes people see novalue in the product and care not abojt the consequences of use. Carrier bags started to be charged precisely because they were being handed out like confetti, causing huge environmental pollution. Now there's a small charge people will only take one if needed.

It's the same with ENCTS. It's free so it has no value and people are blind to the cost and consequences of the scheme. You see it in the NHS. You see it in my job.

As for Doris driving, if she can afford to drive she can afford to pay her own bloody bus fare, can't she?



Property value =/= wealth.

But it brings us back round in circles. People see no value in the product if someone else is paying. People who miss GP appointments as someone else is paying wouldn't dream of missing hair or nail appointments because they pay the cost out of their own pocket.



This is the fallacy though. It doesn't. It is specifically designed not to. It is designed to compensate bus companies for their lost revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

The whole scheme is designed on the premise of "no better off, no worse off", but reimbursement rates are now only a percentage of the lost revenue. The lost revenue is hypothetically based on how many people would have paid to travel, not how many people did travel. It doesn't matter that fewer people would pay, the scheme has already reduced payments to that level.

It doesn't subsidise anything, it merely gives bus operators the money they'd have got in the absence of the scheme.

The DfT guidance explains the formula better than I can: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ursing-bus-operators-for-concessionary-travel

But were it not for the revenue being lost, there would be no reason to compensate them, ergo no pensioners, no subsidy.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The behavioural change from free public transport is the primary benefit, and the benefit is much wider than who is on the bus itself.

Then why do I get charged top dollar for commuting (so much so it's cheaper for me to drive- even with the sunk costs- than tske publuc transport) whilst dear old Doris gets her non-essential jollies on the house?

If "behavioural change" is the aim, reducing adult fares is a much better target. Dear old Bill doesn't cause congestion, us commuters do!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it? Sugar-free versions of fizzy drinks are, in my experience, charged at the same rate as the sugary drinks. It's just inflationary.

No, they are not. Every single major supermarket charges more for the sugared version. McDonald's does. Nando's does.

Some others (e.g. Subway) have gone the more extreme route and simply removed the sugary versions from their range entirely.

Regardless of your view on whether it's the Government's business to poke their nose into what people eat and drink or not (I'd say personally it isn't, but the taxpayer-funded NHS complicates that) it is objectively working.

People who go to the trouble of paying the sunk costs for a car are still driving said car.

They are not. My parents run a relatively new car (they still do what they always did replacing every three years with a brand new one). However, they travel by bus because it is free, and they started doing so only when they gained their passes. If it wasn't they would not travel by bus. There is a benefit to them travelling by bus - their car is not causing congestion nor pollution nor taking a parking space, and as they age they aren't being a hazard on the road while they aren't driving it.

And as I've always said on here, people who can afford a car can afford to pay their own bus fare. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise their jollies.

As I said, they won't pay their own bus fare, they will drive. And bang go the major benefits of the whole thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then why do I get charged top dollar for commuting (so much so it's cheaper for me to drive- even with the sunk costs- than tske publuc transport) whilst dear old Doris gets her non-essential jollies on the house?

If "behavioural change" is the aim, reducing adult fares is a much better target. Dear old Bill doesn't cause congestion, us commuters do!

FWIW I'm certainly in favour of increased subsidy, paid for via taxation, for more reasonable or even free local public transport fares more widely including to working-aged adults. ENCTS is a good start, things like the Swiss tourist tax which pays for a mandatory local travelcard for the duration of stay is an excellent progression. Maybe that's why we differ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

But were it not for the revenue being lost, there would be no reason to compensate them, ergo no pensioners, no subsidy.

No no, some pensioners WOULD always travel, albeit a reduced number. The reimbursement is for them. Everyone else, all those attracted by the freebie, get- literally- a free ride. The boss of Stagecoach likened it to asking Tesco to give free food to OAPs. On this, I agree with Martin Griffiths.

 

[yorksrob]

No no, some pensioners WOULD always travel, albeit a reduced number. The reimbursement is for them. Everyone else, all those attracted by the freebie, get- literally- a free ride. The boss of Stagecoach likened it to asking Tesco to give free food to OAPs. On this, I agree with Martin Griffiths.

Yes, but probably not enough to support the current network.

It's not equivalent to 'free food'for providers. It's subsidised food.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Every single major supermarket charges more for the sugared version.

Fanta and Fanta Zero are both the same price. Tesco have it on at £1.25 a bottle.

My parents run a relatively new car (they still do what they always did replacing every three years with a brand new one). However, they travel by bus because it is free, and they started doing so only when they gained their passes. If it wasn't they would not travel by bus. There is a benefit to them travelling by bus - their car is not causing congestion nor pollution nor taking a parking space

Then they can afford to pay. Someone has to pay. Why not those who can afford it?

£2.5bn a year would buy a hell of a lot of bus priority measures for all of us to benefit from!

As for congestion and pollution, it's commuters who do the real damage. And the effect of ENCTS is to force up adult fares, forcing these people on to the roads. Take Metro up here: a year's travel for OAPs- including the evening peak, but admittedly not the morning peak- is £12. My WEEKLY ticket is £21 and has just gone up by an above-inflation amount. I drive; even after tax and insurance and maintenance it is cheaper. Getting me off the road would achieve more!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, but probably not enough to support the current network.

The reimbursement rate is based on this lower number. It's really counter-intuitive, but it's how the reimbursement rate is calculated. The DfT formula explains it better.

When councils think fewer OAPs would use the bus they reduce the payment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fanta and Fanta Zero are both the same price. Tesco have it on at £1.25 a bottle.

Fanta changed their recipe so the "fat" version is half sugar, half sweetener, a bit like "green" Coke (which you don't seem to see any more). The sugar tax is therefore not applied to it as the sugar level is below the threshold. Out of the Coca Cola Company's drinks, I think only Coca Cola Classic retained the old recipe so it applies. I don't know about Pepsico or others.

Then they can afford to pay. Someone has to pay. Why not those who can afford it?

Because they won't pay. They will drive their car instead. You continue to miss that point!

The way to make them contribute more is to increase their Council Tax so they have to pay for it, then it is free at the point of use. They have a large detached house which they can afford to keep, so my proposal to remove the cap on Council Tax would allow a hefty increase to be applied to them to pay for it, even if, as I suggested above, the cap was retained on band A and B properties to make the situation a bit less regressive.

As for congestion and pollution, it's commuters who do the real damage. And the effect of ENCTS is to force up adult fares, forcing these people on to the roads. Take Metro up here: a year's travel for OAPs- including the evening peak, but admittedly not the morning peak- is £12. My WEEKLY ticket is £21. I drive, even after tax and insurance and maintenance it is cheaper. Getting me off the road would achieve more!

I'm unconvinced that it has done all that much to period season tickets that wouldn't have happened otherwise, as these aren't what it's based on. Single fares have been hoiked up as that mostly is what it is based on (though not everywhere), but in the vast majority of cases a cash single fare is only a sensible purchase for someone making a one way journey and returning either via another mode or on a different day. The increases are therefore mostly avoided by purchasing day or season tickets, which those people should be doing anyway.

You're also missing the point that removing older drivers (with failing reactions and eyesight) from the roads increases road safety.

 

[yorksrob]

The reimbursement rate is based on this lower number. It's really counter-intuitive, but it's how the reimbursement rate is calculated. The DfT formula explains it better.

When councils think fewer OAPs would use the bus they reduce the payment.

Well, that's understandable that Councils reduce the payment if fewer pensioners use it. Can you imagine the bus services that would be lost now if they weren't subsidised in this way ?

 

[ivanhoe]

No no, some pensioners WOULD always travel, albeit a reduced number. The reimbursement is for them. Everyone else, all those attracted by the freebie, get- literally- a free ride. The boss of Stagecoach likened it to asking Tesco to give free food to OAPs. On this, I agree with Martin Griffiths.

Your continued ranting against holders of ENCTS passes is missing some important points. It was Gordon Brown who introduced this which was jointly paid by Government and Local Authorities. Cameron’s Government decided to roll the amount paid for their part, into the Local Government settlement. Year by year, the same Party has been reducing the said amount to LA’s.
Now you don’t have to be an expert number cruncher to realise that a scheme which was voted democratically by Parliament, was being funded by a decreasing amount whilst also the numbers eligible for the ENCTS Card were increasing .
This has absolutely buggar all to do with Tesco giving free food and frankly the boss of Stagecoach was a Pratt for saying it. It’s a way of deflecting blame from Government to users of ENCTS.
The most important point you miss though, is horrendous cuts in grants to LA’s , an increasing need for social services to both Children and the Elderly means that subsidised buses (oh the irony of deregulation) will be cut like libraries , sure start centres for kids , daycare facilities for the elderly et al. Blame it all on ENCTS pass holders though. I’m sure the majority have never heard of this site Artic Troll. Carry on bevvying though!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The most important point you miss though, is horrendous cuts in grants to LA’s , an increasing need for social services to both Children and the Elderly means that subsidised buses (oh the irony of deregulation) will be cut like libraries , sure start centres for kids , daycare facilities for the elderly et al. Blame it all on ENCTS pass holders though.

See this is why it's now such a sacred cow. It's not personal. I don't blame users of ENCTS- I'd use it too!- but I do blame the scheme.

It is underfunded, it is a disgrace that it is tied into the Local Government grant and not the standalone payment it used to be. All of that I don't disagree with.

But we are where we are. When something can only survive by being underfunded to the tune of the thick end of a billion quid a year, is it really sustainable and affordable?

And if you think it is, and should be funded properly, where are you going to find this billion quid?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm unconvinced that it has done all that much to period season tickets that wouldn't have happened otherwise, as these aren't what it's based on.

I get the point, and there's some truth in it, but most day ticket prices are set based on single fares (they do, after all, act as a price cap on singles). And weeklies and monthlies are priced based on day tickets. Certainly up here day tickets on buses are usually about 1.5 times a single.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get the point, and there's some truth in it, but most day ticket prices are set based on single fares (they do, after all, act as a price cap on singles). And weeklies and monthlies are priced based on day tickets. Certainly up here day tickets on buses are usually about 1.5 times a single.

Though going back pre-ENCTS and earlier they used to be much lower. In most cases a third journey was needed to make them pay. They probably got to "day ticket = two singles" on many companies by the start of ENCTS, but the level you mention which is increasingly common is definitely post-ENCTS and in my view view much driven by it.