Is it time to scrap ENTCS completely?

[markymark2000]

no good charging a small charge or fare as then the government would then give even less to the operators

The current funding should remain the same and the small charge to the pass user should be extra.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

ENCTS is statutory spending, socially necessary bus services are discretionary.

If you can't or won't make the leap of logic to understand that increased ENCTS costs decrease socially necessary bus expenditure, then there's not much hope really.

Doris trundling up and down on the 599, on the Cumbrian taxpayers' dime, is why there's nothing left to pay for any buses at all (*there's a summer walkers' bus that's neither use nor ornament) in Hesket Newmarket, where my young daughter lives. So my 9yo has no freedom because the money was blown on services like the 599 that would run anyway.

I might not be as strident as you, but that's about the nub of it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I might not be as strident as you, but that's about the nub of it.

We all know I'm very much against ENCTS. Primarily I think it is a gold-plated frivolity that, unfortunately, has serious negative long-term consequences for public transport in this country.

NYCC is bad enough, but a weekly Mellor Stratos trundling to the outlying villages is a good service compared to Cumbria. Huge chunks of the county, including fairly significant places like Millom, get nothing at all.

Sadly I don't think those buses will ever come back, even if ENCTS goes tomorrow. Truthfully I think the damage is already done.

 

[richard13]

We all know I'm very much against ENCTS. Primarily I think it is a gold-plated frivolity that, unfortunately, has serious negative long-term consequences for public transport in this country.

NYCC is bad enough, but a weekly Mellor Stratos trundling to the outlying villages is a good service compared to Cumbria. Huge chunks of the county, including fairly significant places like Millom, get nothing at all.

Sadly I don't think those buses will ever come back, even if ENCTS goes tomorrow. Truthfully I think the damage is already done.

I am sorry, but I see no connection between the ENCTS and socially necessary journey subsidy. The ENCTS was supposed to use the spare capacity of off peak services with the loss of full fares covered by increase ridership. That might have been valid in local urban areas, but not rural and inter-urban ones.

In rural areas, residents don't live their lives around one bus a week. Going to the weekly market has ceased long ago and so has the village shop / doctors etc closed. In Lancashire a village lost its 6 day a week bus service recently and complaints were made. Stagecoach had to point out that in the final 7 weeks of operation they had picked up a total of just 1 passenger. There is simply no demand. These days you don't choose to live in rural areas unless you have one or more cars available and you drive. If you are born into a rural area you pass your driving test ASAP and buy a car with your first pay packet or two, and that has been generally true for much of at least the last 40 years. Thus generally today's rural elderly have always driven and use its flexibility. Rural buses are just irrelevant; they don't go where or when you need them. My hamlet used 8 schools and we would never get 8 school buses - more like 6 cars - for eligible pupils it would be taxi to the nearest school bus stopping point, which means taxis are not available either. However community transport in its many forms can provide wheels often door to door and at more flexible times and places for those that need it. The rural bus and ENCTS is just generally irrelevant. Care of the elderly at home is more necessary.

Socially necessary journeys are more like shuttle services to out of town hospitals, out of town work places, estate housing. Perhaps subsidising routes to connect with train services, which makes the route less efficient. Some bigger villages do get off peak services to an out-of-town supermarket and perhaps bring tourists back the other way, but these are more funded by the town and parish councils with local interest and not the higher LA levels. These are not services specifically aimed at the off peak elderly and thus ENCTS users.

Life and geography has become car orientated and flexible. The internet is also reducing private travel. If we are going to get cars off the road then subsidising urban buses and using ENCTS to encourage older more time flexible people to go by urban bus and not car might help.

 

[AM9]

They'll find a way, just as they found a way to prosecute people who switched to running their diesel cars on used chip fat.

Chip fat still creates CO2, NOXs and particulates so why shouldn't the polluter pay?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I am sorry, but I see no connection between the ENCTS and socially necessary journey subsidy. The ENCTS was supposed to use the spare capacity of off peak services with the loss of full fares covered by increase ridership. That might have been valid in local urban areas, but not rural and inter-urban ones.

In rural areas, residents don't live their lives around one bus a week. Going to the weekly market has ceased long ago and so has the village shop / doctors etc closed. In Lancashire a village lost its 6 day a week bus service recently and complaints were made. Stagecoach had to point out that in the final 7 weeks of operation they had picked up a total of just 1 passenger. There is simply no demand. These days you don't choose to live in rural areas unless you have one or more cars available and you drive. If you are born into a rural area you pass your driving test ASAP and buy a car with your first pay packet or two, and that has been generally true for much of at least the last 40 years. Thus generally today's rural elderly have always driven and use its flexibility. Rural buses are just irrelevant; they don't go where or when you need them. My hamlet used 8 schools and we would never get 8 school buses - more like 6 cars - for eligible pupils it would be taxi to the nearest school bus stopping point, which means taxis are not available either. However community transport in its many forms can provide wheels often door to door and at more flexible times and places for those that need it. The rural bus and ENCTS is just generally irrelevant. Care of the elderly at home is more necessary.

Socially necessary journeys are more like shuttle services to out of town hospitals, out of town work places, estate housing. Perhaps subsidising routes to connect with train services, which makes the route less efficient. Some bigger villages do get off peak services to an out-of-town supermarket and perhaps bring tourists back the other way, but these are more funded by the town and parish councils with local interest and not the higher LA levels. These are not services specifically aimed at the off peak elderly and thus ENCTS users.

Life and geography has become car orientated and flexible. The internet is also reducing private travel. If we are going to get cars off the road then subsidising urban buses and using ENCTS to encourage older more time flexible people to go by urban bus and not car might help.

I'm sorry but it is very much the way of it. So take our example in Shap...

• The old 106 would have had a number of journeys running from Penrith to Kendal including the morning and evening workers journeys etc. All were subsidised by Cumbria CC. That cost say £80k per year to run.
• Now because there are tourists using services in the Lake District on routes like the 599 etc needing to be bolstered with more vehicles etc, you have Cumbria CC having to fork out to refund Stagecoach for revenue forgone/additional running costs. That is a statutory responsibility.
• Where do they get the money to pay for that....? Well it was discrete funding but since 2011, it has been part of the ever reducing grant from central government so non statutory responsibilities have borne the brunt....like providing socially necessary bus services like the 106.
• Are operators really getting the same revenue (no better/no worse) with the funding formula? Clearly not, especially when you compare Cumbria with a similar county like North Yorkshire

Now in the 106/599, I picked a very simple, directly relatable example but it could easily have been removing or reducing the evening services from journeys in West or South Cumbria.

I'm genuinely appreciative that pensioners would not wish to be blamed for the loss of any services, and yes we would all be in favour of a properly funded scheme, but that is the reality of the situation. In Cumbria, spending on providing socially necessary services has gone from £2m to ZERO. In terms of spending on ENCTS remuneration, the figure has moved only slightly down. The connection isn't hard to make.

 

[richard13]

I'm sorry but it is very much the way of it. So take our example in Shap...

• The old 106 would have had a number of journeys running from Penrith to Kendal including the morning and evening workers journeys etc. All were subsidised by Cumbria CC. That cost say £80k per year to run.
• Now because there are tourists using services in the Lake District on routes like the 599 etc needing to be bolstered with more vehicles etc, you have Cumbria CC having to fork out to refund Stagecoach for revenue forgone/additional running costs. That is a statutory responsibility.
• Where do they get the money to pay for that....? Well it was discrete funding but since 2011, it has been part of the ever reducing grant from central government so non statutory responsibilities have borne the brunt....like providing socially necessary bus services like the 106.
• Are operators really getting the same revenue (no better/no worse) with the funding formula? Clearly not, especially when you compare Cumbria with a similar county like North Yorkshire

Now in the 106/599, I picked a very simple, directly relatable example but it could easily have been removing or reducing the evening services from journeys in West or South Cumbria.

I'm genuinely appreciative that pensioners would not wish to be blamed for the loss of any services, and yes we would all be in favour of a properly funded scheme, but that is the reality of the situation. In Cumbria, spending on providing socially necessary services has gone from £2m to ZERO. In terms of spending on ENCTS remuneration, the figure has moved only slightly down. The connection isn't hard to make.

If ENCTS remuneration and bus subsidies came out of a single pot of money that might be true. The accountants may label them under a transport heading, but they are managed separately and each has to be value for money.

Austerity or other pressures is a good thing from time to time as it gets management to evaluate operations. Councils have looked at ENCTS costs and the cost of extras like allowing travel before 09:30 or after 23:00. Some of the extensions have been costed and labelled unnecessary generosity and thus have been removed.

Analysing the cost of subsidising buses services for socially necessary journeys has I think been something of an eye opener for many councils. Many services had run commercially and were then subsidised as passenger numbers fell and costs increased, but no one challenged the cost or social necessity. The expenditure cut backs made councils review what they were paying for. The data analysis and passenger surveys came up with some enlightening news. Some services were costing more than £25 per passenger journey, some journeys only ever averaged 2 passengers, etc. The councils had to ask the hard questions of what was value for money for the tax payer and was the service actually socially necessary. Councils came up with their own point scoring systems. Criteria of say a minimum of 10 passengers per journey and a cost of less than £6 per passenger journey was I think typical and possibly different for evening and Sunday services. Many rural services had simply fallen into non-use and were poor value and often not required. Dorset found that many rural passengers were only travelling because the ENCTS pass provided a free trip, when they had a car at home, which they used the rest of the time; So not socially necessary.

Most subsidised bus services will not be reinstated when the money comes in. They had simply become irrelevant, but the payment was not challenged. Somerset now has a balanced budget again with some spare funds for transport, which they hope to spend on subsidising services, but what? - any suggestions please. Dorset has determined that no rural public bus services are really required, but subsidises a basic inter-urban network. They expect to spend any spare funds on care in the home across the rural area. They will help with setting up community transport.

ENCTS costs, mandatory and extensions, and bus subsidises are separately managed and both have to meet councils value for money criteria as they define that. Councils have plenty of opportunities to spend money, but on mostly empty buses isn't one of them.

 

[Martin1988]

I do personally think there should be a restriction on usage at evening commuter time. Using Bristol as an example, a number of the bus routes are always packed to the rafters both morning and evening with those going to work/school/college etc.

In the morning rush hour some bus routes become full with commuters as it is but in the evening when those people need to return home there is more of a potential for there to be passholders on board which probably puts more pressure on available space on the vehicle. Most of the bus routes in Bristol are quite high frequency but what happens in other areas where the bus service provision is more restricted at peak times?

Another thought, in the case of bus routes which are popular amongst passholders making daytrips (eg one serving a seaside destinstion) surely the routes must become quite congested in the afternoon rush hour if you have passholders returning from a daytrip and workers/students using the bus for the evening commute?

The point I'm trying to make is the same capacity that is provided in the morning for commuters should be made available in the evening for them to return home and is an unintended consequence of the ENTCS scheme that it is maybe reduced?

 

[Man of Kent]

ENCTS costs, mandatory and extensions, and bus subsidises are separately managed and both have to meet councils value for money criteria as they define that.

As others have tried to point out, this is not correct. Bus subsidies are discretionary and ENCTS is mandatory. You cannot control how many journeys passholders make. However, many larger operators have agreed deals that cap the amount they receive (with adjustments only if things change within a fairly wide envelope) which means both authority and operator know their costs and revenue in advance for each year.

In general this means the operator is foregoing even more revenue, but there is some value in having a fixed rather than a floating income. Smaller operators will be at the mercy of both the number of passengers and the "generosity" of the authority, while DfT has consistently rewritten the rules to reduce the amount of reimbursement paid out.

The fundamental outcome is that there is probably no local transport authority in the country whose bus services budget is as large as its ENCTS commitments. The former has been cut to fund the latter, because the government-calculated grant simply isn't enough. (And in passing, I doubt that any authority wasn't monitoring use of services that it funded, but it's another matter as to whether politicians were prepared to take tough decisions on withdrawing poorly used journeys).

There are parallels with other statutory entitlements - you cannot control the number of over 75s entitled to a free TV licence, you cannot control the number of children entitled to free school meals, and you cannot control the number entitled to X many hours of free nursery care (a programme this week on Radio 4 on the latter had many interesting parallels with ENCTS funding).

Another thought, in the case of bus routes which are popular amongst passholders making daytrips (eg one serving a seaside destinstion) surely the routes must become quite congested in the afternoon rush hour if you have passholders returning from a daytrip and workers/students using the bus for the evening commute?

A number of operators have made the point that a full bus of ENCTS cardholders does not generate enough revenue to pay the bills. Stagecoach South's Coastliner, the erstwhile Jurassic Explorer and Norfolk's Coasthopper being three such examples.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If ENCTS remuneration and bus subsidies came out of a single pot of money that might be true

Er, they do come out of the same pot of money. ENCTS funding is now included in the formula grant, it is not paid separately and nor is it ring-fenced.

ENCTS spending is also set out in law. Councils do not carry out "value for money" calculations, it is a payment required by law to reimburse operators for a percentage of their foregone revenue. Councils do set the reimbursement rate but operators can appeal to the Secretary of State if they start taking the pee. But councils MUST pay reimbursement for ENCTS usage and this payment MUST be reasonable.

Even with this, the reimbursement rate is not high enough for operators to run services commercially which used to just about break even.

Socially necessary services are often used by the elderly and the disabled; in urban areas its the estate minibuses, in rural areas its the market day bus. ENCTS has been a double-whammy: ENCTS reimbursement rates are too low and so operators withdraw these services which used to run commercially, and ENCTS swallows the budget that was there for bus subsidies.

Another thought, in the case of bus routes which are popular amongst passholders making daytrips (eg one serving a seaside destinstion) surely the routes must become quite congested

Operators to seaside towns have seen huge demand for extra capacity; Coastliner used to use plenty of single deckers, but no more.

The ENCTS was supposed to use the spare capacity of off peak services with the loss of full fares covered by increase ridership.

You fundamentally misunderstand how ENCTS is funded. The calculation is "no better, no worse". This means, in simple terms, that the reimbursement is based on how many ENCTS passholders would have hypothetically have paid the full adult fare if one were charged to them. Crucially, the payment is NOT based on how many ENCTS passholders actually travel.

Put simply, if elderly/disabled ridership goes up by 50%, the operator will have all the overheads associated (bigger buses, longer dwell times leading to increased PVR) but will not get paid for any of it. Larger operators have sometimes managed to obtain some leeway on this; independents, by and large, haven't.

This was, of course, the reason behind why Transdev Coastliner threatened to stop their buses being local stopping services. Transdev were left needing to replace their single deckers (which before ENCTS coped fine, even in summer) with double deckers and were not going to receive any money for their increased costs.

This is also another reason why borderline commercial services have disappeared. The reimbursement rate is based on how many people would have paid; in rural areas, the answer is usually "not many". This has put long-standing operators like Pennine flat out of business.

I'm not sure where you get your fanciful ideas that ENCTS was designed to promote bus travel and that operators were and are coining it in.

Most subsidised bus services will not be reinstated when the money comes in. They had simply become irrelevant, but the payment was not challenged.

I agree, they won't be reinstated. ENCTS has already done the damage.

As for whether services are "irrelevant" because of low passenger numbers, perhaps some are (though, of course, popular routes wouldn't need subsidy in the first place!). But if you think that's why Cumbria CC now pay £0.00 a year for bus subsidies- leaving provision to community groups running a volunteer DRT minibus- you're flat out wrong.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Chip fat still creates CO2, NOXs and particulates so why shouldn't the polluter pay?

True, but you don't get the carbon emissions from the oil well, the oil refinery, and the dirty great tanker used to ship the oil here.

Electric cars have plenty of emissions too. The metals used in the batteries are the real elephant in the room.

But off topic we go...

 

[richw]

Make the ENCTS scheme 9.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday to Friday and 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, when morning peak restrictions are irrelevant. Then fund it properly!

Cornwall council have scrapped time restrictions. We no longer have full and standing double deckers immediately after 930. Not only that but CC provide a reasonsbly high reimbursement rate compared to other local authorities

And there's the real issue. It is not up to bus companies to subsidise social care.

We are the social care. The number of elderly and disabled passengers who use their pass just to sit and chat with someone else because they are isolated is purely shocking. They just ride about all day yapping to others to avoid being alone at home and state pension isnt enough to fund costed activity’s for many of them.

 

[neilmc]

If a bus full of ENCTS passengers doesn't make enough to cover the bills there is something wrong with the council's funding to the operator, or there is something wrong with the operator. Cumbria CC pays 58p in the pound of the adult fare back to the operator, given the high cost of single tickets a full bus would be a goldmine even if NOBODY paid. Going back to the Cumbria 599/106 comparison, Stagecoach are surely doing well on the 599 especially in summer but will never make any money on the 106, the long route is sparsely-populated and not on the tourist trail. But if ENCTS passes were scrapped, the OAP tourists in Keswick would be pootling around the narrow roads in their car (because they had to drive to get here, right?) at 20mph gazing at every sheep and causing accidents and a successful bus like the 599 may not run or would be severely curtailed because there aren't enough local OAPs who would pay the full fare either, because it's so expensive. So either nobody pays, or hardly anybody travels in a rural area.

If you restrict the usage to county-wide but keep the pass, well my one and only bus is once a week, so that's surely a social necessity. But when I get to Penrith, what if I decide to spend the afternoon in Workington just because I haven't seen the sea in months? That's just pensioner joyriding, wastes council taxpayers money and NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!! In fact, why not drag the old gits off by the scruff of the neck at Threlkeld and send them to work down the mines for a few more years if they're fit enough to go cavorting around on journeys they don't actually NEED to make?

 

[markymark2000]

The fundamental outcome is that there is probably no local transport authority in the country whose bus services budget is as large as its ENCTS commitments. The former has been cut to fund the latter, because the government-calculated grant simply isn't enough. (And in passing, I doubt that any authority wasn't monitoring use of services that it funded, but it's another matter as to whether politicians were prepared to take tough decisions on withdrawing poorly used journeys).

I do believe that if more concessionary reimbursement was given, more routes would become viable so it could work but it would be a gamble. I would be asking the government to set aside money for a trial of this. It can't be hard to trial it. Make the change and then ask operators if the route has become commercially viable as a result. If so, (and overall the savings of the lower bus budget is higher than the cost of the increased pass use), look at starting the new system.
I don't think councils quite believe that if they up the pass reimbursement, more buses will be viable and they will make money on the local tenders.

If a bus full of ENCTS passengers doesn't make enough to cover the bills there is something wrong with the council's funding to the operator, or there is something wrong with the operator. Cumbria CC pays 58p in the pound of the adult fare back to the operator, given the high cost of single tickets a full bus would be a goldmine even if NOBODY paid.

A lot of councils work out the pass revenue differently so it all depends on the area. Some use the Gov calculator, some use the Gov Calculator plus add a little extra. Some offer a set price per pass, some offer a pence in the pound and some even just give you the same amount each month (Regardless of passes accepted) to save the hassle of working this stuff out.
In your example, a double decker full would be ok however in Merseyside (where they give a set price which is basically worked out on an average so sometimes you get more, sometimes less), you would likely not make as much money.

It's also worth remembering that the bus companies don't just have to cover the bus and fuel costs, they also have the costs of shunt vehicles, management, depot land and maintenance. (All this said, I do believe bus operators could do more to reduce their costs but that's another topic)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If ENCTS remuneration and bus subsidies came out of a single pot of money that might be true. The accountants may label them under a transport heading, but they are managed separately and each has to be value for money

As @Tetchytyke has said, they do come out of a single pot on money. Since 2011, the discrete funding of ENCTS has been abandoned. Instead, it became part of the formula grant which is provided to local authorities to help fund the various services on which we rely. There are a number of statutory responsibilities that LAs have to undertake such as education, children’s and adults’ social care, waste collection, road maintenance etc, with these being enshrined in legislation. Funding ENCTS is a statutory responsibility so they have to do it, and all from the single pot that is the Formula Grant.

Provision of bus services is NOT a statutory responsibility, hence why a number of local authorities (incl. Cumbria) no longer support any local bus services.

If a bus full of ENCTS passengers doesn't make enough to cover the bills there is something wrong with the council's funding to the operator, or there is something wrong with the operator. Cumbria CC pays 58p in the pound of the adult fare back to the operator, given the high cost of single tickets a full bus would be a goldmine even if NOBODY paid. Going back to the Cumbria 599/106 comparison, Stagecoach are surely doing well on the 599 especially in summer but will never make any money on the 106, the long route is sparsely-populated and not on the tourist trail. But if ENCTS passes were scrapped, the OAP tourists in Keswick would be pootling around the narrow roads in their car (because they had to drive to get here, right?) at 20mph gazing at every sheep and causing accidents and a successful bus like the 599 may not run or would be severely curtailed because there aren't enough local OAPs who would pay the full fare either, because it's so expensive. So either nobody pays, or hardly anybody travels in a rural area.

If you restrict the usage to county-wide but keep the pass, well my one and only bus is once a week, so that's surely a social necessity. But when I get to Penrith, what if I decide to spend the afternoon in Workington just because I haven't seen the sea in months? That's just pensioner joyriding, wastes council taxpayers money and NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!! In fact, why not drag the old gits off by the scruff of the neck at Threlkeld and send them to work down the mines for a few more years if they're fit enough to go cavorting around on journeys they don't actually NEED to make?

As we have said, Cumbria is one of the more generous payers at £1.58 per journey, but I suspect your 58% is a historic figure.

Now you're right that no-one will ever make money on the 106. That's why it was supported by Cumbria CC, operated by Stagecoach under tender. IIRC, it had morning and evening journeys for "the workers" into both Penrith and Kendal plus a couple of extra services in the middle of the day. Not busy but deemed as socially necessary, and probably costing a good few thousands a year.

The 599 conversely has been run commercially for many years, with hordes of camera toting Beatrix Potter fans and Wordsworth devotees enjoying the ride. It would run without ENCTS patronage quite happily. However, if you're paying £50k a year on ENCTS reimbursement on the 599 (as it is a statutory responsibility) for tourists from out of the area, then that is £50k that cannot be used to support the 106. So the 106 gets all but scrapped whilst the 599 gets a "benefit" it doesn't need.

The irony being that such services like the 106 were predominantly used by ENCTS pass holders anyway so they have a pass that they can barely use, and the rest of the travelling public are left without a service such as those who did use the first and last journeys.

I might ask the question.... Is it socially necessary/desirable to allow you to travel to Workington to see the sea for the first time in months at the expense of cutting evening bus services so that other people can no longer have certain jobs without then buying a car? I don't blame pass holders and I don't blame the operators, and I don't even blame the local authorities.... This is a problem created and exacerbated by central government, ordering a meal and expecting someone to pick up the bill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are we now in a technological position where the passholder's home authority could pay for all journeys? This would solve this kind of issue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If a bus full of ENCTS passengers doesn't make enough to cover the bills there is something wrong with the council's funding to the operator, or there is something wrong with the operator. Cumbria CC pays 58p in the pound of the adult fare back to the operator, given the high cost of single tickets a full bus would be a goldmine even if NOBODY paid.

Did you actually read what I said?

The reimbursement rate- which in Cumbria is generous, but not as generous as you say- is not based on the number of passholders who travel. It is based on the number who hypothetically would have paid.

This, counter-intuitively, has the effect that most ENCTS funding goes to the busiest and most profitable routes.

The 599 is a great example: clearly an open-top bus, in summer, in the Lake District, will always be popular. Without ENCTS, people would still pay for a ride on an open-top bus on a sunny day. So the reimbursement rate for Stagecoach is very healthy.

Where you hit problems is where the people who would have hypothetically paid is lower. Transdev ran into this issue- ENCTS passholders took the bus to the seaside as it was free, but they wouldn't have paid for the bus (they'd have driven) so the reimbursement rate was low. But Transdev had all the costs of the bigger buses to fund but without the revenue. Hence their threat to make the buses expresses.

The issue comes back to central Government. Maybe tempting pensioners out if their cars is a good aim. But it needs to be paid for properly, and it isn't.

 

[markymark2000]

Are we now in a technological position where the passholder's home authority could pay for all journeys? This would solve this kind of issue.

Well, it depends. What reimbursement rate does the operator get (the pass issuing authorities rate or the rate for authority where the pass was used)? Secondly, this would involve a lot of admin for the operators in areas where you get paid per pass as they would then have to chase up tens of councils each month for a few pound here. It adds to local authorities admin costs as well with more companies to deal with for such small amounts of money.

 

[jammy36]

Cumbria CC pays 58p in the pound of the adult fare back to the operator, given the high cost of single tickets a full bus would be a goldmine even if NOBODY paid.

Is that actually the case? Hopefully someone who understands such things better can clarify!

My reading of the Cumbria reimbursement arrangements is that they reimburse 58% of the gross revenue forgone. That is 58% of ENCTS fares are reimbursed. The net revenue forgone is then calculated using a reimbursement formula based on the relevant single fare for the journey, but adjusted to take account of those journeys that would have made use of discounted fares (return or day tickets).

I might be misunderstanding things, but if I'm not, then that is very different (less) than operators receiving 58p in the pound for all journeys.

 

[richw]

As we have said, Cumbria is one of the more generous payers at £1.58 per journey

is that really generous? Cornwall I read pay 62% of average fare, unsure if that’s by route or entire network. Unverified and can’t find my source now. Most returns are between £6.00 and £9.00. Singles 2/3 of return fare!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, it depends. What reimbursement rate does the operator get (the pass issuing authorities rate or the rate for authority where the pass was used)? Secondly, this would involve a lot of admin for the operators in areas where you get paid per pass as they would then have to chase up tens of councils each month for a few pound here. It adds to local authorities admin costs as well with more companies to deal with for such small amounts of money.

A clearing house could be set up to handle the matter, and I'm not entirely clear why differing rates are beneficial. Just set a rate per mile travelled and be done with it. Doing that would prevent operators skewing the market by setting single fares artificially high, too.

(At a push 3-4 rates banded by the costs of operation i.e. wages in different regions)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

is that really generous? Cornwall I read pay 62% of average fare, unsure if that’s by route or entire network. Unverified and can’t find my source now. Most returns are between £6.00 and £9.00. Singles 2/3 of return fare!

Relatively generous! Look next door at North Yorkshire and they pay £1.11 on average for a journey vs. £1.53 (not £1.58 as I erroneously said) in Cumbria. That's quite a difference when you're looking a relatively similar counties in terms of population density.

 

[cainebj]

So we can put the argument over Cumbria concessions to bed....

I worked for an operator in Cumbria, and now work for an operator who claims commercially from 2 other authorities. The reimbursement rate in Cumbria IS 58% of the adult single fare for the journey taken. If the operator sells return tickets in addition to single tickets then the reimbursement received is discounted by 10%, and if the operator sells day tickets it is discounted by 20%. There is no discount for weekly/monthly/termly/annual passes. No averages of fares sold to calculate a rate per concession, no DfT reimbursement calculator, it is as simple as that, 58% of the shadow fare for the journey taken. If the concession passenger is travelling from Dalston to Carlisle as an example, which I believe was £6 single during 2019, the operator received £3.48 from Cumbria CC for that passenger trip.

As a result some operators do have very expensive single fares, meaning quite a handsome return from the council and buses that are largely concessionary passengers only. This is where the high average concession reimbursement comes from compared to other areas who take an average of cash tickets sold across single, return (return price divided by 2), day (day price divided by 4) and week (weekly price divided by 12) to work out an average ticket price then discount that by 58% (as an example) to get a rate per concession. The RPC often gets multiplied by an expected number of concessions based on previous years data to give an operator a "reimbursement offer" for the year, paid to the operator in 12 equal amounts throughout the year.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So we can put the argument over Cumbria concessions to bed....

I worked for an operator in Cumbria, and now work for an operator who claims commercially from 2 other authorities. The reimbursement rate in Cumbria IS 58% of the adult single fare for the journey taken. If the operator sells return tickets in addition to single tickets then the reimbursement received is discounted by 10%, and if the operator sells day tickets it is discounted by 20%. There is no discount for weekly/monthly/termly/annual passes. No averages of fares sold to calculate a rate per concession, no DfT reimbursement calculator, it is as simple as that, 58% of the shadow fare for the journey taken. If the concession passenger is travelling from Dalston to Carlisle as an example, which I believe was £6 single during 2019, the operator received £3.48 from Cumbria CC for that passenger trip.

As a result some operators do have very expensive single fares, meaning quite a handsome return from the council and buses that are largely concessionary passengers only. This is where the high average concession reimbursement comes from compared to other areas who take an average of cash tickets sold across single, return (return price divided by 2), day (day price divided by 4) and week (weekly price divided by 12) to work out an average ticket price then discount that by 58% (as an example) to get a rate per concession. The RPC often gets multiplied by an expected number of concessions based on previous years data to give an operator a "reimbursement offer" for the year, paid to the operator in 12 equal amounts throughout the year.

Thank you for that clarification. 58% is relatively generous as I think your second para states. It also does highlight the issue that to get the remuneration, it does promote higher single fares as I think we all recognise; a phenomena not confined to Cumbria.

 

[neilmc]

Yes, I add my thanks as the base figures in the documentation open to the public seems to underlie possibly complex calculations. This probably benefits the operator in Cumbria as of course operators sell all manner of day and weekly tickets and I suspect that relatively few regular passengers actually buy single fares.

 

[ivanhoe]

I have to admit, that free bus travel in the whole of England is an extremely generous benefit. You can also argue that not all Seniors are in need of this benefit.
The problems are though of a political nature in its introduction , running and even solutions. It was Ill thought through its introduction with Gordon Brown just ordering his Civil Servants just make it work. Once up and running ,Osbourne just rolled it into the Council settlement which over the years has been decimated by austerity.
The said age group vote in greater numbers and the publicity that would entail in either reducing it or indeed introducing some fare towards the journeys, would probably give the current Politicians nightmares.
For my two penneth, I would like to explore the possibility of a two tier system using the available tax information as follows:
If Seniors are in receipt of State Pension and a small private pension that does not exceed the personal tax allowance, then they are issued a pass which gives them similar benefits as now. For all others, I would like Councils and Government to work with operators to consider new products which would provide discounted travel for Seniors.
Finally, I don’t think you can expect countrywide coverage and if it would be possible ,limit to regions. If I go on holiday to Wales, my ENCTS Card is not valid. Why should it be valid if I go to Swanage, Sheringham or Blackpool?
It would be interesting to hear views of operators. Pushing up the price of singles , as the present system does, is unfair to the low paid who are invariably much younger than Seniors and really need the help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to admit, that free bus travel in the whole of England is an extremely generous benefit. You can also argue that not all Seniors are in need of this benefit.

It isn't just a benefit for them. It also encourages older people to give up their cars, which is a safety, environmental and congestion benefit for everyone.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Yes, I add my thanks as the base figures in the documentation open to the public seems to underlie possibly complex calculations. This probably benefits the operator in Cumbria as of course operators sell all manner of day and weekly tickets and I suspect that relatively few regular passengers actually buy single fares.

Yes, as is the case in a lot of areas with significant tourism, single fares in Cumbria are exorbitant, day tickets are expensive, but weekly and longer tickets are reasonably cheap. Operators want to be able to get a lot of money out of tourists, while at the same time not pricing locals (who aren't generally that well off) off the buses. Similar patterns can be seen in Cornwall or on the Isle of Wight.

 

[ivanhoe]

It isn't just a benefit for them. It also encourages older people to give up their cars, which is a safety, environmental and congestion benefit for everyone.

They don’t really give up their cars in great numbers, do they? but you make an interesting point.

 

[richard13]

As @Tetchytyke has said, they do come out of a single pot on money. Since 2011, the discrete funding of ENCTS has been abandoned. Instead, it became part of the formula grant which is provided to local authorities to help fund the various services on which we rely. There are a number of statutory responsibilities that LAs have to undertake such as education, children’s and adults’ social care, waste collection, road maintenance etc, with these being enshrined in legislation. Funding ENCTS is a statutory responsibility so they have to do it, and all from the single pot that is the Formula Grant.

Provision of bus services is NOT a statutory responsibility, hence why a number of local authorities (incl. Cumbria) no longer support any local bus services.

What I mean is that ENCTS remuneration and bus subsidies both come out of council general funds and not any ring fenced transport budget. They are independent council expenses from the general budget. The Formula Grant is the way of calculating the size of lump sum the council receives from central government for their general fund. Part of that formula is ENCTS related and understates the cost, but the payment is for general use.

Cutting a subsidised bus route saves money directly on the subsidy and reduces the ENCTS renumeration cost as there is no bus to travel on. So Cumbria cutting the 106 saves cash in two ways, which they can then spend on education, social services, pot hole repairs or what ever. Cutting bus subsidies is a quick way of reducing the council's cash expenditure where as cutting services costs money and requires negotiation over months.

The cost of mandatory ENCTS remuneration has no baring on any other transport expenditure, but restricts spending on education, social services etc.. If ENCTS was abolished then the council would receive less from central government and have some spare cash of their own to spend on anything they like, which probably wouldn't be buses. If cars get phased out then the 106 might well be commercial again with an electric bus.

There are many government grants that are ring fenced for specific purposes and not included in the general fund.