Should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel?

Llanigraham · 8 Oct 2016

najaB said:
That seems like a sensible option as it provides a basic (and effectively free) method of means testing.

Like fowler9 I believe that society should help those who need, but it frustrates me to see benefits money spent on those who definitely don't need it - e.g. universal winter fuel benefit being claimed by the well-heeled.

And what value do you put on that "taxable benefit"?
I get a Bus pass because I am over 60, and I have a disabled rail card, because I am deaf, but we have very few buses, they don't link with the trains, so it is rarely used, whereas I drive to the station and often use my rail card. Someone in an urban area is much more likely to use their buss pass, so are we both to be taxed at the same level?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gareth Marston said:
From a Stations Agents point of view the loss of over 60 revenue would force us to close- depriving the rest of the community of the facility. I dare say many other Booking Offices would drop beneath a viable level too. No doubt an accelerated booking office closure programme would be attractive to some at RDG/DfT.

Quite Gareth, but no-one thinks about that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AM9 said:
Equally, there are many bus routes that are only viable because of the level of ENCTS travel they attract. Remove that and the route would be lost to all, - even those who can't or don't want to use a car that they might have access to.

Especially in rural areas!!

As usual lots of urbanites answering on here, and forgetting there is life outside towns!

RailUK Forums

bnm · 8 Oct 2016

PeterC said:
Not round here, the council budgets a fixed amount which is then divvied up among the operators in proportion to usage.

What Council is this? That method of calculation seems to go against the legislation and DfT guidance.

Whatever the method use by councils to calculate grants to operators for the Concessionary Bus Pass scheme, the over-riding principle of the legislation is that the operators should be, "no better or worse off" than if the scheme was not in place.

Councils should use one of two methods for calculating the revenue foregone by operators by firstly calculating an 'Average Fare'.

The first method for calculating the 'Average Fare', and DfT recommended one, is the 'Discounted Fare method':

This is the recommended approach for estimating the average fare for predominantly urban operators. The basic principle of this method is to calculate a discount factor to adjust the full commercial adult cash fare downward so as to reflect the fact that in the absence of free-fare schemes, individuals would take up discounted tickets.

The second method is the 'Basket of Fares method':

This method is appropriate for Councils to use where the discount factor method is not suitable, i.e. for operators with a high proportion of passengers carried on infrequent buses.

It allows Councils to estimate an effective discount rate by calculating a weighted average fare per journey from assumed usage of different commercial ticket types. It is not dissimilar to the first method but requires more data inputs and requires Councils to make assumptions about the number of journeys that would have been taken with each ticket purchased in the absence of the scheme and the proportion of total journeys that would have been taken by concessionaires holding each type of ticket in the absence of the scheme.

Then there is an estimate of demand calculated as a 'Reimbursement Factor':

The level of non-generated journeys is best expressed by the
Reimbursement Factor, the percentage of journeys that would have been made in the absence of a scheme (i.e. if commercial fares had been charged). The higher the reimbursement factor, the higher the number of journeys that would have been made in the absence of a scheme and the lower the number of journeys that are generated by the scheme.

Reimbursement Factor =
Estimated journeys made in the absence of the free scheme, divided by
Observed journeys made at free fare

The calculation for revenue foregone is:

Reimbursement Factor x Observed journeys at free fares x Average fare.

Added to this is an estimate of 'Additional Costs'. These are:

Scheme administration costs;
Marginal operating costs;
Marginal capacity costs;
Peak vehicle requirements;
Other issues.

The overall calculation is very complex. The above is just the basics. However, it is not as simple as having a fixed budget and divvying it up between operators.

More (much more!) detail:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/478134/reimbursement-guidance-2016-17.pdf

bicbasher · 8 Oct 2016

Disabled passengers already are means tested in London for the Freedom pass, where certain factors based on their disability are put into play. Some London boroughs will issue a discretionary Freedom Pass if they don't meet the London Councils standard (the boroughs wide organisation who issue passes) criteria.

pemma · 8 Oct 2016

Llanigraham said:
Especially in rural areas!!

As usual lots of urbanites answering on here, and forgetting there is life outside towns!

In Cheshire some of the cutbacks mean the token bus service remaining on some routes is only suitable for people not working normal office hours. For instance, if you live in the village of High Legh a few years ago you could have used a bus to either Warrington or Altrincham for a job which requires you to work normal office hours. The Warrington service is now a token Tuesday and Friday only service, while the pre-9am bus for Altrincham was recently withdrawn so the bus used on that bus route could be used for a school contract instead.

Johnuk123 · 8 Oct 2016

Master29 said:
All disabled people aren`t poverty stricken?? Really..... Do you live in a bubble or something?... What a ridiculous generalisation, and where is your proof of this statement.

I don't need proof that ALL disabled people aren't poverty stricken as it's a stone cold fact. SOME will be and plenty will be living the high life that's quite obvious.
You can produce proof that ALL disabled people are in fact poverty stricken no doubt so produce it then.

mark-h · 8 Oct 2016

I think it is important to work out what a free travel scheme is intended to provide.

In my view it should make it easier for older/less mobile people to go about their lives- going to shops, medical appointments, local social clubs etc. during the off peak hours. Limited rail travel could be included in this.

In Scotland the scheme is, in my opinion, far too generous. It has no peek hour restrictions and no distance limits. The Scottish Government pays a percentage of the standard ticket price for the journey which, for long distance journeys, will add a lot to the cost of the scheme- especially if a return journey is priced as two singles.

People aged 60 and over qualify for the free travel- despite being of working age. Subsidising daily commutes is very generous.

pemma · 8 Oct 2016

mark-h said:
Subsidising daily commutes is very generous.

Indeed. If you're going to subside daily commutes it should be for people who accept a job with low pay quite a distance from where they live.

najaB · 8 Oct 2016

Llanigraham said:
And what value do you put on that "taxable benefit"?

Proportionally, based on the amount that it is used is one option.

Andrewlong · 8 Oct 2016

jcollins said:
Indeed. If you're going to subside daily commutes it should be for people who accept a job with low pay quite a distance from where they live.

It's about time season tickets were reformed. Unlimited peak and off-peak travel at lower rate than buying a day return isn't equitable though the season ticket holders will always point out how many thousand pounds they pay for the privilege!

najaB · 8 Oct 2016

Andrewlong said:
Unlimited peak and off-peak travel at lower rate than buying a day return isn't equitable...

I don't follow. It is a common business practice to offer discounted rates and/or more favourable terms to customers who sign up for contracts, even more so when they pay in advance.

bramling · 8 Oct 2016

swt class 450 said:
I am just thinking should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel (like they get free bus travel with their ENCTS pass)? In both Ireland and Northern Ireland OAPs and Disabled get unlimited free train travel (as well as tram and bus). Personally i think it could be a good idea to bring this to trains in England / Wales / Scotland to help more people get out and about especially as more and more bus services keep getting withdrawn every year (especially in smaller villages). I would be interested to know what others think of this?

No from me.

I'm not overly keen on the idea of subsidising travel for particular groups, especially the idea that it will potentially create journeys on crowded trains that may not otherwise have been made.

If we're going to give to OAPs then I'd prefer to put it on pensions, giving people the freedom to choose how they spend the money.

fowler9 · 8 Oct 2016

Lets get one thing straight. The average UK wage is £26500. This is massively distorted by really high earners. Out of about 400 people in my office there can't be over 20 who earn that or more. The vast majority are earning around £15000. In this day and age 2 people earning £15000 will not pay for a mortgage on a decent house and allow for savings. We live in one of the richest countries in the world and it is a disgrace that there are people on the streets or working people struggling using food banks. An absolute disgrace. There is too much money at the top, there is enough for everyone and for the rich to still have a lavish lifestyle. It makes me sick. People who are working should not have to claim benefits to live. The fact we even have in work benefits should be an embarrassment to anyone living here. It just screams out "We do not pay you enough to live". If we can't pay people enough to live in the UK where can?

NorthernSpirit · 8 Oct 2016

D1009 said:
I believe in Hungary free public transport is available to all EU citizens over the age of 65. Unfortunately we're leaving the EU.

However and fortunatley there'll be some extra cash in the kitty to actually properly fund the exisiting British scheme of concessionary travel, which in my view was badly thought out and funded from the start.

I'm not saying that its a bad thing, I'm basically stating that with the extra cash the scheme can be improved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
-
-

deltic said:
I would prefer scrapping all free travel due to the problems and distortions it causes. Instead for local bus and train services I would have a notional charge say 20p for buses and 50p for trains for off -peak single journeys while maintaining the present railcard system for longer journeys. In London we have the ridiculous situation of highly paid professionals travelling to and from work free of charge just because they are over 60.

By the time I reach retirement age (70, providing that I live that long), I don't think that the scheme would exist by then.

wingsoveryorks · 8 Oct 2016

Yes they should at off peak times. What's the point in running half empty trains? May as well allow disabled and elderly use them.

bramling · 8 Oct 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
Yes they should at off peak times. What's the point in running half empty trains? May as well allow disabled and elderly use them.

Half empty trains at off-peak times? This is increasingly becoming a myth.

wingsoveryorks · 8 Oct 2016

bramling said:
Half empty trains at off-peak times? This is increasingly becoming a myth.

The world doesn't end at Watford Gap. London might be packed, up north there's plenty of room. That said. Can you image half a dozen wheelchairs appearing for a pacer set? Umm.

bramling · 8 Oct 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
The world doesn't end at Watford Gap. London might be packed, up north there's plenty of room. That said. Can you image half a dozen wheelchairs appearing for a pacer set? Umm.

Actually, my experience would say it's the other way round. It's quite possible to find some pretty empty suburban trains around the London area during M-F daytime (less so at weekends nowadays). In contrast, many services outside the London area tend to be quite full during the day. Partly this is because of what generally tends to be shorter length, but also it has to be said my perception is there appears to be a greater proportion of people who aren't at work for one reason or another.

Gareth Marston · 8 Oct 2016

wingsoveryorks said:
The world doesn't end at Watford Gap. London might be packed, up north there's plenty of room. That said. Can you image half a dozen wheelchairs appearing for a pacer set? Umm.

Couple of weeks back I had a conductor come in and ask me phone control to get a taxi for a wheelchair user who couldn't get on due to other users occupying the space. It was a 4 car 158 at lunchtime on the Cambrian on a Thursday in late September.......

507021 · 8 Oct 2016

fowler9 said:
I did mention before means testing the elderly or disabled. It isn't actually something I agree with though. I am a socialist. I don't mind paying towards loads of things I seemingly don't use, schemes for the homeless, GP's, Hospitals, roads, ambulances, the police, the army. Stuff I don't directly use but which people I directly rely on need as well. I happily pay for free travel for the elderly and disabled because it could and maybe will be me one day. It takes a special kind of selfish not to see the impact absolutely everyone you interact with on a daily basis has on your life in a positive way.

Couldn't agree more, excellent post.

Llanigraham · 8 Oct 2016

najaB said:
Proportionally, based on the amount that it is used is one option.

Fine.
But how do you work out how much it is used?
Again this will cost more to assess than it will save!

sidmouth · 8 Oct 2016

Re buse fare reimbursement to the bus companies to no ensure "no better no worse" the danger is that the council reimbursing the bus companies might then have less money to spend on their supported services (weekend, late night and rural services), leading to withdrawal of those services. Thus the actual losers might be those disbabled / retired; with a worse off service than otherwise.

najaB · 8 Oct 2016

Llanigraham said:
Fine.
But how do you work out how much it is used?
Again this will cost more to assess than it will save!

Issue smart cards, record the usage data. Not *that* hard.

AnonymousUser1 · 8 Oct 2016

Johnuk123 said:
Giving all disabled people free travel is not need based at all as all disabled people aren't poverty stricken in fact a hell of a lot are very well off.
Disabled doesn't mean poor and it's patronising to suggest otherwise.

' a hell of a lot of disabled people are very well off ' care to evidence the male bovine excrement

Shaw S Hunter · 8 Oct 2016

The problem with providing any product or service for free is it all too often leads to undesirable behaviours, like an inflated sense of entitlement ("twirlies" who think 0930 is the same as 0920 or even 0908 as I had a couple of times) or a degraded standard of customer service ("you're getting it for free, what more do you want?" as a response to a complaint).

That's not to say that concessionary fares are a bad idea: talk to ENCTS pass holders and plenty will admit that they would find a flat fare scheme to be acceptable, indeed many areas offered such concessionary fares before Gordon Brown decided that free travel was the way forward. Equally there's no reason why concessionary fares shouldn't be graduated in some way so that local travel within the area of residence can be cheap, thus assisting with day-to-day mobility, but longer distance or out of area travel would be at full public rate unless the traveler holds a paid-for discount card. Perhaps a trick was missed in the national scheme not being a bus industry equivalent to a railcard. Or even an all-modes card.

Llanigraham · 9 Oct 2016

najaB said:
Issue smart cards, record the usage data. Not *that* hard.

Might not be hard, but it is expensive, and therefore defeats the object of saving money.

Agent_c · 9 Oct 2016

I can certainly see the merit in this for some classes of disabled persons. I volunteer in a CAB and had a client's mother the other day fighting to restore their (adult) Child's benefits as those benefits had improved their quality of life by allowing them to get out and about.

Perhaps it could be a "motorbility alternative" - you either get the car or a gold-off-peak pass for your local transport area (obviously if you're unable to drive, you get the latter).

AnonymousUser1 · 9 Oct 2016

fowler9 said:
Lets get one thing straight. The average UK wage is £26500. This is massively distorted by really high earners.

except of course it isn;t becaude it's the median , not the mean. it is important to realise the difference between these.

Out of about 400 people in my office there can't be over 20 who earn that or more. The vast majority are earning around £15000. In this day and age 2 people earning £15000 will not pay for a mortgage on a decent house and allow for savings.

an office doing what ?

I could equally point you in the direction of many work places where most people are earning rather more than 15 k - bearing in mind that someone working a 37.5 hour week for the over 25 NMW earning in excess of 14 k

We live in one of the richest countries in the world and it is a disgrace that there are people on the streets

all of whom are there through choice or refusal to engage ... but the statutory duty of Local authorities to house the homeless seems to be ignored by those who do not wish to either recognise that the duty is only exercised by one LA for an individual and there is not a free choice in that ...

this duty is phrased in the temr ofthe local link to prevent a dispropotyionate burden falling on large city LAs housing people with no local link but a want to live there ...

or working people struggling using food banks.

i would be interested to see the figures claiming that large numbers of workinfg people are using food banks vs those whose DWP benefits are delayed or those who have been sanctioned because they couldn't be arsed to communicate with the DWP.

just as those claiming ' there are no jobs' do so often while within walking distance of employers bussing people in from the local big town / city becasuethe local population seem to think they are above joining an organisation at the entry level and working their way up through demonstrating a positive attiude towards work .

An absolute disgrace. There is too much money at the top, there is enough for everyone and for the rich to still have a lavish lifestyle. It makes me sick. People who are working should not have to claim benefits to live. The fact we even have in work benefits should be an embarrassment to anyone living here. It just screams out "We do not pay you enough to live". If we can't pay people enough to live in the UK where can?

typical corbynite politics of jealousy
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agent_c said:
I can certainly see the merit in this for some classes of disabled persons. I volunteer in a CAB and had a client's mother the other day fighting to restore their (adult) Child's benefits as those benefits had improved their quality of life by allowing them to get out and about.

Perhaps it could be a "motorbility alternative" - you either get the car or a gold-off-peak pass for your local transport area (obviously if you're unable to drive, you get the latter).

Motability is the use of Higher rate Mobility componenet or PIP or a war pension to pay for a vehicle lease , the alternative is to recieve the mobility component as a cash payment ... in both cases someone eligible for HRMC is likely to also be eligible for a ENCTS disability pass ... as the criteria for an ENCTS disability is less than for even the lower rate mobility supplements ( someone who has a seizure disorder or is partially sighted or is treated with certain mental health drugs can have an ENCTS disability pass although they would not qualify for the mobility component of PIP )

AlterEgo · 9 Oct 2016

Llanigraham said:
Might not be hard, but it is expensive, and therefore defeats the object of saving money.

It really isn't that expensive to issue a smart card and record the usage. There are thousands of schemes about these days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

mph1977 said:
' a hell of a lot of disabled people are very well off ' care to evidence the male bovine excrement

Yeah, me. I'm disabled and I earn well over the average wage. I've a house, a buy to let property giving me a second income, a car, and I go abroad at least twice a month. I travel First Class all the time, and I earn a third income of around £500 a month from YouTube.

I'm disabled, I receive PIP and I hold a DSB railcard.

There are lots of people like me. Disabled doesn't always equate to being disadvantaged, disenfranchised or poor. It depends on the disability, and the person behind the disability.

The majority of "disabled people" are less well off than the median wage, but it's also true that a lot of people with disabilities are very successful and independent, and don't need a concessionary pass. That's why it should be means tested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

fowler9 said:
Lets get one thing straight. The average UK wage is £26500. This is massively distorted by really high earners. Out of about 400 people in my office there can't be over 20 who earn that or more. The vast majority are earning around £15000. In this day and age 2 people earning £15000 will not pay for a mortgage on a decent house and allow for savings. We live in one of the richest countries in the world and it is a disgrace that there are people on the streets or working people struggling using food banks. An absolute disgrace. There is too much money at the top, there is enough for everyone and for the rich to still have a lavish lifestyle. It makes me sick. People who are working should not have to claim benefits to live. The fact we even have in work benefits should be an embarrassment to anyone living here. It just screams out "We do not pay you enough to live". If we can't pay people enough to live in the UK where can?

This has nothing to do with concessionary travel - which, like Winter Fuel Payments, should be subject to a means test.

Master29 · 9 Oct 2016

Johnuk123 said:
I don't need proof that ALL disabled people aren't poverty stricken as it's a stone cold fact. SOME will be and plenty will be living the high life that's quite obvious.
You can produce proof that ALL disabled people are in fact poverty stricken no doubt so produce it then.

I see what you mean now but in that case what you should have added was "aren't necessarily".

Butts · 9 Oct 2016

I agree with the basic principle of providing concessionary travel for people above a certain age.

Someone mentioned earlier the scheme is over generous in Scotland. Some services should be excluded like the 747 to Edinburgh Airport from Fife. Sometimes I have just about been the only fare paying passenger.If they can afford to be jetting off somewhere......

Also the qualifying age has not kept up with the State Pension Age and as people mentioned you get commuters using the pass to get to work. Should the two be the same ?

Perhaps a compromise would be to charge child fares to concession holders ?

Should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel?

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member