Concessionary pass validity times

[radamfi]

With the likely significant decline in car use in the future though I expect there will be a lot more people who will have no choice but to pay the bus fares that the market commands. If anything I expect there to be more of a case for the deregulated system in the future (with some currently subsidized services becoming profitable) unless there is a significant political change.

There is a growing argument that car usage has peaked and has started to decline in many industrialised countries and not just because of the current economic climate (search for 'peak car'). Young people aren't that interested in private motoring compared to previous generations. That would imply that the deregulated model could be sustainable. But I wouldn't be surprised if more areas go the way of parts of Surrey with a total withdrawal of commercial services in the short to medium term. A massive growth in cycling would kill bus deregulation.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

Your point was that for every passenger that uses a conscessionary pass for a journey costing X, the bus company loses X in revenue (minus the reimbursment). At the end of the day if the passenger would never have made the journey had they been required to pay then the bus company would still not have got X in revenue from them so the bus company is not going to be losing revenue as a result of the scheme this except for any increases in operational costs which as CatfordCat explained above should be covered by the reinbursment. As long as the operational costs of carrying the extra passengers is covered then the the scheme should at least be revenue neutral for the bus company. If the full fare had to be reinbursed for every journey made then I expect the bus companies would actually be gaining revenue as a result of the scheme.

So, when you go to the cinema, because it doesn't matter if 10 or 100 people are watching the film, it's okay for 90 of them not to pay, as the film was showing anyway?

As for being cost neutral, why do you think Coastliner wanted to stop ENTS cards being used at afternoon peak etc? because they are loosing a fortune with the scheme. Not over all, but the North Yorkshire reimbursement is on of the lowest in the Country.
Only because North Yorkshire Council upped the reimbursement did the ENTS passes remain valid on all their services post 9/9.30am. (York allows 9am start.)

 

[david16]

Let's not forget before the nationwise concessionary passes there were local concessionary passes that allowed free travel from inside the council area they resided to certain destinations beyond the local council boundary. Previously it was quarter fares and half fares pensioners had to pay.

Only for journeys wholly outwith the council boundary the pensioners resided did pensioners have to find the full adult single fare.

 

[Zoe]

So, when you go to the cinema, because it doesn't matter if 10 or 100 people are watching the film, it's okay for 90 of them not to pay, as the film was showing anyway?

A cinema exists entirely in the free market to make money and has no duty to provide any service to the people at all. The government decided to provide free bus travel for eligible people and the cost of doing this is reimbursed so that the bus companies should not be worse off than they would be if the passes did not exist but it is not a case of the government buying journeys from the bus company, the government are simply making use of the existing bus network to provide the free travel without it costing the bus company revenue compared to if the bus didn't have to accept passes. The scheme has never been about generating extra proft for the bus companies which is what full fares are for.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

A cinema exists entirely in the free market to make money and has no duty to provide any service to the people at all.

As do bus companies.

The government decided to provide free bus travel for elidgable people and the cost of doing this is reimbursed so that the bus companies should not be worse off than they would be if the passes did not exist but it is not a case of the government buying journeys from the bus company. The scheme has never been about generatig extra revenue for the bus companies.

But they ARE often loosing money.

 

[ModernRailways]

As do bus companies.



But they ARE often loosing money.

If you want to argue you that then London Underground etc. are also part of the free market.

Buses are a public service ran by private companies which still have to get authority to run. They are also ran for the people and not for their shareholders (in most cases). Buses are key to most communities.

A cinema is a private company ran to line the pockets of it's shareholders. It is not a vital thing for local communities.

 

[Zoe]

But they ARE often loosing money.

As I said above, it's not the case that for every passenger who uses a pass they are losing the equivalent full adult single fare in revenue since as I say, quite a few wouldn't use the bus if they had to pay the full fare. The reimbursment is to cover any loss in revenue compared to what it would be had the passes not been introduced. If a bus company introduces on a route which would never have been profitble before the passes were introduced then it's not surprising that the route wouldn't make money since this was never the objective of the scheme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As do bus companies.

Bus transport does operate largely under the free market but the carriage of pass holders at the relevant times does not. As long as the operational costs of carrying the people with passes (plus the revenue from people who would have used the bus had the passes not existed) are reimbursed it should not cost them revenue since they wouldn't be any better off if there were no passes since many wouldn't use the bus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you want to argue you that then London Underground etc. are also part of the free market.

Is it though? Private companies do not get the chance to run trains on the London Underground and make money.

 

[neilmc]

So, when you go to the cinema, because it doesn't matter if 10 or 100 people are watching the film, it's okay for 90 of them not to pay, as the film was showing anyway?

As for being cost neutral, why do you think Coastliner wanted to stop ENTS cards being used at afternoon peak etc? because they are loosing a fortune with the scheme. Not over all, but the North Yorkshire reimbursement is on of the lowest in the Country.
Only because North Yorkshire Council upped the reimbursement did the ENTS passes remain valid on all their services post 9/9.30am. (York allows 9am start.)

Presumably because pensioners from Leeds and York were having free days out to the coast - if the reimbursement is a flat fare that could be seen as a big loss on such a long journey, although of course if said pensioners had to pay anything like the full fare they wouldn't travel at all.

Coastliner could only stop ENTS cards being used if the non-stop section was of sufficient length to recategorise the service as "express" and this could only be done by the bus flying non-stop through several villages who would then have had no service at all.

 

[CatfordCat]

Buses are a public service ran by private companies which still have to get authority to run. They are also ran for the people and not for their shareholders (in most cases). Buses are key to most communities.

I would question this (in the English market outside London at least)

Bus operators don't really have to get "authority to run" - it's not a case of seeking permission.

It is broadly the case that operators first have to meet the technical / financial / management requirements of PSV Operator Licensing, and if they have done that, then as long as they register a local service in the approved manner, then they can run where they like and at what times / frequency they like, and likewise can change or withdraw services at 8 weeks' notice.

Only in very exceptional circumstances can local authorities veto a service operating (e.g. if it were to use roads seriously unsuitable, and there have been a very few cases where excessive numbers of buses have caused complete gridlock - i'm thinking early 90s Sheffield city centre for example - see picture - not mine - here)

I would question whether the plc's are run "for the people and not for their shareholders" - there is a thread running on here about one of the plc's and how it has pulled out of some unprofitable areas...

The late Nicholas Ridley (the secretary of state for transport who brought bus deregulation in) was on record as saying that bus operators would be "free to operate without the constraint of a social conscience"

Yes, local authorities can procure the provision of services which the free market does not provide, but budgets for such things are under constant pressure.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Coastliner could only stop ENCTS cards being used if the non-stop section was of sufficient length to recategorise the service as "express" and this could only be done by the bus flying non-stop through several villages who would then have had no service at all.

With the highlighted part of your quote in mind, what other bus services now serve those settlements who lost the Yorkshire Coastliner services...and what service frequency is provided by those other bus services ?

 

[Andrew Nelson]

With the highlighted part of your quote in mind, what other bus services now serve those settlements who lost the Yorkshire Coastliner services...and what service frequency is provided by those other bus services ?

Paul, it didn't happen, as has been pointed-out before.
North Yorkshire gave Coastliner more money to stop them doing so.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think you must be confused about Scottish pensioners, david16.

In Scotland, Scottish Ciylink and megabus allow free distance travel on coach for pensioners and disabled passengers with the national entitlement card,

. . . .

access to the train in their area for distance travel but not the coach pensioners or disabled passengers even with the national entitlement card

. . . .

Maybe it's time for the Scottish government to look at it and have a small charge (I.e £2.00 day fare) for pensioners and disabled people

. . . .
But these bus passes are being used by pensioners the same way as a

The Scottish Concessionary Travel Pass is available to "people aged 60+ and people with a disability" (this is the same as in England).

The Scottish Pension age is "in the process of increasing from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2018." with "an increase to 67 is planned to be phased in over two years from April 2026" (this is the same as in England, and an independant Scotland has only pledged to "reserve judgement" on the increase from 65 to 67).

Additionally, the State Pension is subject to other qualifying conditions which are not applied to qualification for the Travel Pass.

As eligibility for the Travel Pass is not commensurate with the State Pension any more than it is with a Private Pension, it is very mistaken to refer to those using the Travel Pass as 'pensioners'.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul, it didn't happen, as has been pointed-out before. North Yorkshire gave Coastliner more money to stop them doing so.

I was being somewhat obtuse (as ever is my way to those with knowledge of my convoluted way of reasoning) but I was genuinely interested in the knowledge of other small bus undertakings who also provide bus services to these rural communities.

 

[34D]

I think you must be confused about Scottish pensioners, david16.
The Scottish Concessionary Travel Pass is available to "people aged 60+ and people with a disability" (this is the same as in England).

No it isn't. Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are indeed 60 plus (I wrote a detailed article about this for the 'rail uk fares & ticketing guide' which the compilers opted not to include in the end) but England is currently age 61 years 9 months. For simplicity, someone born 5th Feb 1952 (and earlier) is eligible for a bus pass from a week on Wednesday (6th Nov 2013) so may apply now. This is the date range being worked with throughout England - source.

Someone born before 5th March 1952 is eligible from 6th Jan 2014 (and in west yorks, can apply from early December 2013).

Basically, every two months, the application window increases by one month of age.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Coastliner could only stop ENTS cards being used if the non-stop section was of sufficient length to recategorise the service as "express" and this could only be done by the bus flying non-stop through several villages who would then have had no service at all.

This is incorrect. Coastliner (or any operator) could also make more than 50% of seats reservable in advance. The stopping pattern could remain unchanged.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was being somewhat obtuse (as ever is my way to those with knowledge of my convoluted way of reasoning) but I was genuinely interested in the knowledge of other small bus undertakings who also provide bus services to these rural communities.

The proposal (not acted upon in the end, as already stated) was that a couple of services a day would remain 'stopping' with the rest moving to 'express'.

 

[Tom B]

The London system has disadvantages too - I read an excellent article about the way the system was set up meaning that the focus was on the time-keeping and miles driven, not the number of passengers carried. There is no benefit to the operator in carrying a single passenger or collecting a single fare!

Outwith London, the passenger broadly does not have a choice. Mainline, for example, sold out to First in 1998. First have since taken their network and run it down. I can't think of one genuine improvement or example of commercial enterprise they have done. If any investment takes place, it is often paid for by the PTE. The passenger base has been worn down as those who can drive will do so as the bus service is so dire you wouldn't want to use it (a service which was previously every 6 during the day and 20 during evenings has gone down to 15 in the day and one per hour until 22:00). And they wonder why the services are quiet!

 

[Andrew Nelson]

Presumably because pensioners from Leeds and York were having free days out to the coast - if the reimbursement is a flat fare that could be seen as a big loss on such a long journey, although of course if said pensioners had to pay anything like the full fare they wouldn't travel at all.

There is no proof of that whatsoever.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The London system has disadvantages too - I read an excellent article about the way the system was set up meaning that the focus was on the time-keeping and miles driven, not the number of passengers carried. There is no benefit to the operator in carrying a single passenger or collecting a single fare!

Outwith London, the passenger broadly does not have a choice. Mainline, for example, sold out to First in 1998. First have since taken their network and run it down. I can't think of one genuine improvement or example of commercial enterprise they have done. If any investment takes place, it is often paid for by the PTE. The passenger base has been worn down as those who can drive will do so as the bus service is so dire you wouldn't want to use it (a service which was previously every 6 during the day and 20 during evenings has gone down to 15 in the day and one per hour until 22:00). And they wonder why the services are quiet!

Not to mention the above inflation rise in fares, to offset the losses of income from the ENC.

 

[Zoe]

The passenger base has been worn down as those who can drive will do so as the bus service is so dire you wouldn't want to use it (a service which was previously every 6 during the day and 20 during evenings has gone down to 15 in the day and one per hour until 22:00). And they wonder why the services are quiet!

I expect it would be argued though that it is costing the taxpayer a lot less. I wonder how many routes in London would have had severe cuts to evening/Sunday service had the network been deregulated.