Is it time to scrap ENTCS completely?

[AM9]

It's interesting how so very many people are keen to see the scheme "properly funded" who would also not be at all keen to see themselves paying for it. For example, a significant increase in Vehicle Excise Duty or Fuel Duty should do the trick. But those are probably worse actions politically than cutting the free travel would be.

There are plenty of pensioners who in pure financial terms, can afford to pay for their travel. However, their alternative to paying bus fares would be to take their car onto the road. Those wishing to flush ENCTS passengers from buses that they pay for, (in their mids at least), should be careful of what they wish for. I'm sure increasing the number of elderly drivers, especially those who otherwise know that their driving may not be up to handling modern traffic and currently voluntarily limit their driving would not be welcomed by other road users.
Given the amount of funding from general taxation that all road users receive, maybe those travelling by bus, effectively making much better use of roadspace should also benefit from general taxation. Don't forget, pensioners pay as much income tax on their pensions as a person in employment. And us pensioners all get fabulous final salary pensions and SERPS handouts funded by these embittered pensioner haters who are in employment.

 

[jon0844]

I'm sure increasing the number of elderly drivers, especially those who otherwise know that their driving may not be up to handling modern traffic and currently voluntarily limit their driving would not be welcomed by other road users.

You fix that by having regular retesting!!

 

[AM9]

You fix that by having regular retesting!!

I'm not talking about 'dangerous' driving by the elderly, - just slower and less confident actions. The impatient types would get stressed about drivers needing larger gaps in traffic and being a couple of seconds slower away at lights, etc.. That sort of driving would not result in a retest failure.
There hasn't been any serious attempt to mandate anything better than self-certification of over 70 drivers for decades, so forcing retest on that critical demographic would be way beyond any politician's options to deal with slow and ponderous driving. Causing that much upheaval would be severely punished by an electorate if it was just to saVe the cost of bus fare subsidy. As I said, the roads are subsidised from general taxation anyway, so why shuldn't that principle be extended to include a mode of transport that encourages far better use of limited road space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Catch a bus from Uxbridge to Canary Wharf, are you living in a dreamland? And no, the well known highly regarded supermarket beginning with W did not offer a season ticket loan.

That's a non-sensible commute, then, given the many hundreds of supermarkets in London including many much nearer home.

 

[Starmill]

Catch a bus from Uxbridge to Canary Wharf, are you living in a dreamland? And no, the well known highly regarded supermarket beginning with W did not offer a season ticket loan.

If the John Lewis Partnership are genuinely refusing to provide a season ticket loan when asked nicely, that's really setting a very poor example, even if the reality is that only a tiny proportion of their Partners would find it useful.

 

[Samuel88]

That's a non-sensible commute, then, given the many hundreds of supermarkets in London including many much nearer home.

I didn't have a choice, I was on JSA at the time and the Job Centre decided an 1+ commute was acceptable...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I didn't have a choice, I was on JSA at the time and the Job Centre decided an 1+ commute was acceptable...

Well, it's that that needs solving, then, rather than extending ENCTS or indeed any other scheme that makes very low-paid jobs viable and thus keeps wages low. Jobs like supermarkets are by their nature local and should be done, so far as possible, by local people. I bet someone was doing an equally silly commute in the other direction too.

 

[markymark2000]

The ENTCS scheme needs to be heavily overhauled.

One way of doing this is to change the start time from 0930 to 1030 in the morning and the end time from 2300 to 2100 which would allow operators an extra hour in the morning and an extra two in the evening to raise revenue which is vital to keep the service going, the bus cannot run on fresh air and the driver won't work for free.

The alternative is to introduce an afternoon peak restriction between 1600 and 1830 meaning the ENTCS pass won't qualify for free travel in these times, however the disabled (orange stripe) version would remain valid as the holder could be blind, deaf or have a hidden disability e.g autism (and there are different grades to those who are autisic, some are mild and some are servere).

The restriction would only apply to the senior (blue stripe) version, as Ethel and Doris may simply be busing it around the county / unitary for the day as its free but at what cost? If the route doesn't make any cash - its withdrawn, as operators won't waste valuble resources that could go towards improving a route that does make cash.

The other solution would be limiting the pass to certain journey's of the day e.g. the pass is valid on journeys between 0930 and 1230 into the nearest town / city with reasonable facilities, the return journey must be made between 1345 and 1600. Which would cut down on those who are just travelling for the sake of it. Reasonable facilities includes access to NHS services such as doctors surgery and hospital, access to a range of retailers, access to financial services which would include the post office. The pass would be restriction free at the weekends.

My solutions are by all means not brilliant but its a start.

Evening cut off, I think should be implemented. Very few passes are being used at these times anyway so it wouldn't affect many but it will generate a few extra pounds. A later morning start time I think would cause more harm than good.
The other options which you state I don't agree with at all.

It's interesting how so very many people are keen to see the scheme "properly funded" who would also not be at all keen to see themselves paying for it. For example, a significant increase in Vehicle Excise Duty or Fuel Duty should do the trick. But those are probably worse actions politically than cutting the free travel would be.

1 pence increase in fuel duty could enable an extra 40p per concessionary pass accepted.
(Based on 37bn litres of fuel sold for retail (not commercial use) divided by the 844 million concessionary bus journeys in the UK each year).

I didn't have a choice, I was on JSA at the time and the Job Centre decided an 1+ commute was acceptable...

The Job Centres new rules is that a 90 minute commute is acceptable (from door to door).




For what it's worth, here is my opinion.
There does need to be better funding for concessionary passes (a CEO of a big company said on Twitter a few months back that if concessionary reimbursement was 100%, he would be able to introduce a £1.70 (or thereabouts) flat fare for all passengers. Fares are only this high because of the reimbursement so it's swings and roundabouts. Higher fares means more concessionary passes but less overall paying passengers.
The passes definitely need restricting a little bit more but I would also go as far as to say let pass holders pay half fare between 9 and half 9 to try and spread out some of the pass use (A concessionary pass holder paying half fare is equivalent to letting a child on the bus so you don't really lose out and you wouldn't need reimbursement for a half fare compared to free fare for this half hour period).
At a time when councils are really being stretched with their funding, there need to be a much better way for the system to work. My proposals are below:

1. Charge £10 for the concessionary pass at issue and each renewal (This then covers the admin fees and maybe puts some money away for the operator reimbursement. This would raise 95 million pound so long as no cuts are made, this is a huge increase).
2. Charge a very small fee per journey (This is then in addition to the council reimbursement which should be kept level. More money for the operator however also more hassle for the passenger who needs to get the 30p or whatever together or the driver needs to have more little change)
3. Finally, you could look at some sort of scheme to give different reimbursement depending on the type of route. Short routes with fewer passes get much less reimbursement to give to those routes which serve the older people estates. This would affect some routes but might have more chance of saving the proper granny routes.

 

[Wolfie]

The point is ENCTS is here now, and once something is given to the electorate, especially to a section that is far more likely to vote for one political party over another, it’s frankly going to be impossible to take it away

You are correct. Of course, if the politicians want to get rid of it they then starve it of funding, reduce it's coverage and let it die a slow death that way instead....

 

[Geordie driver]

There is nothing new about free travel for the elderly and disabled, many areas had this long before the current scheme. Having received free travel for nearly 20 years due to my employment I balk a bit at having to pay now but that's life!

Regarding the OP, I don't think anyone refuses to use the bus because others are getting it for free.
We live in a very wealthy country which could easily fund the current scheme properly should it wish to do so, politicians constantly tell us there is no magic money tree, but then there suddenly is when they decide.
Many pensioners I know would rather have a discount than free travel but the way politics work in this country there is no chance of that.

 

[neilmc]

No, it's a great scheme in that any pensioner knows they can catch any local bus anywhere in the country within common time parameters (well, almost all, as the other thread indicates there is some sharp practice pertaining to express buses and night services) and simply show the pass to the driver. Consider what used to happen - cities and metropolitan areas offered their own varying times for the use of half-fare passes, shire counties offered very little except tokens, cross-border journeys were a nightmare for calculating the fare. I can understand that some operators are unhappy about it, anyone would think that they were having to carry busloads of elderly passengers for no recompense but of course that isn't so - in Cumbria they receive 58% remuneration which can be a tidy sum when taken as out-and-back journeys. What I suspect is galling is that they have to have proper ticketing and claims procedures, do some maths and await recompense rather than the driver just sticking the fare in his pocket. It's not a "magic money tree" and doesn't need to be since a bus runs irrespective of the number of actual passengers until it no longer does, if elderly passengers had to pay the full or even half fare themselves they may simply not use the bus at all and drive in to town and then there's NO bus revenue for anybody.

In my part of Cumbria it's not difficult to park for free in towns with good supermarkets; I don't see lots of boy racers on the road but what I do see is lots of incompetent elderly drivers who should really be off the road but still drive in because the buses aren't frequent enough or don't go where they want. One of my neighbours in his 90s only gave up driving when he crashed his car coming down a steep hill locally, fortunately nobody was injured. Imaging how many more would dust off their old jalopies and become a menace to us all if they couldn't use the bus for free. In fact, I would go further and say that ALL ENCTS journeys should be free for the customer to allow for early hospital appointment times and late buses from concerts, sporting events, etc to avoid confusion and disparity. In the UK we think we have some kind of great transport policy but in fact it's still rubbish compared to what the continent tends to offer their elderly passengers.

Travelling by bus is a considerate and environmentally-friendly way of travelling which needs to be rewarded, rather than coming up with schemes to deprive elderly leisure travellers of their concessions.

 

[alansheppard77]

Evening cut off, I think should be implemented. Very few passes are being used at these times anyway so it wouldn't affect many but it will generate a few extra pounds. A later morning start time I think would cause more harm than good.
The other options which you state I don't agree with at all.


1 pence increase in fuel duty could enable an extra 40p per concessionary pass accepted.
(Based on 37bn litres of fuel sold for retail (not commercial use) divided by the 844 million concessionary bus journeys in the UK each year).


The Job Centres new rules is that a 90 minute commute is acceptable (from door t


For what it's worth, here is my opinion.
There does need to be better funding for concessionary passes (a CEO of a big company said on Twitter a few months back that if concessionary reimbursement was 100%, he would be able to introduce a £1.70 (or thereabouts) flat fare for all passengers. Fares are only this high because of the reimbursement so it's swings and roundabouts. Higher fares means more concessionary passes but less overall paying passengers.
The passes definitely need restricting a little bit more but I would also go as far as to say let pass holders pay half fare between 9 and half 9 to try and spread out some of the pass use (A concessionary pass holder paying half fare is equivalent to letting a child on the bus so you don't really lose out and you wouldn't need reimbursement for a half fare compared to free fare for this half hour period).
At a time when councils are really being stretched with their funding, there need to be a much better way for the system to work. My proposals are below:

1. Charge £10 for the concessionary pass at issue and each renewal (This then covers the admin fees and maybe puts some money away for the operator reimbursement. This would raise 95 million pound so long as no cuts are made, this is a huge increase).
2. Charge a very small fee per journey (This is then in addition to the council reimbursement which should be kept level. More money for the operator however also more hassle for the passenger who needs to get the 30p or whatever together or the driver needs to have more little change)
3. Finally, you could look at some sort of scheme to give different reimbursement depending on the type of route. Short routes with fewer passes get much less reimbursement to give to those routes which serve the older people estates. This would affect some routes but might have more chance of saving the proper granny routes.

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

 

[Man of Kent]

2. Charge a very small fee per journey (This is then in addition to the council reimbursement which should be kept level. More money for the operator however also more hassle for the passenger who needs to get the 30p or whatever together or the driver needs to have more little change)

It's more hassle for the operator too. The amount of extra time fumbling around to pay and sometimes give change would affect the timetables of some routes so much that they would either require extra resources which can't be financially justified, or would have to be reduced in frequency. Though if the ENCTS card was turned into a (pre-)payment card, with a flat fare deducted for each tap in, it might work.

In the UK we think we have some kind of great transport policy but in fact it's still rubbish compared to what the continent tends to offer their elderly passengers.

From my travels around, the UK schemes are quite generous by European standards. It is far more common for a discounted paid-for tariff for seniors, as a quick survey of four European capitals (Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Paris) confirms, even if the Brussels scheme is remarkably cheap at EUR60 for the year.

 

[radamfi]

From my travels around, the UK schemes are quite generous by European standards. It is far more common for a discounted paid-for tariff for seniors, as a quick survey of four European capitals (Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Paris) confirms, even if the Brussels scheme is remarkably cheap at EUR60 for the year.

The English scheme may be free but you get English level of service. In other European countries there may not be a huge discount, if any, but you are more likely to get a decent transport network to use. Adult fares in other European countries are typically a lot better value meaning it is no great hardship for pensioners to pay them, especially given that pensions outside Britain are often far more generous.

The ENCTS does not target the main people who need to be extracted from their cars: working adults travelling at peak times. And the scheme makes it even less likely that they will travel by bus as adult fares are higher than they would have been without the scheme.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No, it's a great scheme in that any pensioner knows they can catch any local bus anywhere in the country within common time parameters (well, almost all, as the other thread indicates there is some sharp practice pertaining to express buses and night services) and simply show the pass to the driver. Consider what used to happen - cities and metropolitan areas offered their own varying times for the use of half-fare passes, shire counties offered very little except tokens, cross-border journeys were a nightmare for calculating the fare. I can understand that some operators are unhappy about it, anyone would think that they were having to carry busloads of elderly passengers for no recompense but of course that isn't so - in Cumbria they receive 58% remuneration which can be a tidy sum when taken as out-and-back journeys. What I suspect is galling is that they have to have proper ticketing and claims procedures, do some maths and await recompense rather than the driver just sticking the fare in his pocket. It's not a "magic money tree" and doesn't need to be since a bus runs irrespective of the number of actual passengers until it no longer does, if elderly passengers had to pay the full or even half fare themselves they may simply not use the bus at all and drive in to town and then there's NO bus revenue for anybody.

In my part of Cumbria it's not difficult to park for free in towns with good supermarkets; I don't see lots of boy racers on the road but what I do see is lots of incompetent elderly drivers who should really be off the road but still drive in because the buses aren't frequent enough or don't go where they want. One of my neighbours in his 90s only gave up driving when he crashed his car coming down a steep hill locally, fortunately nobody was injured. Imaging how many more would dust off their old jalopies and become a menace to us all if they couldn't use the bus for free. In fact, I would go further and say that ALL ENCTS journeys should be free for the customer to allow for early hospital appointment times and late buses from concerts, sporting events, etc to avoid confusion and disparity. In the UK we think we have some kind of great transport policy but in fact it's still rubbish compared to what the continent tends to offer their elderly passengers.

Travelling by bus is a considerate and environmentally-friendly way of travelling which needs to be rewarded, rather than coming up with schemes to deprive elderly leisure travellers of their concessions.

Doesn't this just prove the point more pertinently. For a start, you have differing levels of reimbursement to operators and differing levels of validity, depending on your local authority. A real postcode lottery. It should be 0930 nationwide, not valid on coaches, and restriction on out of area use. Cumbria is a very good example of the issues that this national flexibility has brought. You have a tourist heartland in the Lakes where Gerald and Maureen from South Shields can get their Shearings coach tour to, but on the middle day, use their passes to travel on the 599 to Bowness and enjoy the scenery. However, Maude from Shap can't travel into Kendal to do her shopping because there are precious few funds to pay for a bus service. So she has a pass that she struggles to use. Meanwhile, 32 year old hair stylist Julie from Shap used to get the bus to work in Penrith but that service went when tender cuts came so she bought a car. Surely those sorts of examples aren't what the scheme was supposed to promote. Social mobility - yes. Buckshee tourism - no.

The 58% level of reimbursement to operators sounds quite high given that in 2011, reimbursement rates were c.50-65% and we all know about austerity since then.. Nonetheless, the average reimbursement to Cumbria operators is a heady £1.53 per journey, which is a veritable fortune compared to North Yorkshire £1.11 This research document from the House of Commons Library has some interest nuggets... http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01499/SN01499.pdf

I don't wish to go knocking pensioners unduly and perhaps my views might change when I hit 67. I think the current scheme should be funded appropriately and that everyone should pay for it through their taxes, and that wider bus service provision should be improvement for the benefit of ALL. However, it seems a bit rich to complain that something that doesn't cost you anything has overly restrictive rules aimed at managing demand, and that it should be extended further (so costing taxpayers like me more). Meanwhile, pensioners are insulated against the realities of inflation with the triple lock.

 

[neilmc]

Shap is my area of expertise and the buses which do run are sponsored by a group of communities and individuals, so there are shoppers buses to Penrith three days per week, which Stagecoach would not otherwise be able to run. We are working on improving the situation and not letting it disintegrate into a total bus desert but this needs time. The ENCTS pass is not designed to help people who WORK so would be no use to the hair stylist and hopefully the pensioner can still get to Penrith three days a week, though Kendal is trickier.

Gerald and Maureen from South Shields going up and down on the main trunk road from Keswick to Kendal on what is not actually a bad service on a regular frequency may frustrate Cumbria CC who have to pay the operator but it means the bus is also there for local people as opposed to Shap which is off the beaten track for tourists (except Coast to Coast walkers) so there is not even a daily service for locals, and any walker who thinks they can just complete their walk at what looks to be a substantial village on the A6 and hop on a bus will be sadly disillusioned. But if we COULD get a daily service the majority of users would still be most likely local pensioners who will use their ENCTS pass.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Shap is my area of expertise and the buses which do run are sponsored by a group of communities and individuals, so there are shoppers buses to Penrith three days per week, which Stagecoach would not otherwise be able to run. We are working on improving the situation and not letting it disintegrate into a total bus desert but this needs time. The ENCTS pass is not designed to help people who WORK so would be no use to the hair stylist and hopefully the pensioner can still get to Penrith three days a week, though Kendal is trickier.

Gerald and Maureen from South Shields going up and down on the main trunk road from Keswick to Kendal on what is not actually a bad service on a regular frequency may frustrate Cumbria CC who have to pay the operator but it means the bus is also there for local people as opposed to Shap which is off the beaten track for tourists (except Coast to Coast walkers) so there is not even a daily service for locals, and any walker who thinks they can just complete their walk at what looks to be a substantial village on the A6 and hop on a bus will be sadly disillusioned. But if we COULD get a daily service the majority of users would still be most likely local pensioners who will use their ENCTS pass.

Yes but the 599 would survive without Gerald and Maureen and their Hartlepudian passes and there would be a local service anyway. However, by paying for such tourism, Cumbria County Council has essentially less to pay for those services like the erstwhile 106 where the service provision has been decimated - hence why I cited examples where you can't now travel into Kendal for shopping, or use it for any sort of employment.

In 2009/2010, Cumbria spent £1.9m on supporting bus services for all users, irrespective of age. Enabling people to travel to/from work, or enjoy the evening economy or whatever. Now, they spend nothing.

However, they spend £8.5m on concessionary pass reimbursement for pass holders.

Surely that is a balance that has to change?

 

[Man of Kent]

In other European countries there may not be a huge discount, if any, but you are more likely to get a decent transport network to use.

No, it's as much a postcode lottery as (the English part of) the UK. From the examples you often quote, your travels take you to places with decent public transport. On the whole many coincide with the kind of places I'm inclined to visit too, but from time to time I've gone elsewhere where it definitely isn't the case. Rural Rheinland-Pfalz, a part of Germany that borders France and Belgium, is pretty rubbish, with the bus network largely configured around school movements, and with fairly limited connection to the very sparse rail network (much was closed in the 1970s and 1980s). And as far as I can see from the Verkehrsverbund Trier website, no discounts for older people at all. Bavaria, to take another part of Germany, has a better network, but few or no discounts.

Across the border from Rheinland-Pfalz, there is very cheap travel in Belgium, but network coverage is much poorer in Walloonia (TEC) than in Flanders (De Lijn). And in large parts of France, it doesn't matter whether it is free or discounted, as there is no rural transport at all.

 

[radamfi]

No, it's as much a postcode lottery as (the English part of) the UK. From the examples you often quote, your travels take you to places with decent public transport. On the whole many coincide with the kind of places I'm inclined to visit too, but from time to time I've gone elsewhere where it definitely isn't the case. Rural Rheinland-Pfalz, a part of Germany that borders France and Belgium, is pretty rubbish, with the bus network largely configured around school movements, and with fairly limited connection to the very sparse rail network (much was closed in the 1970s and 1980s). And as far as I can see from the Verkehrsverbund Trier website, no discounts for older people at all. Bavaria, to take another part of Germany, has a better network, but few or no discounts.

Across the border from Rheinland-Pfalz, there is very cheap travel in Belgium, but network coverage is much poorer in Walloonia (TEC) than in Flanders (De Lijn). And in large parts of France, it doesn't matter whether it is free or discounted, as there is no rural transport at all.

There's a disproportionate amount of fuss about rural transport when the focus ought to be almost exclusively on urban and suburban areas. Even under the best conditions, public transport modal share in rural areas is small. Better to target resources where good modal share can be achieved. Urban transport is heavily subsidised in most countries, whereas the UK assumes that just because urban routes can be operated commercially that means there's nothing to worry about.

 

[richard13]

The world moves on and I think the ENCTS scheme will change significantly, but I don’t know when. The government has a big enough majority for some big changes.

Anything free at the point of use gets abused. Going out is cheaper than running the heating.

The qualifying age reaches 66 this summer. The fit elderly are being taken out of the scheme.

The elderly outside the bigger urban areas prefer to drive when near home, rather than the strenuous activity involved with bus use. Walking to / from the bus stop with baggage is too difficult for many. They then transfer to door to door travel and in-home help as the years move on and they want that funded rather than free buses.

I live 2.5 miles from a bus stop; my use of the ENCTS will be entirely for leisure. For many elderly it is only used for tourism. Should this be tax payer funded? What this does require is rural /small town Park and Travel facilities; Being charged up to £10 a day car parking still makes the free bus journey more expensive than driving all the way.

In the big urban areas the balance is different and so is general bus use. The benefit ought to be different and not a national model fits all.

Climate change and pollution; Petrol and diesel cars are to be phased out and so what replaces them? Providing an electric charging point for every current car (mains cables across the pavement?) and power stations to power them is not going to happen. Will public transport become a bigger entity? This will change the economics of travel and probably less travel. Already many commuters now only do a 4 day week in the office with the rest at home on-line. The high street and weekly markets are all currently in decline, which reduces bus travel, but the loss of local shops increases it a bit.

May be the ENCTS could become a pensioner benefits card with discounted travel, but not free travel, being part of the benefits. The area of issue may impact what discount you get with locals offered cheaper rates than visitors. The discount may also vary from area to area. But the card may also define other benefits like NHS charges, community transport, admissions, etc. The disabled would have a different card with benefits more tailored to their needs.

 

[175mph]

No, it's as much a postcode lottery as (the English part of) the UK. From the examples you often quote, your travels take you to places with decent public transport. On the whole many coincide with the kind of places I'm inclined to visit too, but from time to time I've gone elsewhere where it definitely isn't the case. Rural Rheinland-Pfalz, a part of Germany that borders France and Belgium, is pretty rubbish, with the bus network largely configured around school movements, and with fairly limited connection to the very sparse rail network (much was closed in the 1970s and 1980s). And as far as I can see from the Verkehrsverbund Trier website, no discounts for older people at all. Bavaria, to take another part of Germany, has a better network, but few or no discounts.

Across the border from Rheinland-Pfalz, there is very cheap travel in Belgium, but network coverage is much poorer in Walloonia (TEC) than in Flanders (De Lijn). And in large parts of France, it doesn't matter whether it is free or discounted, as there is no rural transport at all.

It's good to see an example of rubbish rural public transport on the continent, especially when some of the limited rural public transport opportunities in my neck of the woods I've found to be rather frustrating.

 

[DimTim]

There was mention earlier in the thread of increasing VED or fuel duty to fund the scheme. The model shift to electric vehicles now being promoted will significantly affect government income from these sources. Our petrol & diesel provides great income for the chancellor. Plugging into the mains overnight will increase the profits of the utility companies and reduce exchequer income. VED is calculated on how polluting your vehicle is!

There will need to be a fundamental rethink on how the HGV transport, private car & public transport model is taxed & funded over the next 10 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There will need to be a fundamental rethink on how the HGV transport, private car & public transport model is taxed & funded over the next 10 years.

I'd be surprised if it didn't involve road pricing in some form, even if in the simplest form of a flat per-mile charge for driving any electric vehicle. That or a replacement for "road tax" at a much higher rate.

 

[radamfi]

I'd be surprised if it didn't involve road pricing in some form, even if in the simplest form of a flat per-mile charge for driving any electric vehicle. That or a replacement for "road tax" at a much higher rate.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Norway, who are way ahead of everyone else in terms of electric private vehicle take up. Like most countries a large amount of the cost of petrol or diesel is fuel duty or tax. They also get a huge amount of tax from the petroleum industry. So potentially they have a lot of tax to lose from the switch to electric.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will be interesting to see what happens in Norway, who are way ahead of everyone else in terms of electric private vehicle take up. Like most countries a large amount of the cost of petrol or diesel is fuel duty or tax. They also get a huge amount of tax from the petroleum industry. So potentially they have a lot of tax to lose from the switch to electric.

What is necessary to remember is that there are more downsides of cars than pollution at the point of use in cities, so they still need to be discouraged even if electric. The present tax breaks are because electric is a lesser evil and so if you're going to have a car it is preferred. Once all are electric there is no reason to continue this.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Plugging into the mains overnight will increase the profits of the utility companies and reduce exchequer income

Death and taxes. To ensure exchequer income, the focus will simply move elsewhere!

 

[richard13]

What is necessary to remember is that there are more downsides of cars than pollution at the point of use in cities, so they still need to be discouraged even if electric. The present tax breaks are because electric is a lesser evil and so if you're going to have a car it is preferred. Once all are electric there is no reason to continue this.

Yes there has to be big changes. The taxes will change. However electric cars will not be the answer - there is simply not enough material to make the current batteries for the number of cars in Europe etc (rare minerals). Finding somewhere to charge them will be difficult for many people who don't have a private drive for all their cars. Will every public or works car park space and kerb edges on estate roads, have a charging point? Will drunks simply cut the cables? There is also not enough power stations to power it all. May be hydrogen cars or may be far fewer cars - car costs and practicality may change fast over the next decade or two. More under 30 men are choosing to live in city centres and not hold a driving licence, where as most older women have a licence now - it is already changing.

Life will have to change and not just transport. Further on (50 years+) if environmental scientists have it more correct than what is politically correct today, then sea levels are expected to rise by 7 metres + and the weather will be more extreme. That means food shortages due to crop failures and flooded cities. (Historically this is quite normal - mankind survived the ice ages and the change in sea level of around 50 m since, but they didn't have the built environment.) Perhaps more a black death than corona virus for population reduction! ENCTS will be the least of peoples' concern.

However in the nearer term the scheme does not work well and distorts bus provision. Encouraging urban bus use without subsidizing tourism could be a driver for a revised scheme. Devolution of transport more to regions and less DfT / central government may kill the current national scheme too. Also new housing, retail parks, business parks, etc are all car friendly and transferring people to buses will take subsidies for the inefficient routes required. Generic pensioner perks are disappearing due to their cost and fewer people to pay for them.

The disabled element of the scheme needs its own different solution.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In my early 30’s and I’ll admit I have a pass on the grounds of disability. But I genuinely needed my pass as I literally wouldn’t have been able to afford going to work without it

As I said in the other thread, everyone else working in minimum wage jobs has to pay full chat for their bus travel. Including those on Universal Credit, except in London.

I appreciate your costs are higher with a disability- that's what PIP is for- but everyone else has to pay for their bus travel (which is mote expensive due to ENCTS) from their wages.

One of the unintended consequences of the scheme has been the decimation of the day tours market in many a coastal seaside resort

Indeed. Arriva/United used to run regular scheduled specials from Durham and Newcastle to Whitby and Scarborough, and the Dales. ENCTS killed them all off; the pensioners wouldn't pay for the specials when they could take the service bus for free.

Keep it, but fund it properly.

ENCTS expenditure is in the region of £1.3bn a year and, if you listen to the bus companies, quadrupling that money would only start to get close to "funding it properly". Where are you getting this £5bn from?

(For comparison, the EU contributions so loathed by the twirlies were only £6bn-£8bn a year).

That's a non-sensible commute, then

DWP rules are a 90-minute commute each way is "reasonable".

 

[Tetchytyke]

We are working on improving the situation and not letting it disintegrate into a total bus desert but this needs time.

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.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They also get a huge amount of tax from the petroleum industry. So potentially they have a lot of tax to lose from the switch to electric.

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.