But it is not a no-cost scheme. The more it is used, the more it costs.
Whether that cost brings benefit is another matter.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Will pre-9.30 AM free concessionary travel become permanent?
- Thread starter nidave
- Start date
- Status
Whether that cost brings benefit is another matter.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As with all previous threads on this topic, it is a very emotive subject, and most people have strong views one way or another.
I've never hidden my dislike for the scheme, but primarily because of the effects of its poor funding. Essentially, why should my fare (which, as a commuter, is occasional on local buses, rather than being able to take advantage of weekly tickets and such like) be raised because the poor funding of the ENCTS scheme means operators need that money to survive? It is also worth repeating that as an age group, on average, pensioners have a higher disposable income per head than any other age group. Although their actual income is often lower, other 'benefits' they receive, plus the fact that many have paid off their mortgages, etc., mean the amount of money they have left at the end of the month can be greater than some 2.4 children families with two working adults - who have to pay for everything.
As many have pointed out, the bus pass, along with TV licenses, prescriptions, etc., are benefits, not entitlements. It is not physically possible for any current pensioner to have paid for them "all their lives", as they haven't existed for 40 years. Nor, as some seem to believe, has the government dutifully counted the correct number of pennies per week into an individual pot over their working lives: they paid for the pensions of the generations above them, and their children and grandchildren are now paying for theirs.
ENCTS passholders are not forbidden from travelling before 09:30, just that they have to pay for the privilege. In the same way that many children up and down the country who do not qualify for free passes have to pay as an adult in the morning, but revert to child in the afternoon (or pay adult fares both ways, as some operators have an afternoon child fare restriction). In the same way that some operators do not allow return fares or day rover-type tickets to be bought before 9am. Some rail operators have an afternoon peak. Family tickets to tourist attractions that don't cover all of the children the family has. Essentially, a reversion to 09:30 - or even 09:00 - cannot be considered onerous in anything other than individual circumstances and, as has also been mentioned further up the thread, those who are most in need of the benefits are often those least likely to shout about it, lest drawing attention to it means they lose it (see those who complain loudest about TV licenses... it isn't the Elderly Elsie, living on her own in a small village with no bus service any more, poor mobility and family miles away who really does rely on the TV for company, it's Marauding Marion, recently retired, still runs a car, complaining that she now has to wait longer for it than she thought she did, whilst pretending she has Elsie's best intentions at heart).
So, to sum up, I think it should go back to at least 09:00, if not 09:30, albeit perhaps with some "intelligent" easements (perhaps free travel on production of hospital appointment letter). I would say "and better funding", but that really would be a case of porcine aviation alert, especially given the current situation.
I've never hidden my dislike for the scheme, but primarily because of the effects of its poor funding. Essentially, why should my fare (which, as a commuter, is occasional on local buses, rather than being able to take advantage of weekly tickets and such like) be raised because the poor funding of the ENCTS scheme means operators need that money to survive? It is also worth repeating that as an age group, on average, pensioners have a higher disposable income per head than any other age group. Although their actual income is often lower, other 'benefits' they receive, plus the fact that many have paid off their mortgages, etc., mean the amount of money they have left at the end of the month can be greater than some 2.4 children families with two working adults - who have to pay for everything.
As many have pointed out, the bus pass, along with TV licenses, prescriptions, etc., are benefits, not entitlements. It is not physically possible for any current pensioner to have paid for them "all their lives", as they haven't existed for 40 years. Nor, as some seem to believe, has the government dutifully counted the correct number of pennies per week into an individual pot over their working lives: they paid for the pensions of the generations above them, and their children and grandchildren are now paying for theirs.
ENCTS passholders are not forbidden from travelling before 09:30, just that they have to pay for the privilege. In the same way that many children up and down the country who do not qualify for free passes have to pay as an adult in the morning, but revert to child in the afternoon (or pay adult fares both ways, as some operators have an afternoon child fare restriction). In the same way that some operators do not allow return fares or day rover-type tickets to be bought before 9am. Some rail operators have an afternoon peak. Family tickets to tourist attractions that don't cover all of the children the family has. Essentially, a reversion to 09:30 - or even 09:00 - cannot be considered onerous in anything other than individual circumstances and, as has also been mentioned further up the thread, those who are most in need of the benefits are often those least likely to shout about it, lest drawing attention to it means they lose it (see those who complain loudest about TV licenses... it isn't the Elderly Elsie, living on her own in a small village with no bus service any more, poor mobility and family miles away who really does rely on the TV for company, it's Marauding Marion, recently retired, still runs a car, complaining that she now has to wait longer for it than she thought she did, whilst pretending she has Elsie's best intentions at heart).
So, to sum up, I think it should go back to at least 09:00, if not 09:30, albeit perhaps with some "intelligent" easements (perhaps free travel on production of hospital appointment letter). I would say "and better funding", but that really would be a case of porcine aviation alert, especially given the current situation.
markymark2000
On Moderation
Firstly, are you on something? All those benefits to people who pay absolutely nothing for the benefit. While I partly agree with some points like it being proof of eligibility for some things, it should be a chargeable scheme. Everyone else has to pay bus and train fares. The reason most people aren't encouraged to use public transport is the cost and on buses, that is primarily due to bus operators trying to get as much reimbursement as possible for passes
1. The card should be a smartcard which is then issued free of charge with the enhancements uploaded to the card. The card alone provides could be proof of eligibility for the other schemes like medical stuff, shop/cafe discounts (if they want to partake) and any other concessionary benefits which places offer.
For a £10 fee per annum, you can use buses, trams and LU between 9.30 and 11pm. Elderly tend not to travel after 11pm anyway and if they are out past that time, they are in the pub. If they can afford to drink in the pub, they can afford the bus fare home.
For a £20 fee per annum, you can use buses, trams and LU at all times.
For a £30 fee per annum, you can get 1/3rd off train fares at all times and all benefits associated with the £20 card.
As a smartcard, you could then work with NatEx and Megabus to get their schemes uploaded to the card if people pay the fees (or they could join one of the existing price bands if they wish). While this scheme costs, the benefits are that regardless where your card is issued, you get the same benefits. None of this 'If you live in this council, you get a, b and c benefits but if you live in another council, you get x, y and z benefits. It's more consistent.
With this system, the govt should offer the chance to take a small bit from state pension to pay for the subscription. This would be between 19p and 57p per week depending on the tier and at the end of the year, the card holder is sent a letter asking if they want to continue or cancel the subscription. This then might help ease some of the complaints about the higher payment per annum, they can pay in smaller chunks via the pension and as they don't see the money to start with, they won't miss it (much like workers union payments, comes out before you receive the money in your bank)
There was quite a lot of upset people complaining at TFGMs move to charge the £10 annual fee for pre 09.30 train and tram travel. Similarly in Staffordshire when they brought back the timings from all day back to the times which they legally have to provide (9.30am till 11pm)
Geordie driver
Member
Free buses for the elderly and disabled have existed for the entirety of my 42 year working life in the area I used to live in, prescriptions were also either free or dirt cheap for much of that time. I paid in and supported these and would like them to still be in place when my turn comes.
Not sure why classing them as a benefit matters, the state pension is defined as a benefit, I wonder how many would be happy if that was withdrawn the day they become entitled, having paid in all their life? After all, it's a " benefit"?
Not sure why classing them as a benefit matters, the state pension is defined as a benefit, I wonder how many would be happy if that was withdrawn the day they become entitled, having paid in all their life? After all, it's a " benefit"?
markymark2000
On Moderation
I think it's fair to say that the majority aren't against reduced travel costs but to offer free travel is leading to bus routes being reduced and fares going up so operators can get the most reimbursement. This then unfairly hits fare payers and discourages younger people from travelling.
IF people want free travel, they have to be prepared to pay for it either in higher taxes or pay their way. The proposal I set forward was for a small fee which goes towards the admin costs which then means the money currently being put into the admin costs can instead go towards extra reimbursement which then keeps buses operating longer and fares won't increase as much. What would OAPs prefer. A free bus pass with no bus or a £10 per year bus pass but have a bus service?
Llandudno
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,196
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
The pension is not a benefit. It is a entitlement if you paid your NI contributionPension credit is a benefit.
Prescriptions were free or dirt cheap? Not certain if that’s right as prescriptions were centrally administered from introduction to the devolution to regional assemblies. They were always free for pensioners.
As for passes, that was the case in PTE areas but not in the provinces.
Part of the issue is when all this was happening 30 years ago, we had more people paying in and fewer taking out. That has changed - that’s not some anti baby boomer jibe but just the reality of the position.
Pat1105
Member
In Scotland, prescriptions are free for everyone, not just pensioners
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Er.....hence the mention of the devolved assemblies???? Poster was talking about some time ago and I was highlighting the background of such charges.
Can I commend Chris Cheek's slim book "Understanding Buses" published by PTI services that explains the economic and commercial structure of the United Kingdom Bus Industry. The basis for reimbursement in 1985 Transport Act says "It will be an objective (but not an duty of an authority hen formulating reimbursement arrangements to provide that operators both individually and in the aggregate are financially no better and no worse off as a result of their participation in the scheme to which the arrangements relate". Technically it is the end users who are being subsidised not the operators. In other words - cost reimbursement is ok - but not a hidden subsidy to industry ( Under EU law this was forbidden). Two complex calculations follow on from this -an estimate of revenue foregone - which hinges on an estimate of how many journeys have taken place just because of the concession and an estimate of the fare for those journeys had the pass not existed - an estimate of the average fare foregone. I have heard this explained a couple of times bu I always get the feeling that those explaining don't quite understand the system so cannot therefore explain it. Now at this point my eyes glaze over - rather like the arcane discussion that took place about abstraction with the Traffic Commissioners when opening new routes in Pre=Privatisation days. About the only thing that is clear is that bus privatisation is a busted flush and the sooner TfL style franchising takes over in the rest of the country the better.
markymark2000
On Moderation
While the concessionary passes might be there so the buses are no better or worse off, buses generally can't and won't run on zero profit. A few operators (as costs vary across the country) have said that a double decker full of concessionary passes won't break even. That is not 'no better or worse off', that is worse off. The concessionary pass scheme is clearly flawed and as much has been said by many operators. Bus operators can be greedy but in some cases, it's the independents who are struggling to keep going. Those who will run the lower profit routes, but the lower profit routes are becoming loss making because the pass reimbursement is so low and the fact PTEs keep pushing more and more silly passes with silly reimbursement rates onto operators. It seems to be forgotten that buses cost money to run. Drivers, engineering, depot staff all need paying. Depot infrastructure, fuel, tax, insurance. All need paying. Offering 80p to accept a pass simply isn't ok anymore. Maybe in 2005 when costs for operators were lower but not now. Prices go up while concessionary reimbursement has remained level. Until either reimbursement goes up or staff all take a pay cut in bus companies, bus routes will keep being cut back. Even council owned operators are struggling or charge astronomical fares. You are saying bring in franchising yet those who would control it (councils) can't even control their own bus companies.
Privatisation is a fantastic system and I will support it for as long as possible. The issue comes when socialists believe everything should be free and no one should make any profit. I don't suppose you need reminding of TFLs bus losses? Franchising isn't the answer. Giving power to uneducated councillors who believe every street should have an every 10 minute bus and plonkers like Andy Burnham who only care about their political career. That is not a good move. As proven in the GMCA franchising documents, franchising is about managing decline rather than trying to increase numbers. Anyone who looks at TFL and thinks that is the model for the country, you're deluded. Either way, ownership is off topic.
I think everyone has had their say on the subject for now, and it has just become another ENCTS thread. We've had the same arguments in previous threads and we're just going over the same ground again.
If there are any further developments regarding the continuation or otherwise of free concessionary travel pre-0930, please feel free to report this post and we'll consider it for re-opening.
If there are any further developments regarding the continuation or otherwise of free concessionary travel pre-0930, please feel free to report this post and we'll consider it for re-opening.
- Status