Should OAPs and Disabled get free train travel?

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, but was the cut in the rate justified or not? Were they overpaying previously, or had circumstances changed? Companies do go bust and I've seen a number of iffy bus P&Ls.

There's never one sole reason for a company going under.

Transdev had started running more buses to Skipton from Pendle, which was Pennine's most profitable route. Western Greyhound's insurer refused to pay out after 30 buses were destroyed in an arson attack.

NYCC's decision to cut the reimbursement rate by 20% was justified in that they didn't have enough money to pay more, and it is a criminal offence for a council officer to set a deficit budget. The decision to cut the reimbursement rate came at the same time as the ENCTS funding formula was changed by central Government, with funding from the DfT stopping.

NYCC's decision had wider implications. Arriva Teesside started charging a "voluntary donation" on their evening and Sunday Whitby town services because they were losing money after the reimbursement rate cut. When DfT told them they weren't allowed to charge this most of the services went.

The fact is we spent £1.2bn on ENCTS last year and, despite that staggering amount of money, it still wasn't adequately funded. When you think the government subsidy for the entire railway network is only £3.5bn, it goes to show what a staggering waste of money the scheme actually is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Therefore the reimbursement would not be influenced by what the particular local authority can afford (unless the secretary of state is also part of the conspiracy).

If the TCA take the **** by offering something like 1p as a reimbursement then the Secretary of State will overturn their decision.

All funding for the ENCTS comes from the Formula Grant, which is the lump sum councils get from DCLG for all non-ringfenced services. Councils, by law, cannot spend more than they receive in income.

This is why I am so against the ENCTS. It takes money away from all the other services- libraries, swimming pools, advice, supporting essential transport, non-statutory social care- that councils provide.

 

[JamesRowden]

There's never one sole reason for a company going under.

Transdev had started running more buses to Skipton from Pendle, which was Pennine's most profitable route. Western Greyhound's insurer refused to pay out after 30 buses were destroyed in an arson attack.

NYCC's decision to cut the reimbursement rate by 20% was justified in that they didn't have enough money to pay more, and it is a criminal offence for a council officer to set a deficit budget. The decision to cut the reimbursement rate came at the same time as the ENCTS funding formula was changed by central Government, with funding from the DfT stopping.

NYCC's decision had wider implications. Arriva Teesside started charging a "voluntary donation" on their evening and Sunday Whitby town services because they were losing money after the reimbursement rate cut. When DfT told them they weren't allowed to charge this most of the services went.

The fact is we spent £1.2bn on ENCTS last year and, despite that staggering amount of money, it still wasn't adequately funded. When you think the government subsidy for the entire railway network is only £3.5bn, it goes to show what a staggering waste of money the scheme actually is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If the TCA take the **** by offering something like 1p as a reimbursement then the Secretary of State will overturn their decision.

All funding for the ENCTS comes from the Formula Grant, which is the lump sum councils get from DCLG for all non-ringfenced services. Councils, by law, cannot spend more than they receive in income.

This is why I am so against the ENCTS. It takes money away from all the other services- libraries, swimming pools, advice, supporting essential transport, non-statutory social care- that councils provide.

It is interesting that the local authority were allowed to make the bus companies pay its deficit. The problem therefore seems to be that the politicians don't value bus services and prefer to balance the budget using cuts rather than tax rises (with this particular problem probably due to central government cutting the budget of local authorities).

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is interesting that the local authority were allowed to make the bus companies pay its deficit.

It's a lot more complicated than that. But, in essence, councils cannot spend money they don't have.

The problem therefore seems to be that the politicians don't value bus services

Politicians don't value lots of things, unless they have to.

And as we've seen on this thread, just try and take the ENCTS passes away...

and prefer to balance the budget using cuts rather than tax rises (with this particular problem probably due to central government cutting the budget of local authorities).

Local authorities can only increase council tax by less than 2% without it having to go to a local referendum.

The last time this was tried was Bedfordshire Police in 2015 pushing for a rise to pay for more police. This was comprehensively rejected.

OAPs don't want to do without their ENCTS passes, but they don't want to see council tax rise to pay for it. Eventually they're going to have to choose.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's a lot more complicated than that. But, in essence, councils cannot spend money they don't have.



Politicians don't value lots of things, unless they have to.

And as we've seen on this thread, just try and take the ENCTS passes away...



Local authorities can only increase council tax by less than 2% without it having to go to a local referendum.

The last time this was tried was Bedfordshire Police in 2015 pushing for a rise to pay for more police. This was comprehensively rejected.

OAPs don't want to do without their ENCTS passes, but they don't want to see council tax rise to pay for it. Eventually they're going to have to choose.

The primary problem with the bus pass scheme as I see it is that it requires calculating what would have happened in an alternative timeline. I think that a significantly better bus service would be better for the people of this country overall and especially for those who are unfit to drive. Therefore more should be done to attract everyone to use public transport and not have a car since the resulting public transport network would be far superior to what it is today. The savings of not having a car is many times greater than the value of having a free bus pass.

 

[HH]

The primary problem with the bus pass scheme as I see it is that it requires calculating what would have happened in an alternative timeline. I think that a significantly better bus service would be better for the people of this country overall and especially for those who are unfit to drive. Therefore more should be done to attract everyone to use public transport and not have a car since the resulting public transport network would be far superior to what it is today. The savings of not having a car is many times greater than the value of having a free bus pass.

QFT. It's not that spending £1.2bn on buses is wrong; it's that it's not being managed effectively.

Because the point still stands that OAPs that can afford a car will still generally use a car, even when the buggers can't drive properly any longer.

 

[JamesRowden]

QFT. It's not that spending £1.2bn on buses is wrong; it's that it's not being managed effectively.

Because the point still stands that OAPs that can afford a car will still generally use a car, even when the buggers can't drive properly any longer.

Even if you massively raise road tax over a period of time?

You could even ban people of a certain age from driving.

 

[Robertj21a]

You could even ban people of a certain age from driving.

Preferably any of those under 21 who haven't yet learnt to respect the power of a car.

 

[JamesRowden]

Preferably any of those under 21 who haven't yet learnt to respect the power of a car.

And those who might have literally lost their senses due to extreme age. Age discrimination is cheaper than testing.

 

[HH]

Even if you massively raise road tax over a period of time?

You could even ban people of a certain age from driving.

If they massively raise road tax? Who would be brave enough to do that? No-one who wants to get elected for sure.

 

[JamesRowden]

If they massively raise road tax? Who would be brave enough to do that? No-one who wants to get elected for sure.

Exactly. I'm just talking about what could hypothetically happen if it weren't for political practicalities. It might only be after things get very bad that people vote for improvements which involve sacrificing a benefit which they've got used to. But then again, are a significant number of people happy with wasting a fair amount of time each working day stuck in road congestion that wouldn't exist if the majority of people used the bus/train/cycle or simply lived closer to their workplace?

 

[Busaholic]

.



Local authorities can only increase council tax by less than 2% without it having to go to a local referendum.

There are ways round these things. I live in Cornwall, a Unitary Authority, and specifically in Penzance, which has a Town Council, but the mid-tier District Council was abolished a few years ago. My Council Tax is billed by Cornwall Council to include the Town Council and Devon and Cornwall Police precepts. This year the increase for CC was 1.99% plus 2% extra all authorities were allowed to add for 'social care, The total bill, though, increased from £123 per month last year to £130 this year, because Cornwall Council 'devolved' things like running WCs to the Town Council to stay within the 2% limit.In two years it has risen from £118 per month to that £130, which I calculate as being an increase of over 10%, well above the increase in my state pension.

 

[Bookd]

In part the problem is that the buses and trains are generally not run by the same organisation that is providing the benefit - as usual London is different, but politically that is unlikely to change.
In London, apart from over 60s, free travel is available to 15 and under, to the disabled and to some military veterans; along with staff passes and so on I wonder if anyone pays! There are other discount options, and in most cases the benefits extend to LO, LU and to some extent National Rail.
The difference to elsewhere is that London Councils control the benefits and TfL are in charge of the farebox and providing the service.

 

[Busaholic]

In part the problem is that the buses and trains are generally not run by the same organisation that is providing the benefit - as usual London is different, but politically that is unlikely to change.
In London, apart from over 60s, free travel is available to 15 and under, to the disabled and to some military veterans; along with staff passes and so on I wonder if anyone pays! There are other discount options, and in most cases the benefits extend to LO, LU and to some extent National Rail.
The difference to elsewhere is that London Councils control the benefits and TfL are in charge of the farebox and providing the service.

There is beginning to be talk, although that is all it is at this stage, of a return to some councils running their own bus services. Most of the surviving council operations (and, yes, I do know there has to be an arms-length distance) seem to be generally well-regarded and holding their own. There were once around 100 of these throughout Britain and it is just possible that numbers might rise again in the next decade.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's not that spending £1.2bn on buses is wrong; it's that it's not being managed effectively.

This is mostly my point too, if I'm honest.

The £1.2bn is going on free travel to people who can afford to pay for it, on routes that are commercially viable in their own right. It isn't going on supporting any sort of socially necessary services that are marginal or not commercially viable.

I don't have a problem with reduced fares for concessionary pass holders and some of the routes are so commercially unviable that keeping them running empty would be a waste of money too. But you see it in many places, even in places like West Yorkshire, where ENCTS is keeping high frequencies during the day and cutting frequencies back to hourly in the evenings. The last bus on many routes in West Yorkshire is half an hour earlier than it used to be, normally now before 2300.

 

[graham11]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and have therefore signed up so that I can have my say.
Now, I am an old git with a bus pass that I use regularly on local buses and have in fact had over a thousand rides in the years since I received it .

What I found was that the buses in my area ,Shropshire had plenty of spare seats and so my free bus pass ride didn`t affect normal fare paying passengers .
I was told that the bus company received a fixed fee for every free ticket regardless of journey length which was why destination was never asked for.

However I believe that all transport should be free to me and my card holding friends .
This would include trams , trains buses etc
I was hoping to see a return of sedan chairs in which upon showing my card I could be carried about by a couple of hefty chaps in luxury.
Aeroplanes should also be included , perhaps right up to business class .
I also look foreward to showing my card as I walk up the gangplank of mt luxury liner for a cruise round the med with cordon bleu food and complimentary drinks.

Of course all this would have to be paid for and this could be achieved by increasing taxes on non essentials like cigarettes, childrens clothes , baby food etc . Obviously not on alcohol because I enjoy a pint of beer.

I am sure there are lots of others on this forum who would agree with my sensible ideas .

Graham

 

[HH]

The problem with subsidy is that no one method will ever work in all cases, but if you micro-managed it then you'd double the spend; i.e. there's no perfect solution.

What I'd probably do is change ENCTS to age 75 and add rail and ban anyone over that age from driving unless they passed a test (repeated every two years).

 

[Tetchytyke]

What I'd probably do is change ENCTS to age 75 and add rail and ban anyone over that age from driving unless they passed a test (repeated every two years).

Keep it at 65, but only give it to people who voluntarily hand back their driving licence.

Now there's an idea.

 

[Butts]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and have therefore signed up so that I can have my say.
Now, I am an old git with a bus pass that I use regularly on local buses and have in fact had over a thousand rides in the years since I received it .

What I found was that the buses in my area ,Shropshire had plenty of spare seats and so my free bus pass ride didn`t affect normal fare paying passengers .
I was told that the bus company received a fixed fee for every free ticket regardless of journey length which was why destination was never asked for.

However I believe that all transport should be free to me and my card holding friends .
This would include trams , trains buses etc
I was hoping to see a return of sedan chairs in which upon showing my card I could be carried about by a couple of hefty chaps in luxury.
Aeroplanes should also be included , perhaps right up to business class .
I also look foreward to showing my card as I walk up the gangplank of mt luxury liner for a cruise round the med with cordon bleu food and complimentary drinks.

Of course all this would have to be paid for and this could be achieved by increasing taxes on non essentials like cigarettes, childrens clothes , baby food etc . Obviously not on alcohol because I enjoy a pint of beer.

I am sure there are lots of others on this forum who would agree with my sensible ideas .

Graham

Sounds like you post is as the result of overdoing the beer somewhat

 

[ashworth]

The £1.2bn is going on free travel to people who can afford to pay for it, on routes that are commercially viable in their own right. It isn't going on supporting any sort of socially necessary services that are marginal or not commercially viable.

I don't have a problem with reduced fares for concessionary pass holders and some of the routes are so commercially unviable that keeping them running empty would be a waste of money too. But you see it in many places, even in places like West Yorkshire, where ENCTS is keeping high frequencies during the day and cutting frequencies back to hourly in the evenings. The last bus on many routes in West Yorkshire is half an hour earlier than it used to be, normally now before 2300.

Cutting back frequencies to hourly and the last buses being half an hour earlier is a bit of an inconvenience and travelling needs a bit more careful planning but at least the buses are still there. Unfortunately, many areas of the country have no evening or Sunday services these days. In many of the more rural shire counties it isn't just the smaller villages that have lost their evening services but even around many of the sizeable market towns bus services finish after 6pm.

Also whilst I agree that in theory that free travel perhaps should not be provided for those who can easily afford it, is that always fair?
I recently took early retirement and got a pension from work and will not get my state pension until I am 66 in another 7 years time. Therefore, if they are still available I will not get my bus pass until then. I don't need a bus pass now and will even less need one when I get the additional income from my state pension in 7 years time. However, that is because I have worked hard all of my life, hardly having a day off work in nearly 40 years. I paid my taxes etc and therefore have helped fund the concessionary bus pass scheme.

I see myself as being fortunate and having had a good job and good health and I realise there are many who through genuine ill health or disability have not been able to work and save for a pension like I have. They need a concessionary bus pass far more than I do. However, next door but one to me there is someone who has hardly done a days work in their life. They have worked the system, claimed benefits, for most of he time I have been working. There are thousands of people like this. I don't need a free bus pass and would be more than willing to pay my bus fares but why should I when I have worked hard for it when others have not bothered.

 

[HH]

If only working hard and not taking sick days equated to being able to comfortably retire at 59 for everyone. Sadly that's not the case.

Neither is there any equation between paying taxes and receiving benefits, mores the pity. The tax dodgers will still get their bus passes.

Life just ain't fair.

 

[AM9]

If only working hard and not taking sick days equated to being able to comfortably retire at 59 for everyone. Sadly that's not the case.

Neither is there any equation between paying taxes and receiving benefits, mores the pity. The tax dodgers will still get their bus passes.

Life just ain't fair.

How could 'paying taxes' and 'receiving benefits' be equated even if there was an intent to do it?

 

[Robertj21a]

Keep it at 65, but only give it to people who voluntarily hand back their driving licence.

Now there's an idea.

I would keep it at whatever age an individual receives their State Pension but make it only valid for buses within their issuing authority (or, perhaps, county), plus any bus travel to a directly served destination outside (much as cross-border at present). For bus travel anywhere else in England I would charge them the appropriate child rate.

 

[graham11]

I would be willing to bet that those people who have a problem with older people holding a free travel card are all younger and are a long way off the age to get one.

It reminds me of teenagers who used to say that they didn`t want to live to forty as that was too geriatric.
However , I never heard that said by those same people when they were in their late thirties .

Graham

 

[miami]

I would be willing to bet that those people who have a problem with older people holding a free travel card are all younger and are a long way off the age to get one.

Indeed we do, retirement age a few years ago was just 60 for women, it's now 68. If today's youngsters get a state pension, who knows what age it will be.

 

[Butts]

How could 'paying taxes' and 'receiving benefits' be equated even if there was an intent to do it?

There is some argument that people who have actually contributed to the system should receive higher benefits than those who have not.

However I believe this relates more to "working age" handouts rather than those aimed at retirees.

 

[najaB]

There is some argument that people who have actually contributed to the system should receive higher benefits than those who have not.

I refer back to a point I raised earlier in the thread...

Taxes fund the Government's current account.

The same could be said for NI contributions. Although it is portrayed otherwise, your contributions are used to pay today's benefits - they aren't put in a savings account for when you retire. So I agree that paying in should equate to higher benefits, but to a large extent it doesn't matter how much you pay in but rather how many people are paying in when you retire.

(Sorry for explaining the obvious!)

 

[Butts]

I refer back to a point I raised earlier in the thread...
The same could be said for NI contributions. Although it is portrayed otherwise, your contributions are used to pay today's benefits - they aren't put in a savings account for when you retire. So I agree that paying in should equate to higher benefits, but to a large extent it doesn't matter how much you pay in but rather how many people are paying in when you retire.

(Sorry for explaining the obvious!)

Regarding the elderly there has been recent controversy that people who have provided for their retirement are paying exorbitant care home fees that subsidises those paid for by the Local Authority (at a lower rate)

Arguably the LA funded residents may have "****ed their money up against the wall" - although I'm sure that is not the case with all of them.

 

[fowler9]

I'm pretty sure none of us on here started the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. etc. but we still all pay for the fallout from them. Would you like an opt out from that or paying for our armed forces?

 

[Busaholic]

Indeed we do, retirement age a few years ago was just 60 for women, it's now 68..

No it's not! it hasn't yet reached 65, but when it does the retirement age for both men and women will soon rise to 66. There is a definite date for a further rise to 67, but 68 is a long way off and afaik a definite date has not been announced. Hell, I'm 68 and they'll try to take my pension away at this rate.

 

[miami]

No it's not! it hasn't yet reached 65, but when it does the retirement age for both men and women will soon rise to 66. There is a definite date for a further rise to 67, but 68 is a long way off and afaik a definite date has not been announced. Hell, I'm 68 and they'll try to take my pension away at this rate.

Anyone born after 1978 will retire aged 68 (or later)

However when those born in 1978 enterred the workforce and started paying for other peoples pensions in 1994, the age was 60. In 1995 this was raised to 65, and in the last 10 years it keeps ever receeding. Anyone born after 6 Apr 1978 now apparently gets a state pension at age 68, but only scmucks are planning on that.