Menu
 
North East Buses Local Bus Scene Operations, Management & Infrastructure Bus Services Bill

Bus Services Bill

Bus Services Bill

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
 
Pages (10): Previous 17 8 9 10 Next
Andreos1



14,155
08 Oct 2018, 6:46 am #141
(07 Oct 2018, 1:42 pm)Tamesider  There is of course, a distinct difference between local bus and rail (esp. long distance) and that is the reasons for travelling and the external choices (or lack of). 

Captive market bus users either pay the ever increasing fares for reducing services, or they pay more (for now) in taxi fares, or they obtain a car. The vast majority of bus journeys are necessary journeys to work, shops or medical facilities. Whilst many would argue that local rail is largely used for necessary journeys to work, most rail users will have private transport to turn to - or indeed in some cases, buses. As for longer distance rail (up to say, 50 miles), it is difficult to categorise many of those as long distance, albeit jobs and even tertiary health services are getting further and further away from home. Again, though, most will still have the option of driving. 

As an aside - though still linked with long-term transport strategy - how common are Sunday driving lessons nowadays? Its only in the last year or so I have noticed many Driving School (with L-Drivers) on local roads and wondered if this was a general reflection on young people's lifestyles meaning evenings & Saturdays aren't convenient? Is it because more lessons are needed to pass a test or is it simply the increase in demand to learn to drive?

It goes without saying there are differences. 
The point I was trying to make, was linked to the effects operational decisions can have on passengers and their perception of the organisation.
Just look at train services in your neck of the woods...
The longer term impact on the decisions made in May probably haven't been felt yet.

As for Sunday driving lessons, I haven't a clue.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
08 Oct 2018, 6:46 am #141

(07 Oct 2018, 1:42 pm)Tamesider  There is of course, a distinct difference between local bus and rail (esp. long distance) and that is the reasons for travelling and the external choices (or lack of). 

Captive market bus users either pay the ever increasing fares for reducing services, or they pay more (for now) in taxi fares, or they obtain a car. The vast majority of bus journeys are necessary journeys to work, shops or medical facilities. Whilst many would argue that local rail is largely used for necessary journeys to work, most rail users will have private transport to turn to - or indeed in some cases, buses. As for longer distance rail (up to say, 50 miles), it is difficult to categorise many of those as long distance, albeit jobs and even tertiary health services are getting further and further away from home. Again, though, most will still have the option of driving. 

As an aside - though still linked with long-term transport strategy - how common are Sunday driving lessons nowadays? Its only in the last year or so I have noticed many Driving School (with L-Drivers) on local roads and wondered if this was a general reflection on young people's lifestyles meaning evenings & Saturdays aren't convenient? Is it because more lessons are needed to pass a test or is it simply the increase in demand to learn to drive?

It goes without saying there are differences. 
The point I was trying to make, was linked to the effects operational decisions can have on passengers and their perception of the organisation.
Just look at train services in your neck of the woods...
The longer term impact on the decisions made in May probably haven't been felt yet.

As for Sunday driving lessons, I haven't a clue.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider



266
08 Oct 2018, 6:53 pm #142
(08 Oct 2018, 6:46 am)Andreos1 It goes without saying there are differences. 
The point I was trying to make, was linked to the effects operational decisions can have on passengers and their perception of the organisation.
Just look at train services in your neck of the woods...
The longer term impact on the decisions made in May probably haven't been felt yet.

As for Sunday driving lessons, I haven't a clue.

I think the point about Rail is that the May timetable change was a bit of a red herring for many. Indeed, my line ran better from 21 May to the end of June than it has done for the last 10 years. Its back to normal now though. 11 late and overcrowded this morning (off-peak). Didn't matter as such because the train to Liverpool was 9 late. Coming back was fine until Oxford Road - where we just at there for 16 minutes! What gets me (amongst other more strategic things) is why, oh, why do Northern guards often apologise and explain minor delays (less then 5 minutes) but NEVER explain or apologise when your train is 10, 15 or more minutes late!
Tamesider
08 Oct 2018, 6:53 pm #142

(08 Oct 2018, 6:46 am)Andreos1 It goes without saying there are differences. 
The point I was trying to make, was linked to the effects operational decisions can have on passengers and their perception of the organisation.
Just look at train services in your neck of the woods...
The longer term impact on the decisions made in May probably haven't been felt yet.

As for Sunday driving lessons, I haven't a clue.

I think the point about Rail is that the May timetable change was a bit of a red herring for many. Indeed, my line ran better from 21 May to the end of June than it has done for the last 10 years. Its back to normal now though. 11 late and overcrowded this morning (off-peak). Didn't matter as such because the train to Liverpool was 9 late. Coming back was fine until Oxford Road - where we just at there for 16 minutes! What gets me (amongst other more strategic things) is why, oh, why do Northern guards often apologise and explain minor delays (less then 5 minutes) but NEVER explain or apologise when your train is 10, 15 or more minutes late!

Andreos1



14,155
17 Oct 2018, 12:04 pm #143
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...are_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

Fall in bus journeys, takes numbers to lowest level since 2006.
Fares have gone up 55% in meantime.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
17 Oct 2018, 12:04 pm #143

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...are_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

Fall in bus journeys, takes numbers to lowest level since 2006.
Fares have gone up 55% in meantime.


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider



266
17 Oct 2018, 8:00 pm #144
(17 Oct 2018, 12:04 pm)Andreos1 https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...are_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

Fall in bus journeys, takes numbers to lowest level since 2006.
Fares have gone up 55% in meantime.

I wonder if this story was sanctioned by their Northern Editor Helen Pidd? I'm sure she sees it as a good news story.
Tamesider
17 Oct 2018, 8:00 pm #144

(17 Oct 2018, 12:04 pm)Andreos1 https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...are_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

Fall in bus journeys, takes numbers to lowest level since 2006.
Fares have gone up 55% in meantime.

I wonder if this story was sanctioned by their Northern Editor Helen Pidd? I'm sure she sees it as a good news story.

James101



649
18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm #145
Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.
James101
18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm #145

Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.

Tamesider



266
21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm #146
(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.

Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years). 
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?
Edited 21 Oct 2018, 3:59 pm by Tamesider.
Tamesider
21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm #146

(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.

Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years). 
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?

Andreos1



14,155
22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am #147
(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.

Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit. 
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension. 
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.


It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS? 
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system. 
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too. 

For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am #147

(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.

ENCTS is a failed system. 


The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.

Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit. 
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension. 
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.


It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS? 
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system. 
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too. 

For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

James101



649
22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm #148
(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years). 
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?

I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 


(22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am)Andreos1 Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit. 
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension. 
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.


It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS? 
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system. 
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too. 

For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?

I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.
James101
22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm #148

(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years). 
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?

I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 


(22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am)Andreos1 Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit. 
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension. 
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.


It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS? 
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system. 
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too. 

For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?

I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.

Stanleyone

6358

451
23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am #149
(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 



I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.

If a surcharge were to be introduced it would most likely discourage those that get on the bus and get off 1 stop later. We also have a number of all day free passes, for instance that guy who was attacked in Gateshead, made massively public by the online collection (Alan forgot his surname) holds an all day free pass, does beg a question of why does someone need an all day pass.  Also maybe stricter rules on the companion pass, number of people i see on a regular basis with a different "carer" is astounding.
Edited 23 Oct 2018, 3:14 am by Stanleyone.
Stanleyone
23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am #149

(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 



I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.

If a surcharge were to be introduced it would most likely discourage those that get on the bus and get off 1 stop later. We also have a number of all day free passes, for instance that guy who was attacked in Gateshead, made massively public by the online collection (Alan forgot his surname) holds an all day free pass, does beg a question of why does someone need an all day pass.  Also maybe stricter rules on the companion pass, number of people i see on a regular basis with a different "carer" is astounding.

Andreos1



14,155
23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am #150
(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 



I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.

I agree it is a 'Brucey Bonus' in the context free travel isn't something they were expecting when they started work. Having paid in to the system, I don't see any issue in them getting something as a reward. Something to assist them. Just like the TV licence perk, war time pension allowance and heating allowance. 
Whether me, you or uncle Tom Cobley get a state pension when we hit retirement is a moot point in this discussion. This is about now and what I think will be a disaster if the surcharge you propose is introduced. 

To touch on your point about the smaller independents picking up work. 
A number of those operators were around running work prior to 86. They ran around offering services between the two pass systems and have done since.
Yes, they may operate marginal tendered lifeline services - but a number of those services were abandoned well before the current system came in to play. A number since.
Any number of factors exist in those routes success or lack of success. I think we all know that it doesn't just boil down to the ENCTS pass scheme. 

Your point about the surcharge raising funds and providing 1000 extra buses, assumes the current rate of central government funding maintains the current status quo. 
Any drop in funding or a push on other vital services in an LA area, could easily see funds diverted or consolidated elsewhere. 
As an example, some LA's have levied surcharges on green waste collections. I haven't seen an improvement in bin collection service. I've never seen the frequency increase (quite the opposite).

One quick question though. 
The surcharge you propose. Will the operator still recieve support from PTE's/LA's under the current 'no better/no worse off' guise or will that change?

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am #150

(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves. 

I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system? 

You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system. 



I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.

I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass. 

I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country. 

The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy. 

I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.

I agree it is a 'Brucey Bonus' in the context free travel isn't something they were expecting when they started work. Having paid in to the system, I don't see any issue in them getting something as a reward. Something to assist them. Just like the TV licence perk, war time pension allowance and heating allowance. 
Whether me, you or uncle Tom Cobley get a state pension when we hit retirement is a moot point in this discussion. This is about now and what I think will be a disaster if the surcharge you propose is introduced. 

To touch on your point about the smaller independents picking up work. 
A number of those operators were around running work prior to 86. They ran around offering services between the two pass systems and have done since.
Yes, they may operate marginal tendered lifeline services - but a number of those services were abandoned well before the current system came in to play. A number since.
Any number of factors exist in those routes success or lack of success. I think we all know that it doesn't just boil down to the ENCTS pass scheme. 

Your point about the surcharge raising funds and providing 1000 extra buses, assumes the current rate of central government funding maintains the current status quo. 
Any drop in funding or a push on other vital services in an LA area, could easily see funds diverted or consolidated elsewhere. 
As an example, some LA's have levied surcharges on green waste collections. I haven't seen an improvement in bin collection service. I've never seen the frequency increase (quite the opposite).

One quick question though. 
The surcharge you propose. Will the operator still recieve support from PTE's/LA's under the current 'no better/no worse off' guise or will that change?


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider



266
23 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm #151
Rather than cut and paste, I will just comment on two points raised.

1. "Unsustainable" was probably the wrong word. What I meant was if a "surcharge of £1" was introduced, it wouldn't last, and would be £1.10 within a year and so on and so forth. 

2. Most concessionaries do not get all day free travel. However, there is an argument that they should. One of the main essential journeys is to/from the GPs and (for reasons someone in Primary Care might know), tend to be given morning peak appointments (except Mondays when Children are prioritised. Certainly, I have always felt that 0930 is ridiculously late as most bus borne commuters need to be behind their desk/counter etc before 0900, which with today's traffic means setting off well before 0800. Similarly, Schools start between 0815 & 0845 so the peak demand is well passed by 0930. Indeed, in eastern GM, peak hour service enhancements nowadays finish soon after 0800, wheras even a decade ago, it would have been 0845 ish.

I would ban free concessionary on Rail travel full stop. Partly because only a minority of concessionaries (mainly those in better off areas and/or who own a car) can access Rail and partly because such journeys are less likely to be essential. Not many local supermarkets or Health services have rail stations or tram stops. To make matters worse, because (heavy) rail tickets are not checked on boarding - if at all! - Concessionary travellers usually get away with boarding 10, 15 or more minutes before 0930.
Tamesider
23 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm #151

Rather than cut and paste, I will just comment on two points raised.

1. "Unsustainable" was probably the wrong word. What I meant was if a "surcharge of £1" was introduced, it wouldn't last, and would be £1.10 within a year and so on and so forth. 

2. Most concessionaries do not get all day free travel. However, there is an argument that they should. One of the main essential journeys is to/from the GPs and (for reasons someone in Primary Care might know), tend to be given morning peak appointments (except Mondays when Children are prioritised. Certainly, I have always felt that 0930 is ridiculously late as most bus borne commuters need to be behind their desk/counter etc before 0900, which with today's traffic means setting off well before 0800. Similarly, Schools start between 0815 & 0845 so the peak demand is well passed by 0930. Indeed, in eastern GM, peak hour service enhancements nowadays finish soon after 0800, wheras even a decade ago, it would have been 0845 ish.

I would ban free concessionary on Rail travel full stop. Partly because only a minority of concessionaries (mainly those in better off areas and/or who own a car) can access Rail and partly because such journeys are less likely to be essential. Not many local supermarkets or Health services have rail stations or tram stops. To make matters worse, because (heavy) rail tickets are not checked on boarding - if at all! - Concessionary travellers usually get away with boarding 10, 15 or more minutes before 0930.

James101



649
23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm #152
(23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am)Stanleyone If a surcharge were to be introduced it would most likely discourage those that get on the bus and get off 1 stop later. We also have a number of all day free passes, for instance that guy who was attacked in Gateshead, made massively public by the online collection (Alan forgot his surname) holds an all day free pass, does beg a question of why does someone need an all day pass.  Also maybe stricter rules on the companion pass, number of people i see on a regular basis with a different "carer" is astounding.



(23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am)Andreos1 I agree it is a 'Brucey Bonus' in the context free travel isn't something they were expecting when they started work. Having paid in to the system, I don't see any issue in them getting something as a reward. Something to assist them. Just like the TV licence perk, war time pension allowance and heating allowance. 
Whether me, you or uncle Tom Cobley get a state pension when we hit retirement is a moot point in this discussion. This is about now and what I think will be a disaster if the surcharge you propose is introduced. 

To touch on your point about the smaller independents picking up work. 
A number of those operators were around running work prior to 86. They ran around offering services between the two pass systems and have done since.
Yes, they may operate marginal tendered lifeline services - but a number of those services were abandoned well before the current system came in to play. A number since.
Any number of factors exist in those routes success or lack of success. I think we all know that it doesn't just boil down to the ENCTS pass scheme. 

Your point about the surcharge raising funds and providing 1000 extra buses, assumes the current rate of central government funding maintains the current status quo. 
Any drop in funding or a push on other vital services in an LA area, could easily see funds diverted or consolidated elsewhere. 
As an example, some LA's have levied surcharges on green waste collections. I haven't seen an improvement in bin collection service. I've never seen the frequency increase (quite the opposite).

One quick question though. 
The surcharge you propose. Will the operator still recieve support from PTE's/LA's under the current 'no better/no worse off' guise or will that change?

Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   

(23 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm)Tamesider Rather than cut and paste, I will just comment on two points raised.

1. "Unsustainable" was probably the wrong word. What I meant was if a "surcharge of £1" was introduced, it wouldn't last, and would be £1.10 within a year and so on and so forth. 

2. Most concessionaries do not get all day free travel. However, there is an argument that they should. One of the main essential journeys is to/from the GPs and (for reasons someone in Primary Care might know), tend to be given morning peak appointments (except Mondays when Children are prioritised. Certainly, I have always felt that 0930 is ridiculously late as most bus borne commuters need to be behind their desk/counter etc before 0900, which with today's traffic means setting off well before 0800. Similarly, Schools start between 0815 & 0845 so the peak demand is well passed by 0930. Indeed, in eastern GM, peak hour service enhancements nowadays finish soon after 0800, wheras even a decade ago, it would have been 0845 ish.

I would ban free concessionary on Rail travel full stop. Partly because only a minority of concessionaries (mainly those in better off areas and/or who own a car) can access Rail and partly because such journeys are less likely to be essential. Not many local supermarkets or Health services have rail stations or tram stops. To make matters worse, because (heavy) rail tickets are not checked on boarding - if at all! - Concessionary travellers usually get away with boarding 10, 15 or more minutes before 0930.

There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 
James101
23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm #152

(23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am)Stanleyone If a surcharge were to be introduced it would most likely discourage those that get on the bus and get off 1 stop later. We also have a number of all day free passes, for instance that guy who was attacked in Gateshead, made massively public by the online collection (Alan forgot his surname) holds an all day free pass, does beg a question of why does someone need an all day pass.  Also maybe stricter rules on the companion pass, number of people i see on a regular basis with a different "carer" is astounding.



(23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am)Andreos1 I agree it is a 'Brucey Bonus' in the context free travel isn't something they were expecting when they started work. Having paid in to the system, I don't see any issue in them getting something as a reward. Something to assist them. Just like the TV licence perk, war time pension allowance and heating allowance. 
Whether me, you or uncle Tom Cobley get a state pension when we hit retirement is a moot point in this discussion. This is about now and what I think will be a disaster if the surcharge you propose is introduced. 

To touch on your point about the smaller independents picking up work. 
A number of those operators were around running work prior to 86. They ran around offering services between the two pass systems and have done since.
Yes, they may operate marginal tendered lifeline services - but a number of those services were abandoned well before the current system came in to play. A number since.
Any number of factors exist in those routes success or lack of success. I think we all know that it doesn't just boil down to the ENCTS pass scheme. 

Your point about the surcharge raising funds and providing 1000 extra buses, assumes the current rate of central government funding maintains the current status quo. 
Any drop in funding or a push on other vital services in an LA area, could easily see funds diverted or consolidated elsewhere. 
As an example, some LA's have levied surcharges on green waste collections. I haven't seen an improvement in bin collection service. I've never seen the frequency increase (quite the opposite).

One quick question though. 
The surcharge you propose. Will the operator still recieve support from PTE's/LA's under the current 'no better/no worse off' guise or will that change?

Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   

(23 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm)Tamesider Rather than cut and paste, I will just comment on two points raised.

1. "Unsustainable" was probably the wrong word. What I meant was if a "surcharge of £1" was introduced, it wouldn't last, and would be £1.10 within a year and so on and so forth. 

2. Most concessionaries do not get all day free travel. However, there is an argument that they should. One of the main essential journeys is to/from the GPs and (for reasons someone in Primary Care might know), tend to be given morning peak appointments (except Mondays when Children are prioritised. Certainly, I have always felt that 0930 is ridiculously late as most bus borne commuters need to be behind their desk/counter etc before 0900, which with today's traffic means setting off well before 0800. Similarly, Schools start between 0815 & 0845 so the peak demand is well passed by 0930. Indeed, in eastern GM, peak hour service enhancements nowadays finish soon after 0800, wheras even a decade ago, it would have been 0845 ish.

I would ban free concessionary on Rail travel full stop. Partly because only a minority of concessionaries (mainly those in better off areas and/or who own a car) can access Rail and partly because such journeys are less likely to be essential. Not many local supermarkets or Health services have rail stations or tram stops. To make matters worse, because (heavy) rail tickets are not checked on boarding - if at all! - Concessionary travellers usually get away with boarding 10, 15 or more minutes before 0930.

There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 

Tamesider



266
23 Oct 2018, 8:44 pm #153
(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 

You've (inadvertantly) highlighted something else about travel patterns amongst ENCTS and non-commuters in general. In such as GM, Long distance and/or Express services barely exist. I would say the vast majority of Concessionaries travel between 1 and 5 miles - certainly in the eastern half of the county where few services are longer than about 8 miles (which I'm guessing is shorter than your erstwhile Scarborough Express) and average bus speeds are in single figures, even off-peak. OTOH, I rarely see these "one-stoppers" or anything like. Equally, I'm not sure many Concessionaries travel more than three round trips a week to make a £6 ticket worthwhile. Even with the removal of actual time restrictions, many elderly people still don't like encountering boisterous schoolchildren, so the "window of oppurtunity" isn't very big once low frequencies, slow journeys and times at destinations are factored in.
Tamesider
23 Oct 2018, 8:44 pm #153

(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 

You've (inadvertantly) highlighted something else about travel patterns amongst ENCTS and non-commuters in general. In such as GM, Long distance and/or Express services barely exist. I would say the vast majority of Concessionaries travel between 1 and 5 miles - certainly in the eastern half of the county where few services are longer than about 8 miles (which I'm guessing is shorter than your erstwhile Scarborough Express) and average bus speeds are in single figures, even off-peak. OTOH, I rarely see these "one-stoppers" or anything like. Equally, I'm not sure many Concessionaries travel more than three round trips a week to make a £6 ticket worthwhile. Even with the removal of actual time restrictions, many elderly people still don't like encountering boisterous schoolchildren, so the "window of oppurtunity" isn't very big once low frequencies, slow journeys and times at destinations are factored in.

James101



649
23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm #154
(23 Oct 2018, 8:44 pm)Tamesider You've (inadvertantly) highlighted something else about travel patterns amongst ENCTS and non-commuters in general. In such as GM, Long distance and/or Express services barely exist. I would say the vast majority of Concessionaries travel between 1 and 5 miles - certainly in the eastern half of the county where few services are longer than about 8 miles (which I'm guessing is shorter than your erstwhile Scarborough Express) and average bus speeds are in single figures, even off-peak. OTOH, I rarely see these "one-stoppers" or anything like. Equally, I'm not sure many Concessionaries travel more than three round trips a week to make a £6 ticket worthwhile. Even with the removal of actual time restrictions, many elderly people still don't like encountering boisterous schoolchildren, so the "window of oppurtunity" isn't very big once low frequencies, slow journeys and times at destinations are factored in.

I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.
James101
23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm #154

(23 Oct 2018, 8:44 pm)Tamesider You've (inadvertantly) highlighted something else about travel patterns amongst ENCTS and non-commuters in general. In such as GM, Long distance and/or Express services barely exist. I would say the vast majority of Concessionaries travel between 1 and 5 miles - certainly in the eastern half of the county where few services are longer than about 8 miles (which I'm guessing is shorter than your erstwhile Scarborough Express) and average bus speeds are in single figures, even off-peak. OTOH, I rarely see these "one-stoppers" or anything like. Equally, I'm not sure many Concessionaries travel more than three round trips a week to make a £6 ticket worthwhile. Even with the removal of actual time restrictions, many elderly people still don't like encountering boisterous schoolchildren, so the "window of oppurtunity" isn't very big once low frequencies, slow journeys and times at destinations are factored in.

I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

Andreos1



14,155
24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am #155
(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 

(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?

'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Andreos1
24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am #155

(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:
  • I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  • The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  • The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  • As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  • Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  • The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 

(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?


'Illegitimis non carborundum'

JM03



505
24 Oct 2018, 3:02 pm #156
(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?
Really don't like the prices of the child tickets me when using the X10 between Dalton Park and Newcastle or Gateshead as its still £2 between these even though I'm only travelling between 2 countys. I can find it understandable why going to Middlesborough would be £2 but if kids are travelling only between 1 county then GNE should only charge the £1 flat fare. Find this a bit of a scam and god even going to sunderland on the metro and getting a child return on them would be cheaper. Not happy with this as i also use this section a lot. If the ECNTs were going to get a fare, making the fare the same as the child or dropping all childs to £1 with the ECNTs would be fair.
JM03
24 Oct 2018, 3:02 pm #156

(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?
Really don't like the prices of the child tickets me when using the X10 between Dalton Park and Newcastle or Gateshead as its still £2 between these even though I'm only travelling between 2 countys. I can find it understandable why going to Middlesborough would be £2 but if kids are travelling only between 1 county then GNE should only charge the £1 flat fare. Find this a bit of a scam and god even going to sunderland on the metro and getting a child return on them would be cheaper. Not happy with this as i also use this section a lot. If the ECNTs were going to get a fare, making the fare the same as the child or dropping all childs to £1 with the ECNTs would be fair.

Tamesider



266
24 Oct 2018, 8:20 pm #157
(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

Slightly confusing examples; the 168 is mainly commercially run by Stagecoach and isn't the best example of generating capacity as it is the only route run by either of Stagecoach's (City of) Manchester depots to specify largely single deck workings. 

Also, the X61 Blackpool to Manchester is long gone - although if memory serves did disappear after ENCTS was introduced in 2008. If we are going back into history, maybe a better example would have been the 400/401 "Trans Lancs" Expresses destroyed by the completion of the M60. The section norh of Ashton (400 at least) is still covered by at least 6 stopping buses an hour, but Ashton to Denton has been reduced recently, and Denton to Stockport is just a joke with just one bus an hour (was four by different routes at one point).
Tamesider
24 Oct 2018, 8:20 pm #157

(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

Slightly confusing examples; the 168 is mainly commercially run by Stagecoach and isn't the best example of generating capacity as it is the only route run by either of Stagecoach's (City of) Manchester depots to specify largely single deck workings. 

Also, the X61 Blackpool to Manchester is long gone - although if memory serves did disappear after ENCTS was introduced in 2008. If we are going back into history, maybe a better example would have been the 400/401 "Trans Lancs" Expresses destroyed by the completion of the M60. The section norh of Ashton (400 at least) is still covered by at least 6 stopping buses an hour, but Ashton to Denton has been reduced recently, and Denton to Stockport is just a joke with just one bus an hour (was four by different routes at one point).

James101



649
26 Oct 2018, 9:21 am #158
(24 Oct 2018, 8:20 pm)Tamesider Slightly confusing examples; the 168 is mainly commercially run by Stagecoach and isn't the best example of generating capacity as it is the only route run by either of Stagecoach's (City of) Manchester depots to specify largely single deck workings. 

Also, the X61 Blackpool to Manchester is long gone - although if memory serves did disappear after ENCTS was introduced in 2008. If we are going back into history, maybe a better example would have been the 400/401 "Trans Lancs" Expresses destroyed by the completion of the M60. The section norh of Ashton (400 at least) is still covered by at least 6 stopping buses an hour, but Ashton to Denton has been reduced recently, and Denton to Stockport is just a joke with just one bus an hour (was four by different routes at one point).

Just as an aside, I the BIB points out the relative bouancy of GM's bus network if there's only 1 Stagecoach route quiet enough to warrant single deckers. 

I think the X61 lasted as long as 2011, certainly it was around when I moved to Manchester in 2010. Enough time for ENCTS to have an impact and arguably the single biggest change to a service which had otherwise been successful for over 50 years.
James101
26 Oct 2018, 9:21 am #158

(24 Oct 2018, 8:20 pm)Tamesider Slightly confusing examples; the 168 is mainly commercially run by Stagecoach and isn't the best example of generating capacity as it is the only route run by either of Stagecoach's (City of) Manchester depots to specify largely single deck workings. 

Also, the X61 Blackpool to Manchester is long gone - although if memory serves did disappear after ENCTS was introduced in 2008. If we are going back into history, maybe a better example would have been the 400/401 "Trans Lancs" Expresses destroyed by the completion of the M60. The section norh of Ashton (400 at least) is still covered by at least 6 stopping buses an hour, but Ashton to Denton has been reduced recently, and Denton to Stockport is just a joke with just one bus an hour (was four by different routes at one point).

Just as an aside, I the BIB points out the relative bouancy of GM's bus network if there's only 1 Stagecoach route quiet enough to warrant single deckers. 

I think the X61 lasted as long as 2011, certainly it was around when I moved to Manchester in 2010. Enough time for ENCTS to have an impact and arguably the single biggest change to a service which had otherwise been successful for over 50 years.

James101



649
26 Oct 2018, 11:15 am #159
(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?

I've had my own thoughts about the X10 through Dalton Park. I was sceptical at first though clearly it's been a success. Don't know why we were so surprised, it is in effect a half-hearted replacement for the range of Newcastle express from the Parkside/Seaham/Murton withdrawn around 2008 area that GNE are now trying to flog as a new connection, just with the added bonus of having to change buses. 

I can't say I know too much about the legality around the legal detail of the no better/worse off rule. As I envisage my proposal, however, I don't see how it's any different to the current scheme. I propose operators keep re-imbursments at the exact same level as present. The £1 surcharges are perhaps best described as a levy, which are in effect protected funds passed to the LA. The LA then has a fund of £1 levies it spends on supported bus service, I.E. the money they had to spend prior to 2010. Again, as per current rules, this public money can only be spent on services that cannot be operated commercially; low patronage routes, evening and Sunday extensions of daytime commercial routes. It is entirely the LA's money and the LA's discretion on which routes to spend it on. Going further down the rabbit hole, there's discussion to be had if they would be legally compelled to spend all money raised within a time-frame, rather than hoarding money intended to provide services. Also whether improvements in infrastructure and alternative transport schemes (e.g. dial-a-ride) would constitute as appropriate ways to spend the levy. My thoughts would be money raised from ENCTS stage-carraige journeys should be spent on improving similar stage-carriage services.
James101
26 Oct 2018, 11:15 am #159

(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?

I've had my own thoughts about the X10 through Dalton Park. I was sceptical at first though clearly it's been a success. Don't know why we were so surprised, it is in effect a half-hearted replacement for the range of Newcastle express from the Parkside/Seaham/Murton withdrawn around 2008 area that GNE are now trying to flog as a new connection, just with the added bonus of having to change buses. 

I can't say I know too much about the legality around the legal detail of the no better/worse off rule. As I envisage my proposal, however, I don't see how it's any different to the current scheme. I propose operators keep re-imbursments at the exact same level as present. The £1 surcharges are perhaps best described as a levy, which are in effect protected funds passed to the LA. The LA then has a fund of £1 levies it spends on supported bus service, I.E. the money they had to spend prior to 2010. Again, as per current rules, this public money can only be spent on services that cannot be operated commercially; low patronage routes, evening and Sunday extensions of daytime commercial routes. It is entirely the LA's money and the LA's discretion on which routes to spend it on. Going further down the rabbit hole, there's discussion to be had if they would be legally compelled to spend all money raised within a time-frame, rather than hoarding money intended to provide services. Also whether improvements in infrastructure and alternative transport schemes (e.g. dial-a-ride) would constitute as appropriate ways to spend the levy. My thoughts would be money raised from ENCTS stage-carraige journeys should be spent on improving similar stage-carriage services.

Tamesider



266
26 Oct 2018, 8:43 pm #160
(26 Oct 2018, 9:21 am)James101 Just as an aside, I the BIB points out the relative bouancy of GM's bus network if there's only 1 Stagecoach route quiet enough to warrant single deckers. 

I think you slightly misunderstood; I said it was the only route run by either of the two city depots (Hyde Road or Sharston) that has single-deckers specifically allocated. HE is a 100% 'decker. Yes, if only due to congestion issues (and poor service levels on weekend mornings), most services need to be 'decker operated. The one "city" exception is the 38 (Little Hulton-Piccadilly) which would easily get away with 14 seater Mercedes 516s from what I've seen (and heard). Many Stockport and Ashton services are run with single-deckers although again, this can cause problems - albeit less so than in the past as so many people in the districts have deserted buses due to the high fares, declining service levels and more unpredictable delays (compared to inner city roads).
Tamesider
26 Oct 2018, 8:43 pm #160

(26 Oct 2018, 9:21 am)James101 Just as an aside, I the BIB points out the relative bouancy of GM's bus network if there's only 1 Stagecoach route quiet enough to warrant single deckers. 

I think you slightly misunderstood; I said it was the only route run by either of the two city depots (Hyde Road or Sharston) that has single-deckers specifically allocated. HE is a 100% 'decker. Yes, if only due to congestion issues (and poor service levels on weekend mornings), most services need to be 'decker operated. The one "city" exception is the 38 (Little Hulton-Piccadilly) which would easily get away with 14 seater Mercedes 516s from what I've seen (and heard). Many Stockport and Ashton services are run with single-deckers although again, this can cause problems - albeit less so than in the past as so many people in the districts have deserted buses due to the high fares, declining service levels and more unpredictable delays (compared to inner city roads).

Pages (10): Previous 17 8 9 10 Next
 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average