(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider wrote 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 wrote 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.