(23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am)Stanleyone wrote 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 wrote 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 wrote 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.