(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 wrote 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 wrote 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?