2021 "Bus Revolution" launched
2021 "Bus Revolution" launched
(15 Mar 2021, 3:40 pm)Ambassador Not surprised the operators are speaking out in favour - less commercial risk for them. We're not going to see a return to pre COVID levels for sometime and that will put a strain on the coffers.
Franchising and local control is seen as some big evil and it worked for a long long time up here with the PTE and it worked really well. The concern of course would be Gannon and Co and Nexus being in charge of the implementation. Just look at the utter farce that is the lack of regionwide smart cards or contactless.
None of it really addresses the age old problem of tempting car users out of their cars (and away from taxis) onto buses but it's a start.
(15 Mar 2021, 3:40 pm)Ambassador Not surprised the operators are speaking out in favour - less commercial risk for them. We're not going to see a return to pre COVID levels for sometime and that will put a strain on the coffers.
Franchising and local control is seen as some big evil and it worked for a long long time up here with the PTE and it worked really well. The concern of course would be Gannon and Co and Nexus being in charge of the implementation. Just look at the utter farce that is the lack of regionwide smart cards or contactless.
None of it really addresses the age old problem of tempting car users out of their cars (and away from taxis) onto buses but it's a start.
(15 Mar 2021, 12:54 pm)James101 As for cross boundary services, it could be messy to get every local authority in which the X9/10/11 operate to agree.
(15 Mar 2021, 12:54 pm)James101 As for cross boundary services, it could be messy to get every local authority in which the X9/10/11 operate to agree.
Martijn Gilbert was live earlier talking about it.
https://www.facebook.com/100009920923911...6394621377
(15 Mar 2021, 7:47 pm)L469 YVK So is this effectively a "Superoute MK2"? Or a half way house beteeen Quality Contracts & privatisation
(15 Mar 2021, 7:47 pm)L469 YVK So is this effectively a "Superoute MK2"? Or a half way house beteeen Quality Contracts & privatisation
I've been reading through the 86-page document tonight. Its well worth a read through, if you've got some time on your hands.
Being the cynic that I am, I am still curious as to what exactly is in the scheme for all parties, for it to be so openly promoted by operators. I think a couple of years ago, most operators would have walked out of the room if an offer was made to the degree that Enhanced Partnerships provide control to the local authority. Despite it being a Tory scheme, from what I've read so far, it doesn't appear to be all too bad on paper... but as with most things, the proof is always in the pudding. My biggest reservations remain that I don't think £3bn is nearly enough to cover more than a decade of austerity impacting secured services and that the option of municipal bus companies should exist for every local authority to consider.
As far as the operators go, I think the biggest carrot on a stick that is being dangled in front of them is this - "From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary."
The funding is obviously heavily relied on at present, and I think it'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Even after social distancing rules are dropped. Public confidence in being around others will be a real challenge and clearly that has a knock-on effect to efforts of encouraging people back onto buses. The loss of this funding, combined with the scale-down of the furlough scheme later in the year, would be devastating to operators.
I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the public/local authorities having more control over bus services in the past, so a route to Enhanced Partnerships would be welcome, but I'm somewhat surprised that the approach is to almost hold a gun to the operators heads. As much as I'd like a scheme to exist, I'd want it to be the right scheme first time, and not the quickest scheme that could be achieved in a short timescale.
The timescale itself is quite fast-paced:
• By the end of June 2021 LTAs will need to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships under the Bus Services Act or the LTA should begin the statutory process of franchising services. Operators in those areas should cooperate with those processes.
• Those LTAs who do not have access to franchising powers at present, but consider that it is the best route to adopt in the interest of passengers and that they have the capability and resources to deliver it, should progress with the implementation of an Enhanced Partnership alongside applying to the Secretary of State for access to franchising powers.
• By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan* and in other relevant local plans such as Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
• From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, to access the new discretionary streams of bus funding. Only services operated or measures taken under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made will be eligible to receive the new funding streams.
I've pulled some bits from the document that enthusiasts might find of interest:
"Each local area should have a common numbering system, to avoid two routes with the same number in the same place, and bus stops should be named consistently by operators running the same bus routes."
Of course, at one time this is something that we had and it generally worked very well. I don't particularly think that this is a bad thing.
"Local branding that reflects the community and not the operator should be adopted, though successful existing brands such as Harrogate’s 36 should not be sacrificed."
This is obviously something that would impact Go North East more than any other operator, as far as the North East goes. I'd personally hope that Xlines is something that could be adapted as an express brand for the entire region, but I'm not sure how much of a life the likes of the Crusader or Coaster might have left.
"All operators which run the same route should accept the same tickets, use the same route number and be shown on the same timetable."
and
"Timetable changes should be minimised and co-ordinated across operators, so they happen at the same time."
It'll be interesting to see what degree this is done to, i.e. whether it's full identical routes, or how it impacts those that largely share a common section. The 21/X12 for example.
"Common tickets, passes and daily capping should be available on all services irrespective of operator, at little or no premium to single-operator fares. All buses should accept contactless payment. Tickets and fares should be simple; flat fares should increasingly be standard in urban areas. Bus stations should be protected from closure and redevelopment and improved."
This would be a real improvement IMO. Operators tend to point to Network One as an example of this already happening, despite it being a scheme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. There's also the North East Smartzone of course, which was a step in the right direction, but very slow in progress and only exists in areas of strong competition.
On the final point, I wonder if that will see a return to staffed bus stations with information points.
"Railway stations should be hubs for connecting services with high quality stops close to station entrances. Schemes that move buses further away from stations should not be allowed."
This could potentially be more services serving Durham Railway Station, which I believe at one time they did. You only have the 40 now with a limited service during the day, so not great in terms of accessibility to Durham station at other times.
"Accessible and inclusive by design: Disabled people must be able to use bus services as easily as other passengers. Making buses more accessible (not just the vehicles themselves, but also bus stops, bus stations, and by providing excellent customer service) will benefit other passengers too. Next stop announcements, for example, will help everyone know where the bus is going and when they’ve reached their stop"
This obviously comes up quite often on this forum, so its good to see that the benefit of next stop is heavily referenced throughout.
Interesting times...
(15 Mar 2021, 8:04 pm)Adrian The full 'Bus Back Better' strategy document is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...ngland.pdf
But it seems to be forcing operators/LAs to agree (by end of June 2021) whether to go down the route of Enhanced Partnerships or Franchising, both of which are covered under the Buses Act 2017. From what Martjin Gilbert said on his live stream tonight, it looks like they'll be moving towards the EP route here.
(15 Mar 2021, 8:04 pm)Adrian The full 'Bus Back Better' strategy document is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...ngland.pdf
But it seems to be forcing operators/LAs to agree (by end of June 2021) whether to go down the route of Enhanced Partnerships or Franchising, both of which are covered under the Buses Act 2017. From what Martjin Gilbert said on his live stream tonight, it looks like they'll be moving towards the EP route here.
If this is pursued then it's the biggest change to buses in a generation. The bits that stood out for me are:
Buy your shares in Mercedes/EvoBus now
There's going to be a lot more Sprinters on the road soon. This report loves Demand Responsive Transport and cites Tees Flex as one of its best practice examples. As well as 17 more pilot projects announced yesterday, the report suggests DRT could be used to as a flexible way to provide evening & weekend services where demand is low & spread out. As such, DRT should be integrated into the scheduled network in terms of branding, timetabling & ticketing. I think this is a great way forward & hopefully it sees towns keeping a core timetabled route in the evening and the rest of the town becomes a DRT zone when the scheduled buses have gone to bed. The report also suggests promoting DRT as a safer way to travel as the door to door nature reduces waiting at bus stops. There's a suggestion a reformed BSOG could pay an enhanced rate to DRT services.
Improving Roadside Information
The report asks LTAs to use bus stops as 'free advertising', so as well as high-quality timetable information the infrastructure should be used to promote the advantages of bus travel to passing car users. This is something I've long wanted to see. Hopefully we see the end of anonymous bus stop flags strapped to a lamppost with no clue as to who or what stops there, when it may come or where it may go. The report also asks for partners to actively market their services, including specific tourist services.
Network Changes
I'm not convinced this report is telling us there's going to be many whole-scale changes or improvements to the network. There's lots of mention of 'reviewing' but also it says LTAs may face 'difficult decisions' about the services they run. This almost always translates to cuts. The impression I get seems to be about stabilising the network before looking to grow patronage. Any new services seem to be about connecting rural communities or extending current service provision into evenings and weekends. There's a few mentions of the change in working patterns toward out-of-town employment parks and shift working so we may initially see more amazon-style worker services. There's specific mention of new 'economically necessary' services which provide access to employment.
Road Management
The report talks a lot about using traffic management in the form of bus priority to speed up journeys. It also moves to make LTAs legally obliged to consider bus priority in future road developments. We've kind-of seen this done half-heartedly in the past where councils force developers to build in raised curbs & bus stops in new developments but they rarely follow through with a bus service to match. Hopefully Enchanced Partnerships will see bus services genuinely incorporated into urban planning from the start. I'd imagine this will be a big part of a lot of future service improvement partnerships - LTA will build a bus lane in return for operator enhancing timetable and buying new vehicles. There's mention of new powers to enforce traffic violations, LTAs should be careful as not to come across as attacking motorists or the while thing will become too politicised. A good enough bus 'product' should attract users without penalising them for using their cars.
Legal Complications
I worry there could be some heel-digging by anti-regulation operators like Stagecoach. The report now specially encourages cross-subsidy from profitable services to support unprofitable ones. So if an operator is required to use profits from the 'mainline' to operate the village shopper bus I would have thought they would want some protection from competition on their mainline? Similarly, as the report suggests competitive over-bussing should be removed, how will, for example, GNE be persuaded/forced/compensated for backing down on the Coast Road? Then if these partnerships become legally binding, or at least the operator is only ever going to be paid BSOG if they play ball, then we are surely just edging toward franchising via the back door?
Certainly it'll be interesting to see the reports published toward the end of this year to see how different LTAs respond. I'm sure we'll see some overly ambitious plans as well as some fairly uninspiring ones too. It'll definitely by an interesting 2022 for buses, but probably a fairly uneventful 2021 as bus operators tread water to see what their LTA partners come up with.
(15 Mar 2021, 11:16 pm)Adrian I've been reading through the 86-page document tonight. Its well worth a read through, if you've got some time on your hands.
Being the cynic that I am, I am still curious as to what exactly is in the scheme for all parties, for it to be so openly promoted by operators. I think a couple of years ago, most operators would have walked out of the room if an offer was made to the degree that Enhanced Partnerships provide control to the local authority. Despite it being a Tory scheme, from what I've read so far, it doesn't appear to be all too bad on paper... but as with most things, the proof is always in the pudding. My biggest reservations remain that I don't think £3bn is nearly enough to cover more than a decade of austerity impacting secured services and that the option of municipal bus companies should exist for every local authority to consider.
As far as the operators go, I think the biggest carrot on a stick that is being dangled in front of them is this - "From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary."
The funding is obviously heavily relied on at present, and I think it'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Even after social distancing rules are dropped. Public confidence in being around others will be a real challenge and clearly that has a knock-on effect to efforts of encouraging people back onto buses. The loss of this funding, combined with the scale-down of the furlough scheme later in the year, would be devastating to operators.
I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the public/local authorities having more control over bus services in the past, so a route to Enhanced Partnerships would be welcome, but I'm somewhat surprised that the approach is to almost hold a gun to the operators heads. As much as I'd like a scheme to exist, I'd want it to be the right scheme first time, and not the quickest scheme that could be achieved in a short timescale.
The timescale itself is quite fast-paced:
• By the end of June 2021 LTAs will need to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships under the Bus Services Act or the LTA should begin the statutory process of franchising services. Operators in those areas should cooperate with those processes.
• Those LTAs who do not have access to franchising powers at present, but consider that it is the best route to adopt in the interest of passengers and that they have the capability and resources to deliver it, should progress with the implementation of an Enhanced Partnership alongside applying to the Secretary of State for access to franchising powers.
• By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan* and in other relevant local plans such as Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
• From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, to access the new discretionary streams of bus funding. Only services operated or measures taken under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made will be eligible to receive the new funding streams.
I've pulled some bits from the document that enthusiasts might find of interest:
"Each local area should have a common numbering system, to avoid two routes with the same number in the same place, and bus stops should be named consistently by operators running the same bus routes."
Of course, at one time this is something that we had and it generally worked very well. I don't particularly think that this is a bad thing.
"Local branding that reflects the community and not the operator should be adopted, though successful existing brands such as Harrogate’s 36 should not be sacrificed."
This is obviously something that would impact Go North East more than any other operator, as far as the North East goes. I'd personally hope that Xlines is something that could be adapted as an express brand for the entire region, but I'm not sure how much of a life the likes of the Crusader or Coaster might have left.
"All operators which run the same route should accept the same tickets, use the same route number and be shown on the same timetable."
and
"Timetable changes should be minimised and co-ordinated across operators, so they happen at the same time."
It'll be interesting to see what degree this is done to, i.e. whether it's full identical routes, or how it impacts those that largely share a common section. The 21/X12 for example.
"Common tickets, passes and daily capping should be available on all services irrespective of operator, at little or no premium to single-operator fares. All buses should accept contactless payment. Tickets and fares should be simple; flat fares should increasingly be standard in urban areas. Bus stations should be protected from closure and redevelopment and improved."
This would be a real improvement IMO. Operators tend to point to Network One as an example of this already happening, despite it being a scheme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. There's also the North East Smartzone of course, which was a step in the right direction, but very slow in progress and only exists in areas of strong competition.
On the final point, I wonder if that will see a return to staffed bus stations with information points.
"Railway stations should be hubs for connecting services with high quality stops close to station entrances. Schemes that move buses further away from stations should not be allowed."
This could potentially be more services serving Durham Railway Station, which I believe at one time they did. You only have the 40 now with a limited service during the day, so not great in terms of accessibility to Durham station at other times.
"Accessible and inclusive by design: Disabled people must be able to use bus services as easily as other passengers. Making buses more accessible (not just the vehicles themselves, but also bus stops, bus stations, and by providing excellent customer service) will benefit other passengers too. Next stop announcements, for example, will help everyone know where the bus is going and when they’ve reached their stop"
This obviously comes up quite often on this forum, so its good to see that the benefit of next stop is heavily referenced throughout.
Interesting times...
(15 Mar 2021, 11:16 pm)Adrian I've been reading through the 86-page document tonight. Its well worth a read through, if you've got some time on your hands.
Being the cynic that I am, I am still curious as to what exactly is in the scheme for all parties, for it to be so openly promoted by operators. I think a couple of years ago, most operators would have walked out of the room if an offer was made to the degree that Enhanced Partnerships provide control to the local authority. Despite it being a Tory scheme, from what I've read so far, it doesn't appear to be all too bad on paper... but as with most things, the proof is always in the pudding. My biggest reservations remain that I don't think £3bn is nearly enough to cover more than a decade of austerity impacting secured services and that the option of municipal bus companies should exist for every local authority to consider.
As far as the operators go, I think the biggest carrot on a stick that is being dangled in front of them is this - "From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary."
The funding is obviously heavily relied on at present, and I think it'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Even after social distancing rules are dropped. Public confidence in being around others will be a real challenge and clearly that has a knock-on effect to efforts of encouraging people back onto buses. The loss of this funding, combined with the scale-down of the furlough scheme later in the year, would be devastating to operators.
I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the public/local authorities having more control over bus services in the past, so a route to Enhanced Partnerships would be welcome, but I'm somewhat surprised that the approach is to almost hold a gun to the operators heads. As much as I'd like a scheme to exist, I'd want it to be the right scheme first time, and not the quickest scheme that could be achieved in a short timescale.
The timescale itself is quite fast-paced:
• By the end of June 2021 LTAs will need to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships under the Bus Services Act or the LTA should begin the statutory process of franchising services. Operators in those areas should cooperate with those processes.
• Those LTAs who do not have access to franchising powers at present, but consider that it is the best route to adopt in the interest of passengers and that they have the capability and resources to deliver it, should progress with the implementation of an Enhanced Partnership alongside applying to the Secretary of State for access to franchising powers.
• By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan* and in other relevant local plans such as Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
• From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, to access the new discretionary streams of bus funding. Only services operated or measures taken under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made will be eligible to receive the new funding streams.
I've pulled some bits from the document that enthusiasts might find of interest:
"Each local area should have a common numbering system, to avoid two routes with the same number in the same place, and bus stops should be named consistently by operators running the same bus routes."
Of course, at one time this is something that we had and it generally worked very well. I don't particularly think that this is a bad thing.
"Local branding that reflects the community and not the operator should be adopted, though successful existing brands such as Harrogate’s 36 should not be sacrificed."
This is obviously something that would impact Go North East more than any other operator, as far as the North East goes. I'd personally hope that Xlines is something that could be adapted as an express brand for the entire region, but I'm not sure how much of a life the likes of the Crusader or Coaster might have left.
"All operators which run the same route should accept the same tickets, use the same route number and be shown on the same timetable."
and
"Timetable changes should be minimised and co-ordinated across operators, so they happen at the same time."
It'll be interesting to see what degree this is done to, i.e. whether it's full identical routes, or how it impacts those that largely share a common section. The 21/X12 for example.
"Common tickets, passes and daily capping should be available on all services irrespective of operator, at little or no premium to single-operator fares. All buses should accept contactless payment. Tickets and fares should be simple; flat fares should increasingly be standard in urban areas. Bus stations should be protected from closure and redevelopment and improved."
This would be a real improvement IMO. Operators tend to point to Network One as an example of this already happening, despite it being a scheme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. There's also the North East Smartzone of course, which was a step in the right direction, but very slow in progress and only exists in areas of strong competition.
On the final point, I wonder if that will see a return to staffed bus stations with information points.
"Railway stations should be hubs for connecting services with high quality stops close to station entrances. Schemes that move buses further away from stations should not be allowed."
This could potentially be more services serving Durham Railway Station, which I believe at one time they did. You only have the 40 now with a limited service during the day, so not great in terms of accessibility to Durham station at other times.
"Accessible and inclusive by design: Disabled people must be able to use bus services as easily as other passengers. Making buses more accessible (not just the vehicles themselves, but also bus stops, bus stations, and by providing excellent customer service) will benefit other passengers too. Next stop announcements, for example, will help everyone know where the bus is going and when they’ve reached their stop"
This obviously comes up quite often on this forum, so its good to see that the benefit of next stop is heavily referenced throughout.
Interesting times...
"So you want a revolution..." as the song goes.
A revolution can be defined as one complete turn around an axis where the position commenced fron and ended is the same.
And here were are, back in the 1980s, before buses were degregulated ending in the mess they're in today. The 1980s holds a lot of memories for me, new to the circuit and coming into my prime as a performer. It was a lot easier to get around by bus then too. Being both greedy and ambitious, I could perform two turns on a Saturday night and travel by bus. I could perform at an old-dear's 70th in Sacriston before jumping on the 531 to do a quick turn at the Miners Welfare Club in Westoe, or do the same with a gig in Seaham and a turn at the Cannon in Low Fell.
I hope these government changes mean the new breed of performer has the same opportunities as me when starting out.
One thing I hope comes of this is improved Sunday services, although for that we probably first need to get rid of the Sunday Trading Act.
(16 Mar 2021, 12:02 pm)streetdeckfan To me, it seems too good to be true.
(16 Mar 2021, 12:02 pm)streetdeckfan To me, it seems too good to be true.
(16 Mar 2021, 9:07 pm)Andreos1 As hopeful as I am that we will see an end to the mess created in 86, I can't see this being anything other than. another one of Boris's empty promises.
Probably ending up in the same pile as his airport, garden bridge and tunnel under the Irish sea plans.
(16 Mar 2021, 9:07 pm)Andreos1 As hopeful as I am that we will see an end to the mess created in 86, I can't see this being anything other than. another one of Boris's empty promises.
Probably ending up in the same pile as his airport, garden bridge and tunnel under the Irish sea plans.
Only had a skim through the thread, but I don't think anyone has mentioned that if the governments plan to go down the electric car route comes to fruition, in a few short years many more people wont be able to afford a car and will be pushed towards public transport.
We all welcome improvements, and a lot of what they want to do has been around a while and is overdue to be rolled out further I think. Multi-operator tickets? Explorers. Bus/train combined? Plusbus. Local authorites working together makes sense, as does more bus information, next stop announcements and so on.
I'm not sure why Andy Street, the mayor for the West Midlands, was quoted in the article - his part of the world already has a very good public transport network, with buses, trams and trains all over the place. To a lesser extent, same here in places served by the tyne and wear metro.
I hope they dont lose sight of the main issues, which in my opinion is getting buses to people who arent served well or at all, and definately more on an evening and sunday.
I'd also start to charge the ENCTS pass holders a small, token fare per journey to put some money back into the system. It probably wont happen, but hey, a lot of this may not happen!
(17 Mar 2021, 9:10 am)tvd Only had a skim through the thread, but I don't think anyone has mentioned that if the governments plan to go down the electric car route comes to fruition, in a few short years many more people wont be able to afford a car and will be pushed towards public transport.
We all welcome improvements, and a lot of what they want to do has been around a while and is overdue to be rolled out further I think. Multi-operator tickets? Explorers. Bus/train combined? Plusbus. Local authorites working together makes sense, as does more bus information, next stop announcements and so on.
I'm not sure why Andy Street, the mayor for the West Midlands, was quoted in the article - his part of the world already has a very good public transport network, with buses, trams and trains all over the place. To a lesser extent, same here in places served by the tyne and wear metro.
I hope they dont lose sight of the main issues, which in my opinion is getting buses to people who arent served well or at all, and definately more on an evening and sunday.
I'd also start to charge the ENCTS pass holders a small, token fare per journey to put some money back into the system. It probably wont happen, but hey, a lot of this may not happen!
(17 Mar 2021, 9:10 am)tvd Only had a skim through the thread, but I don't think anyone has mentioned that if the governments plan to go down the electric car route comes to fruition, in a few short years many more people wont be able to afford a car and will be pushed towards public transport.
We all welcome improvements, and a lot of what they want to do has been around a while and is overdue to be rolled out further I think. Multi-operator tickets? Explorers. Bus/train combined? Plusbus. Local authorites working together makes sense, as does more bus information, next stop announcements and so on.
I'm not sure why Andy Street, the mayor for the West Midlands, was quoted in the article - his part of the world already has a very good public transport network, with buses, trams and trains all over the place. To a lesser extent, same here in places served by the tyne and wear metro.
I hope they dont lose sight of the main issues, which in my opinion is getting buses to people who arent served well or at all, and definately more on an evening and sunday.
I'd also start to charge the ENCTS pass holders a small, token fare per journey to put some money back into the system. It probably wont happen, but hey, a lot of this may not happen!
There's an assumption that prices for electric cars will come down, and they may do, but will have to come down a lot to be affordable to lower paid workers. And then presumably there'll need to be huge infrastructure investment in charging points - are they going to put them outside every home? Maybe I'm sceptical but time will tell I guess.
Means testing ENCTS is one idea, as always pros and cons; the cons being the administrative costs of running a means tested systems, and for those that come fractionally above the limit will not get a free pass, but someone else whose income is a few quid a year less, get unlimited free travel potential worth thousands of pounds.
I cant see anything being changed about the free passes, just that in my opinion no one should complain if a small amount per journey was charged, especially if the proceeds of which went back into subsidising lesser used buses / evening or sunday buses in their local area.
Could operators be forced to go fully electric, gas or both in the future.
(17 Mar 2021, 10:21 am)tvd There's an assumption that prices for electric cars will come down, and they may do, but will have to come down a lot to be affordable to lower paid workers. And then presumably there'll need to be huge infrastructure investment in charging points - are they going to put them outside every home? Maybe I'm sceptical but time will tell I guess.
Means testing ENCTS is one idea, as always pros and cons; the cons being the administrative costs of running a means tested systems, and for those that come fractionally above the limit will not get a free pass, but someone else whose income is a few quid a year less, get unlimited free travel potential worth thousands of pounds.
I cant see anything being changed about the free passes, just that in my opinion no one should complain if a small amount per journey was charged, especially if the proceeds of which went back into subsidising lesser used buses / evening or sunday buses in their local area.
(17 Mar 2021, 10:31 am)ASX_Terranova Could operators be forced to go fully electric, gas or both in the future.
(17 Mar 2021, 10:21 am)tvd There's an assumption that prices for electric cars will come down, and they may do, but will have to come down a lot to be affordable to lower paid workers. And then presumably there'll need to be huge infrastructure investment in charging points - are they going to put them outside every home? Maybe I'm sceptical but time will tell I guess.
Means testing ENCTS is one idea, as always pros and cons; the cons being the administrative costs of running a means tested systems, and for those that come fractionally above the limit will not get a free pass, but someone else whose income is a few quid a year less, get unlimited free travel potential worth thousands of pounds.
I cant see anything being changed about the free passes, just that in my opinion no one should complain if a small amount per journey was charged, especially if the proceeds of which went back into subsidising lesser used buses / evening or sunday buses in their local area.
(17 Mar 2021, 10:31 am)ASX_Terranova Could operators be forced to go fully electric, gas or both in the future.
(17 Mar 2021, 9:21 am)streetdeckfan Why would that be the case regarding electric cars. The only reason electric cars are still so expensive is because people think they need ~300 miles range, when a battery half the size with half the range would be more than sufficient. Even still, price of batteries is still coming down, I'd estimate in 5 years the price of electric vehicles will be lower than that of an ICE car since the rest of the parts are so much cheaper.
As for ENCTS, I personally think it should be means tested, and treated as the 'benefit' that it is. I don't think that people who can afford to travel by bus should have free bus travel, in the same way I think it should be open to all ages, based on their need rather than age.
(17 Mar 2021, 9:21 am)streetdeckfan Why would that be the case regarding electric cars. The only reason electric cars are still so expensive is because people think they need ~300 miles range, when a battery half the size with half the range would be more than sufficient. Even still, price of batteries is still coming down, I'd estimate in 5 years the price of electric vehicles will be lower than that of an ICE car since the rest of the parts are so much cheaper.
As for ENCTS, I personally think it should be means tested, and treated as the 'benefit' that it is. I don't think that people who can afford to travel by bus should have free bus travel, in the same way I think it should be open to all ages, based on their need rather than age.
