Great Western Coffee Shop

Old man to me telling him about the new train service: "I won't use it. I have to pay to use the train, but the bus is free."

Me to old man: "No - you pay if you travel by train, and I pay for you through my taxes is you travel by bus - it's not free"

from my email:


And passed to me with the comment

Truth be told I dont think the shceme can fully continue as it is now as the costs are just going up. Money has to come from somewhere and lets face it would you want to have a situation where you have a bus pass but no bus services to use it on.

I dont think it was expected that the older population would continue increasing a smuch as it has done when this whole shcme was thought up and introduced.

There is nothing wrong with oap's paying discounted fares as they do with a over 60's railcard when they travel by rail especially when you see many of the younger generation struggling to pay for their travel costs while some of the money paid in taxes is spent on the free bus pass scheme.

I drive buses in Worcester where you cannot use your passes before 0930 and after 2300 on weekdays which is accepted by a lot of oap's but you do get a large amount who moan and complain and whom seem to think they should get everything for nothing despite taxypayers like myself(I do pay a hell of a lot of tax) having to pay for it.

"Health & well-being"?....yes, if you exercise. Sutting on buses saily just helps the overweight stay that way, and the healthy to get less healthy.

And its too new to say universal entitldment applies for ever

There are so many things wrong with the free bus pass it's difficult to know where to start.

Entitlement that begins before state pension age for one (although this is gradually being abolished, and like most things that have the word "pension" in them is complicated). Why should people get one when still at working age?

Universal entitlement shortly after state pension age when the vast majority at that age would probably be hail and hearty, still running a car, and in many cases in receipt of nice employer pensions. Why should society offer a free benefit to those able to pay?

A system that offers use without any payment provides a distortion of demand. As seen on the Heart of Wales line when senior citizens are able to travel free and swamp the service, so that fare paying passengers couldnt get a seat.

A system that costs the local authority the same whether the individual has travelled one stop or 20 miles. And with travel free, how many only travel one stop, thus inflating the cost, and discouraging a degree of walking that will be good for the health of the individual.

I would do a combination of some or all of the following:-

Only offered after the 75th birthday.
Only offered to those in receipt of a state benefit other than the state pension (this would entitle those with a degree of invalidity or who have limited means).
Make the payment to operators a flat % of the normal fare for the journey.
Make the pass a 75% off pass, so that some payment is made (rounded to the nearer 10p), but it's never going to break the bank.





 

 

Potentially add the following as well
Offer to those who have medical conditions or disabilities.
Offer to those who have a driving licence revoked due to medical failure.

In reality the longer the bus pass remains the more routes are going to disappear as operators cant afford to run them where 80% of the patrons are the bus pass brigade.  If this happens they wont have any services to use their passes on anyway.

I'd give bus passes to students and the unemployed, as they're the ones who need them, not people who have had their entire working lives to save up for travelling around in their leisure time (and I write that as someone in receipt of a pension myself)

**RANT ALERT**

I've only skim read. But that comment in bold has struck a very sore nerve with me!

On Saturdays in Frome, The Service 30 was completely withdrawn by FirstBus... This was a very well loaded service on the weekend. So why was it withdrawn you might ask? Nearly all of it's passengers were ENCTS Pass Holders and it was effectively creating a money pit for First Bus ::)

So no. I do not agree that it prevents rural services being withdrawn. Quite the opposite happens actually.

---

Yes please :) No Driving License for life here and Taxis are not cheap!


Looks like my echo has entered into the matrix... I have raised this in a few public transport meetings.

"It's all very well and good The Council saying: "Have a Bus Pass for free travel" except it's only as good to you if you have the services to use it on

---

On the flip side of that I got into a very hostile argument over the use of my pass by a group of people waiting at The Market Place Bus Stop after they boarded a 234 Service and had to pay and I didn't... I respectfully declined their suggestion to "Pay up like everyone else does" because I normally use trains which I DO pay for. In addition to that, I usually travel First Class, so the train company gets even more revenue out of me then otherwise it would normally! If perhaps I did not have my railcard, I would not be travelling First Class. But with that logic I wouldn't have an ENCTS Pass either ::)

So the odd use of the pass if the times are right I don't see causing any harm...

I appreciate the Tax Payer argument on all of this and I have not taken any comments personally. I am speaking in an entirely liberal sense. I never choose to have my disabilities. They were not self inflicted. If someone is going to offer me free transport because of it, to make things easier, then I'm sorry but I am going to accept the offer.

Lets throw the baby out the bath water now and look at all the large cooperation who don't pay their CT Tax... ::) >:( :-X

I could name some that are common knowledge... But either way, I don't fancy a litigation notice for Libel any time soon :-X

I don't think anyone has suggested that those with disabilities should pay. The subject was focused on those over 60, and it appears a consensus that those disadvantaged in some way should continue to benefit from the scheme. I must confess I wasn't even aware that those with disabilities below 60 get free travel, but that would make sense, and if funds are limited I would much rather see those benefitting from the scheme than the more "age-disadvantaged" that have the financial means to pay.

Clearly it's also inappropriate for past and present rail employees to enjoy free travel on trains taking into account the fact that the taxpayer subsidises that too?

It's a completely separate debate, as to what level of concessionary travel past and present employees of the rail industry get. And the discussion is about the bus scheme, not the rail industry.  What's offered for employees will to a large extent be contractual, as opposed to social policy.

The original poster stated the following....."Old man to me telling him about the new train service: "I won't use it. I have to pay to use the train, but the bus is free."

Me to old man: "No - you pay if you travel by train, and I pay for you through my taxes is you travel by bus - it's not free"

............so the principle is that free bus travel is not free but subsidised by the taxpayer..........as the taxpayer massively subsidises the rail industry, it therefore follows that the same applies to those who get "free" travel on the railways......same principle, the only difference is the type of vehicle!

Not quite the same as rail staff are taxed for their travel concessions as a benefit in kind regardless of whether they use them or not.

The bus pass scheme costs the tax payer more in reimbursements the more it is used, but the rail staff free travel does not.

If you feel strongly on the subject are you going to start a petition to revoke staff travel concessions?

Rail staff travel is far less generous these days than ever it was in the time of BR.

Although, the Privilege discount of 75% off is being extended to Off Peak tickets from September. Currently it is only available on Anytime tickets.

Please don't give him ideas.

I wonder how many rail services have been withdrawn due to free staff travel making them uneconomical?


As has been stated before, the most generous benefits (ex-BR) are safeguarded (a condition of privatisation) and also taxable.

....and quite right too, the taxpayer should not be subsidising this sort of thing.

As for the specific bus pass question, you're right it is a social policy, with social benefits.....also cuts down on traffic. I'm not entirely convinced however that it should be on a "blanket" basis, but it would be a brave Government who risked alienating the "grey vote"  :)

.....just out of interest, how exactly are the travel benefits of retired BR employees taxed?

The taxpayer is NOT subsidising staff travel. No money from central government is paid to TOCs for them to provide staff travel concessions.

Providing discounted leisure travel in all likelihood brings additional revenue to the railways, as is the case with railcard products.

.....I can see what you've done there!  :) ......Taxpayer funding may not be paid directly to subsidise staff travel, but effectively it's doing the same thing.....

The biggest indirectly subsidised group of fare payers on the railway are probably Season Ticket holders. Also often the most vocal about the perceived ills of the network and its staff.

As with all taxable benefits, a notional value (which I don't know) will be put on it, and added to the taxable income of the individual.  Many pensioners in receipt of a company pension will be paying tax, particularly if they have also got to the age where they are getting a state pension, so they will be paying tax on the amount in excess of the personal allowance.

In most cases this is likely to mean that pensioners will be paying 20% tax on the notional value of the benefit.

 

Back on the original topic ... "Free bus passes for pensioners"?

I don't know the guy running the petition, but I do know the person who passed it on to me with the comment "I will certainly fight to keep my pass due to its environmental attributes and without it lots more rural services will be cut" and I give that commeny great weight, as he's a former bus operator, recently retired, who's familiar with the sums, how they influenced his business, and with a pretty good knowledge of his customers and what they would be likely to do (travel wise) if the scheme were changed.

On the other hand, I have also heard the case put eloquently (by a different bus operator) that free bus passes put so many people onto his vehicles on the cheap that routes, though packed, ceased to be viable for him.

Those are two very different views, so who is "correct"?   I'm pretty sure that both are!

If you take a well run local service in a holiday area, but aimed at the working residents of the area and priced so the working residents in what's also an economically stressed part of the country can afford to travel ... and you then fill the little buses with 60% off passenger ... the economic case for running it commercially is much reduced.   Full, but far less income, and no longer providing the year-round service to the community because those who need it from within the community are forced off in summer.

If you take a subsidised service in a much more affluent area, with an even higher proportion of working people driving, and a significant retired resident popuplation, the changes are that your commercial operator will price walk-up fares not at a level at which paying passengers can afford to make lots of journeys, but at a much higher level so that the 60% off passengers make sense and become his bread and butter.   Under such a regime, the withdrawl of the scheme and replacement by "you pay just like everyone else" would indeed lead to loss of custom, income and perhaps service.

... so it really depends on the flavour of passenger profile, and how the operator has elected to set his pricing in order to make his living and / or shareholder dividends.

You have the extra complexity of the markup on tendered / subsidised routes (the tender price being paid is, if you like, a top-up subsidy on top of the subsidy given by free bus passes).  I heard a figure of 30% markup quoted yesterday as not un-typical, again by someone who knows quite a bit about this sort of thing.

Of course the petition is going to be popular. It's saying to people who haven't had to pay when they get on a bus that they may have to in future, and no-one likes what's been given to them and may be taken away.   The alternative isn't stated in the petition, so it also plays on fear of the unknown.  And the signatores aren't asked to consider how travel for pensioners, which is currently subsidised or double-subsidised, should be funded. 

I would love to see us giving our older generation - who have done a pretty good job in looking after our finances and world in the past - continued responsibility for how they spend their money, rather than us spending it for them in nanny-state patronising way.  In other words - add it to the pension and let them decide.  And similarly for those who are unable for medical reasons to drive and have restricted choice as to how to get around, give them the dosh to make their own choices.  There probably is scope (and stomach)  for some sort of halfway house, with all the complexities of double admin!

A final thought ... if a petition said "please give us our pension to spend as we wish, rather than spending it for us on servives we may or may not choose to use", would you also get 100,000 signatures.  You just might!

I know western greyhounds excuses for pulling a number do services that are known to be busy are due to them not covering costs. When challenged they have said it's due to bus pass users and not being reimbursed sufficiently by the council.

Another local operator ceased operations as not being financially viable despite running at 95% capacity as an average again cited due to bus pass users.

First Kernow have recently increased their fares again citing the need to cover their costs as the council don't subsidise the bus passes sufficiently so they need to recoup the costs from the passenger
A bus from pool to illogan a distance of less than 3 miles is now ^4.50 return
Redruth to Falmouth is now 7.50 return, a distance of about 8 miles each way.

I think one solution could be to look at alternative sources of subsidy.

One of the main benefits for retailers, especially of the out of town variety is that pensioners who have bus passes will often use bus services to visit retail parks whereas if the service was not available they simply drive to local shops.

Perhaps this is the type of thing which could be used more regularly as part of planning legislation ie the Developer makes a contribution to local infrastructure (inc public transport?) - the environmental argument for this is also strong (ie fewer cars on the roads and less space taken up by car parking)

It happens in a small way around my way, some services are partly funded by the private sector but on a voluntary basis.

Something similar happened to the site on which I work (next to a village in the middle of nowhere).  They wanted to build more buildings, so the local authority insisted on a reduction in the number of "single occupancy vehicles" arriving.  This resulted in a foot/cyclepath being installed and an increase in bus services.  Sadly these buses are made available only for staff, which resulted in an immediate cut to the local bus serving the villages nearby.  There are now just 8 public buses per weekday, which are operated under contract to the county council and don't even reach the city centre without changing buses en-route.

Given that those reaching their State Pension Age after 6/4/16 will get around ^40 per week additional State Pension compared with those retiring before, there's a good argument that one of the offsets for these people is the removal of the free bus pass.

I think there is a stronger argument for means testing the Winter Fuel payment - ^200 for all without any sort of means testing.

There are a lot of social, economic and environmental arguments in favour of free bus travel however I can't see any for the WFP in its current form......................but again they won't risk losing the grey vote, especially with an election coming up!

And our pensioners still get it if they live abroad. I know of someone living in Tenerife who remains eligible.

Isn't the usual argument that means testing creates admin/systems that end up costing more than the savings?

I would have thought in the case of the WFP it would be possible to link it to tax codes?

Was rather surprised to get on a National Express Coach this morning. Pay the driver a cash fare that was cheaper (both single and return) than the local commercial bus operators...............

In an ideal world where everyone has enough income to pay tax, but if you are below the current ^10k, then how would a pensioner (who would really need it) claim then?

That would be the point. If they don't pay tax they would get it. If they do, then above a pre-determined point they wouldn't. Though that wouldn't allow for the possibility that they have two smaller incomes, or that they live with family, or in a care home, etc, etc.

First Kernow have recently increased their fares again citing the need to cover their costs as the council don't subsidise the bus passes sufficiently so they need to recoup the costs from the passenger
First recently ceased the X18 Pz - Truro (& return) semi fast service, bypassing Camborne & Redruth  Used to run 5 times a day, then reduced to three, then cut.
Local objections forced them to put on an early morning Pz - Truro, and a tea time Truro - Pz run only.
Previous X18's were mostly used by concession cards and students, very little cash taken in fares, if at all; frequently very full on all runs.
As stated earlier, a concession full bus is a loss leader for the operator - hence the pulling of the X18.

Reading Buses (quoted on the Council Tax leaflet) gave a figure of 27% as the concessionary loading.

The bus network covers about half its costs from the farebox. A quarter comes from subsidy and a quarter from the concessionary system. Remove it and the bus network is destablised. Overall, the OAP bus pass subsidy helps maintain the network for the younger population which needs the higher cost morning peak services. OAP's only travel free after the peak. There are some rough edges to the system, both for paying passengers and for operators but overall the bus pass has great benefits. Even for wealthy pensioners, it reduces car use and gets them spending in the high street not on the tax-dodging internet.

I can't see as much benefit from the heating allowance, however.

OTC

To be a bit pedantic, but completely accurate, a 'loss leader' is a product a company is prepared to lose money on in order to lead customers to more profitable products and thus increase profits (eg cheap bread/milk brings in the punters who they hope will buy other groceries).  A bus route that never will make money is a complete loss to profits.

Ah - now I have come across sections of a route which don't make money, but which continue to run because they bring in a handful of people who stay on the bus and are joined by others which makes the bus route profitable as a whole.  The classic is/was the route from Bath Bigcity to Easterton Tinyvillage via Melksham Biggertown, Devizes Bigtown Potterne Village West Lavington Village and Market Lavington Village.

The metric here are that you will never pay your way from Easterton to Market Lavington, but that helps fill the bus the rest of the way, and no matter how far you trip that route back towards Bath you're going to damage your income for the inner sections.   The recent history of the route is a complex one, with First running the service in the days I actually lived in Easterton; they cut it back all the way to Melksham and FareSaver took over the longer route by extending their Bath to Melksham bus, initially with a change and a smaller vehicle onwards from Devizes - commercially run but perhaps a loss leader in order to get a good load of transfers.  People don't like changing, though, and the outer section is now a through / larger vehicle ... which I doubt is ever going to make a profit on the very final section to Easterton ...

The trouble with the concessionary bus pass scheme is that it generates a lot emotional chatter, some of which is right but much is rubbish.
I am a pensioner and have a bus pass. Unfortunately my use has declined through deteriorating health and I find it difficult to walk the 1/3 mile to the nearest bus stop. I do not think much of completely free services to the user as the service (especially free car parking in West Oxon that is paid for by non car owners in there council tax) is sometimes not valued as much and would be happy to pay something towards a bus journey, (say 20 pence or 50 pence?). However no one has mentioned that despite the financial crisis, state spending in child support is increasing. The free school meals for all 5 to 7 year olds is an example. If the country can afford that, it can afford care for the elderly including support for bus travel. There has been talk about taxing the bus pass but I cannot see how this could be done. It would be much easier to simply tax the annual ^200 winter fuel allowance (^100 for each of couples). Local authorities are continuing to cut back on care services for the elderly whiclst spending more on children.
Turning back to the cost of buses, one contributor here points out correctly that direct bus service subsidies and contributions from local authorities for bus passes form a large proportion of bus service revenues and without them in many cases service would be unviable for the small proportion of fare paying customers. Here in West Oxon the County Council has finished a review of subsidised service contracts and our local bus services for Hanborough are changing from being subsidised to commercially operated by Stagecoach. How is this so? It is the ever increasing number of concessionary bus pass users. A percentage of basic fare reimbursement for each pass user produces more revenue to Stagecoach than 100% of fare paying income from just a few elderly fare paying bus users. What it has meant to the operator is that direct subsidy has gone down and been replaced by much higher cash concessionary bus pass use income. However a charge per concessionary bus pass use would cut overall use and possibly the operator could find itself with lower overall revenue with its local authority income falling by more than its income from pass holder charges thus endangering service provision. Conversely it could cut local authority costs and enable the support for children services to be increased! It all gets even more complicated in practice as I can recall from my days as a planning and transportation local authority accountant.

It should also be remembered that Stagecoach a year or so ago crowed that its proficts had not protected from the worst effects of the recession by the increasing concessionary bus pass income as well as guaranteed income on it London operations.