Petition - "WE JUST LOVE THE ENGLAND BUS PASS"

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

The taxpayer is NOT subsidising staff travel. No money from central government is paid to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[TaplowGreen]

The taxpayer is NOT subsidising staff travel. No money from central government is paid to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.....

[JayMac]

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.

[John R]

.....just out of interest, how exactly are the travel benefits of retired BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) employees taxed?

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.

 

[grahame]

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!

[LiskeardRich]

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!

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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.

[Brucey]

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)

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.

[John R]

  In other words - add it to the pension and let them decide. 

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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!

[LiskeardRich]

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

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

[Super Guard]

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

[TaplowGreen]

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?

[thetrout]

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...............

[Super Guard]

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?

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?