|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Oct 26, 2014 20:05:09 GMT 1
NYCC are consulting on exempting all Dalesbus services from ENCTS, with effect from 1 April 2015, on the basis that they are primarily for "tourism", and also the Arriva Moorsbus. There is a consultation open at www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/29727/Leisure-bus-consultation, which runs until 11 January 2015. The thing is ... well, the thing is that we all know that NYCC are waging war on bus users and doing everything in their power to avoid paying a penny to bus companies ... but the real issue is, how do you say what a "tourist" service is? From their survey, 94% of passengers said they used the bus for "leisure", but leisure is very different from tourism. Mrs Miggins getting a bus into town for a pilates class and a coffee with her knitting friends is just as much "leisure" as Mr Bloggs getting a bus up Hawes and having a stroll up to the waterfalls and a mosey round the cheese factory. Why should one be free and the other not? The survey also says that 65% of passengers were from outside North Yorkshire. Given that most of the Dalesbus routes start outside North Yorkshire, it's no great surprise that a significant number of people using them are from other counties. By my reckoning, there are Dalesbus routes originating or passing through York, Leeds, Wakefield, Bradford, Lancashire, Cumbria, Darlington and Middlesbrough. What do those 8 councils make of it? While they have not included Dalesbus connections that are entirely outside North Yorkshire (eg 866, 818 etc), most of them do run cross-border. Does that mean that you could get on the 800 in Leeds in the morning and use your pass, but then not be able to use it to return home? Is there any precedent for this elsewhere? I would split the services into two groups. The routes that run 52 weeks a year (855, 856, 872, 873, 874, 884) I would say are quite clearly genuine regular services that are aimed at locals every bit as much as they are aimed at tourists. There is minimal tourism in the Dales during the winter, but there is enough demand for these routes – which serve a substantial number of towns and villages – to run all year round, which shows that they aren't just catering for tourists. I can see no justification whatsoever for these services being exempted from ENCTS. The routes that run in the summer only, and maybe a monthly service in the winter, (564C, 800, 810/811, 812, 818/820/821, 823/825, 826/830/831/832/866, 875, 881, 898/899, M1/M2/M3/M4) I can see might be a more arguable case. However, I would still say that those services are principally used for leisure rather than tourism – there's a big difference between "being used for tourism" and "being used by tourists", and I don't think NYCC have shown a shred of evidence that justifies exemption. Furthermore, how is it in their interests to kill off the tourist industry that is pretty much all that keeps some areas of the Dales alive? With nearly half of pass-holders surveyed saying they would not or might not travel if they had to pay, that's an awful lot of potential revenue that the Dales is likely to be deprived of if these cuts go ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Oct 26, 2014 21:04:29 GMT 1
I'm in favour of this. When they introduced the free passes, the intention was to give low income pensioners a chance to leave their house and not to become housebound. The intention wasn't for them to travel all over the place on long distance journeys. We all know the problems Coastliner have had. It shouldn't effect loadings in reality, the Dalesbus network was just as comprehensive in the pre-free pass era.
The York Park & Ride is a similar situation to what you mention. Pass holders have to pay from the site but are free on return from York.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Oct 26, 2014 23:20:57 GMT 1
And the holders of the card get £1 off the £3 return fare on the Leeds Park and Ride
|
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Oct 27, 2014 9:09:17 GMT 1
It shouldn't effect loadings in reality, the Dalesbus network was just as comprehensive in the pre-free pass era. But then NYCC used to help fund it. I suspect this move may just about kill the network off - it shrank considerably when NYCC stopped its funding and has slowly grown again. The York Park & Ride is a similar situation to what you mention. Pass holders have to pay from the site but are free on return from York. Though pass holders can still use the bus into town so long as they do not board at the P&R site - so seems quite different to not being able to use the Dales buses at all. |
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Oct 27, 2014 9:53:02 GMT 1
Devon CC adopted a similar position earlier in the year which resulted in a similar situation. On the 300 service from Minehead to Lynton you could board with a free pass in Minehead in Somerset to travel to Lynton but you could not use your free pass to return from Devon to Somerset (I think there was a similar disagreement between Dorset & Hampshire on a service as well which effectively killed off a new service at birth). I suspect that because some of these services are seasonal & don't run all year round it gives the council the chance to deem it a tourist service and exempt it from inclusion in the scheme - the fact that it is largely targeted and built around visitors from outside coming in means that they see little political impact from exempting it to save money subsidising tourists - though it could be risky on those all year round services if the companies can show that there is a large proportion of local traffic being derived, particularly in the winter months. That said given how absolutely woeful the NYCC reimbursement rate is the operators may not be entirely unhappy with the situation, even with a 50% drop in passenger numbers with the switch to full fare they would still actually be better off without the free pass acceptance (I think, though haven't done the maths, that they could even offer decent discounts and still be better off having lost half their passengers) and they may not lose as much as that as there are a lot of pensioners (Particularly those incoming visitors who may use this service) who have been expecting to lose the pass for some time now as they realise how un-funded it is so may not see it as a huge turn off to produce those drops.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Oct 28, 2014 22:53:42 GMT 1
That said given how absolutely woeful the NYCC reimbursement rate is the operators may not be entirely unhappy with the situation, even with a 50% drop in passenger numbers with the switch to full fare they would still actually be better off without the free pass acceptance (I think, though haven't done the maths, that they could even offer decent discounts and still be better off having lost half their passengers) and they may not lose as much as that as there are a lot of pensioners (Particularly those incoming visitors who may use this service) who have been expecting to lose the pass for some time now as they realise how un-funded it is so may not see it as a huge turn off to produce those drops. That is probably the key pragmatic argument. If half of the passengers using ENCTS continue to use the service paying full commercial fares, that might mean the bus companies get at least as much revenue as they do now. But that alone isn't a great argument, because you could use the same justification to unilaterally withdraw ENCTS across the whole of North Yorkshire, on the basis that the pitiful rebate rate they give almost certainly deprives bus companies of the amount of income that they should be getting. |
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Oct 29, 2014 9:00:00 GMT 1
That said given how absolutely woeful the NYCC reimbursement rate is the operators may not be entirely unhappy with the situation, even with a 50% drop in passenger numbers with the switch to full fare they would still actually be better off without the free pass acceptance (I think, though haven't done the maths, that they could even offer decent discounts and still be better off having lost half their passengers) and they may not lose as much as that as there are a lot of pensioners (Particularly those incoming visitors who may use this service) who have been expecting to lose the pass for some time now as they realise how un-funded it is so may not see it as a huge turn off to produce those drops. That is probably the key pragmatic argument. If half of the passengers using ENCTS continue to use the service paying full commercial fares, that might mean the bus companies get at least as much revenue as they do now. But that alone isn't a great argument, because you could use the same justification to unilaterally withdraw ENCTS across the whole of North Yorkshire, on the basis that the pitiful rebate rate they give almost certainly deprives bus companies of the amount of income that they should be getting. No-one can unilaterally withdraw ENCTS except the Westminster Government. Local Councils must pay for it on, at least, 'normal' bus services, there are defined exemptions in the legislation to cover certain categories (which include dedicated Park & Ride journeys, tourist & season services, services where more than 50% of seats can be pre-booked & services where the vehicle in itself is considered an attraction to passengers - such as open-toppers or vintage buses) but beyond these exemptions all services must be included and it is up to the council whether they include services which could be excluded if they wish. Bus operators are not allowed, in any circumstances, to refuse to accept ENCTS passes on services that the local council has deemed within the scheme (they cannot themselves deem a service out of scope and since the power to define a service as in scope is that of the councils there is nothing an operator can do to force a bus service out of scope by getting covered by one of the exemptions since the council don't have to apply them - the only way out is to not register as service but if it isn't registered you can't charge local fares). Bus operators also are not allowed to do anything that may be construed as suggesting passengers may like to pay occasionally to help support their local bus services as that could be construed as illegal coercion. |
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Oct 29, 2014 21:19:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Oct 30, 2014 9:05:56 GMT 1
Doubtful, since this is just the Sunday operation of a service it would (or should) be impossible to argue for excluding the service on Sunday on tourism grounds if you were paying on the other 6 days of the week, weekends will always have a much higher proportion of leisure travel (besides which leisure doesn't equate to tourism in this sense, going to the cinema or swimming pool would both count as leisure trips but neither could be considered tourist activities). |
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Oct 30, 2014 19:59:41 GMT 1
Doubtful, since this is just the Sunday operation of a service it would (or should) be impossible to argue for excluding the service on Sunday on tourism grounds if you were paying on the other 6 days of the week, weekends will always have a much higher proportion of leisure travel (besides which leisure doesn't equate to tourism in this sense, going to the cinema or swimming pool would both count as leisure trips but neither could be considered tourist activities). To my mind, the only way that the Dalesbus proposals could be jusified is if they offered some kind of "Resident's Card" scheme to entitle people living in the local area to free transport. But then, such a scheme would have it's own running costs, and if the majority of passengers outside the summer peak held such a pass that in itself would imply the service was not being run for "tourism" purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by guyarab on Oct 30, 2014 23:02:14 GMT 1
I have read all of the above (with the exception of the government guidelines provide by jc - which I intend to do) and dislike immensely what NYCC is doing; it (the council) seems to be trying to ride roughshod over everyone, be it schoolchildren, ENCTS pass holders and operators alike.
If, as has been pointed out above, an operator cannot simply decide to declassify a route, then how did Western Greyhound manage it with their route 547 from Newquay to St Ives in Cornwall?
|
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Oct 31, 2014 9:06:35 GMT 1
If, as has been pointed out above, an operator cannot simply decide to declassify a route, then how did Western Greyhound manage it with their route 547 from Newquay to St Ives in Cornwall? Wasn't aware they had, I don't remember them not accepting passes last time I was down there just after their big fire so it must be a recent thing. I suspect that it was the council classifying this as a tourist service if it has happened since it is effectively a summer only service largely aimed at tourists serving a number of large holiday camps & connecting the two main seaside resorts on the north coast (it's an iffy definition of a tourist service but until someone tests it legally it will stand) - most settlements served have existing regular services to local towns running all year round so it is not particularly leaving anyone without an alternative. Councils in tourist areas like Cornwall where the cash they receive from Central Government doesn't come close to covering the running costs of the free travel scheme will be looking for any avenues where they can exclude services used by large numbers of incoming tourists to avoid cutting funding to services used by local residents. |
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Feb 2, 2015 19:06:48 GMT 1
And the results are out!
NYCC have seen sense, and routes that are year-round variations of Monday to Saturday services are being kept in the ENCTS scheme. Most routes that don't run 52 weeks a year and don't resemble regular services are being excluded (from 1 April), which is disappointing but not a great surprise, and I can fully understand why they have taken that decision. Some routes were not surveyed the first time round, so will be kept in for the time being but there will be further work done to determine whether they should stay in permanently.
Staying in ENCTS
855 (Garsdale - Hawes)
856 (Northallerton - Hawes)
872 (Burnley - Skipton - Grassington)
75 (Harrogate - Skipton - Malham on Saturdays)
Staying, with further review
873/884 (York - Ilkley - Skipton - Malham)
874 (Ilkley - Buckden)
898/899 (mid-week services from Bradford)
M3/M4 (Guisborough - Pickering)
Removed from ENCTS
800 (Leeds - Hawes)
812 (York - Grassington)
818/820/821 (Dewsbury - Richmond)
823/825 (Selby - Upper Nidderdale)
830/831/832 (Richmond - Lancaster)
881 (Malham - Settle - Ingleton)
No mention on that list of 564 from Hawes to Sedbergh, 810/811 from Burnley to Settle or 826 from Darlington to Richmond - but I assume they will be removed from ENCTS as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Feb 3, 2015 10:44:56 GMT 1
I am at a loss to understand how North Yorkshire County Council can refuse to accept the ENCTS on routes that start and finish in West Yorkshire(800/818/820/821/823/825) or any other routes that start or finish in other councils area(Lancashire or County Durham). I would have thought that any travel prior to entering or after leaving the NYCC area would be free using the ENCTS and pay for the journey within NYCC area.
Any comments would be appreciated as I have such use of a pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arriva Wakefield on Feb 3, 2015 11:32:22 GMT 1
I am at a loss to understand how North Yorkshire County Council can refuse to accept the ENCTS on routes that start and finish in West Yorkshire(800/818/820/821/823/825) or any other routes that start or finish in other councils area(Lancashire or County Durham). I would have thought that any travel prior to entering or after leaving the NYCC area would be free using the ENCTS and pay for the journey within NYCC area. Any comments would be appreciated as I have such use of a pass. I think it's where you board that determines the travel or not, so it could be that you could get there free, but have to pay on the return leg. However, they can also apply to remove all ENCTS from a route that falls outside of the scheme criteria, such as Tourist Routes, Park & Rides with added value (such as Free Parking) [This is why you have to pay FROM the sites at York - if you paid to park, then I believe they can't exclude the service] |
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Feb 3, 2015 17:32:53 GMT 1
NYCC are very grudging abt paying for visitors from W Yorks to an extent it distorts their judgement. OAPs spend the money they save on fares in N Yorks pubs and cafes and the gov gets the VAT on about twice as much as they pay out, for every £1 the gov gives the bus company, the OAP saves over £2. The scheme is a huge subsidy to retail and must account of thousands of jobs. Its just not right the the bus Companies are underpaid.
NYCC give a mealy £1.04 per passenger on many routes
|
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Feb 3, 2015 19:10:53 GMT 1
I think it's safe enough to say that when reviewed the 874 and the 883/4 (only between Ilkley and Skipton however) will be classed as all year services and so will come under the ENCTS scheme. The bit of the 883 what goes to Malham/York may not come under the scheme even though they run through the year due to the monthly operation of these sections in Winter. One piece of interesting information to consider, going by the dalesbus website, it looks like only the 800 is still subject to funding for Summer operation this year as all other summer services will defo return.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Feb 3, 2015 19:19:10 GMT 1
I am at a loss to understand how North Yorkshire County Council can refuse to accept the ENCTS on routes that start and finish in West Yorkshire(800/818/820/821/823/825) or any other routes that start or finish in other councils area(Lancashire or County Durham). I would have thought that any travel prior to entering or after leaving the NYCC area would be free using the ENCTS and pay for the journey within NYCC area. Any comments would be appreciated as I have such use of a pass. Any journey originating outside North Yorks is fine, you swipe your pass in Leeds and Leeds CC pays for it. But you can't use your pass on the return - and you can't use your pass where the registration is split within North Yorks. So while the 800, 812 and 875/884 are registered as continuous services, not all of them are. So someone coming from Darlington would have to pay from Richmond. |
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on May 15, 2015 9:27:51 GMT 1
Dalesbus have published the summer timetable and a leaflet explaining the use of the ENCTS card. It can't be used for a journey starting and finishing in North Yorkshire on routes 812/820/821/823/825/830/831/832/857/881. The are however discounted fares available for pass holders within North Yorkshire. Journeys on routes 820/821/823/825/830/832 within North Yorkshire if the journey commences in another county. The return journey is however subject to a fare until the county border is reached and then the rest of the journey is free. I foresee problems when ENCTS holder who are not aware of the changes are required to pay a fare at the start of their return journey and then there is the wait at the side of the road on the county border whilst all those folks are required to tap their cards for the free part of the journey. The excercise is likely to deter some from travelling and local economy's in place like Hawes will suffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on May 15, 2015 9:32:28 GMT 1
sorry I should have checked before posting. The sentence starting Journeys on routes 820 etc iinto North Yorkshire "are still free" if the journey commences in another county.
The moral here is to use a PC and not an IPad when trying to post something
|
|
