NYMR - threat to bus links to Pickering, Goathland and Grosmont

http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/bussubsidy

That has the info. The 840 route via Pickering is under threat, as is the 99 local service to Grosmont from Whitby.

You only have a week to object, closing date is 14th August.

The tick boxes on the survey are not good. Doesn't ask if you have access to a car for example and I will do a more detailed response to what the NYCC consultation asks.

David

 

This is possibly very bad news for residents and visitors alike in Whitby and surrounding areas. Already hit by cuts to services.
We have already lost later bus services from Scarborough to Pickering, and onto the North Yorkshire Moors, meaning people are having to use their cars, regardless of Green wishes or otherwise, some no longer have an option as the services have been cut right back, or already stopped and sound as if they will be even further.
With Councils withdrawing subsidies or other help, the Bus Companies answer is with no help and number of free bus journeys which are not reconciled against the full fares, it means more services will be withdrawn, as they just don't pay for themselves. Government should put more money into this transport mode outside London and Cities, they want you to use public transport,but do nothing to help people use the disappearing services. I think this is yet another service that is going to disappear and in the current climate can't see an answer, at least fuel prices for Diesel have now dropped to around 110.9p per litre, helping buses and coaches, but making car the cheapest way to travel for many.

 

This is an interesting turn of the wheel in that - in simple terms - Beeching (on behalf of Marples) closed the railways because the public had cars but now that generation has reached the stage when it can no longer drive and needs to rely on public services which it turned its collective back on in earlier years.

The long term answer is that (a) the councils will have to accept transport as part of its "social policies" (b) tax-payers will have to accept that if they want public transport in future years they will have to invest in it in the present through their council tax (c) transport policies will have to be based on longer term planning than the current short-term funding policies which result in "knee jerk" adjustments and (d) both councils and Government need to adopt long term policies that protect the interests of rural dwellers where subsidies will be needed most.

I come back to the views expressed by MerseyTravel supremo Mark Dowd in the 1990s that the free travel offered to pensioners on Mersey trains and buses not only benefitted the pensioners in terms of simply providing free travel but encouraged them to travel within the area - where they spent money on goods and services - and reduced the calls on care services as their activity levels reduced dependency yet none of the social service departments saw that investment in free transport was part of their "care" provision and subscribed funding from their departmental budgets.

An interesting irony inherited from the Marples / Beeching era methinks.

 

Again, the stupid British mentality that everything must make a profit, regardless of the effect of one aspect of life on another.

A similar result is the loss of refreshment facilities on trains - they may not have made a profit but they made the overall product more attractive.

John

 

The problem is that councils are under pressure not to increase their council tax. Any increase of 2% or more has to be approved by the electorate. The grant from central government is decreasing and the demands on the council's budgets are increasing.

A view expressed by a bus operations manager was that by 2020 nearly all bus services in England will be commercially operated and the distance between stops for ECTS services could be reduced from 15 to 5 miles leading to more limited stop bus services which won't accept bus passes.

 

The issue of Bus passes to everyone over 60 in Wales and now 62.8 years for England and also for disabled people and their carers where deemed essential by Hospital/Doctor means that to many journeys are being made for no income to Bus Companies, following the payment and refunds that can be applied for to Councils. With a great majority not requiring Free bus transport, the Free Passes should only be issued, if your income is under a certain Amount from Pension/savings/investments etc. this would at a stroke cut out over 75% of all issued passes, the rest being able to afford to pay from their income, according to Government figures 2014. The way it is going we won't be able to afford to issue Bus passes to all, as the Councils cannot afford to Cover the issue and payments for these journeys and passes. It should be tied to retirement age to, but not less than a certain age, say 70 years old. If the Government continue to decrease money to councils this scheme will die quite quickly now. It is still needed, more so if people have no car and rely on a infrequent Bus service.
Only other alternative is for applicants to apply and pay annually for a Bus Pass and then get a third off Peak time services, and up to 50% for quieter times of day. This works for the Rail Industry. A lot of people of pension age are not short of money at all, so means testing for bus passes could be the only other alternative, to be able to afford to keep it running. On some journeys nearly everyone on board is using a Free Bus Pass travel.

 

I qualify for a free bus pass in the not too distant future but to be honest I can afford to pay so wouldn't lose any sleep if it was decided I won't qualify. Means testing would get my support if it meant rural - and not so rural in my area - bus services survive.

 

Sorry, I don't agree. Means testing is something that we need to get rid of. It discourages people from saving and encourages the 'let the state take care of me' mentality. I didn't vote Tory, but they got it right with pension reform in giving everyone the same state pension from April 2016 (subject to having made enough NI contributions during their working lives) and no more of the means tested supplementary pension which meant that Joe who had a foreign holiday and a new car every year and didn't save ended up just as well off in old age as Fred, next door, who had throughout his working life saved religiously into a private pension.

And if you give bus passes to people who can afford to drive, you may just encourage them to use the bus service instead of buying a car and helping to clog up the roads. We must stop looking at everything in isolation.

John

 

In a long winded way, that was what I was trying to explain. In Wales I was issued with free Bus Pass as a automated sequence, but I have yet to use it, and I pay on the few occasions I have needed to use the bus service. Those that can afford to pay, should, it would help keep the services running for everyone and in more locations.

 

Three points of confusion or clarification:

1. My understanding is that for every use of a bus pass, the bus company presents a monthly invoice to the County Council where the single journey starts (so NYCC pay to return West Yorkshire pensioners to the greater Leeds area from Scarborough, for example). The amount per journey has been reduced and this lead to services put on just to exploit the system in North Yorkshire ceasing but payment is made - have I missed a further change?
2. The change to State Pensions (which still seems pretty vague) is to remove what was called SERPS - State Earnings Related Pension. This was based on how much Class 1 National Insurance was paid by employees in jobs that did not have superannuation schemes to try and compensate for not having this 2nd pension (the scheme has been called State 2nd Pension for some years). You could "opt out" and have a portion of your National Insurance paid into a private scheme (and opt back in while under 50 and still get the full benefit of SERPS without the present change!) in other words, this is something the mployed, and their employers, have paid for an in future wont get - they have to pay a further sum into private pensions under Workplace Pensions requirements to get something similar (assuming the City bods don't use everything paid in to cover their charges for losing the rest).
3. The only "means tested" element of State Pension is Pension Credit. No-one will get rich on this, as it makes up State Pension to a Minimum Income Guarantee that still will take some living on. Extra Pension Credit is paid for having modest savings, with any other income deducted £1 for £1. Whilst I know some people can't bear the poor being given anything, you could just as easily view this as a "get out" for the UK State Pension being so low (19% of average earnings against an average of 55% in western Europe) and increasing it only for those who really need it to survive. By no means everyone without massive pensions wasted money - many simply didn't work as civil servants or bank managers!

Steven

 

Your point 2 is totally wrong. The state pension is being raised in 2016 to the point of minimum income guarantee for people claiming pension from that date only. It has nothing to do with SERPS. The reason the tories are doing this is to avoid people claiming pension credit and the benefits obtained if you are on pension credit (there are quite a few). There is method in the deviousness of the tories. Do you realise the over £25 billion pounds of pension credit was not claimed last year by people that are entitled to it! What we will have is a two tier pension. Pre 2016 claiments will be getting a pension of £120 round figures), post 2016 it will be £150 (round figures). When pensioners realise what is happening, the s--t will hit the fan.

 

The value of my private pension is already making me liable to quite high Tax each month, and I don't yet receive the State pension as I'm not old enough. If people put enough into their pension schemes then there is no reason to not have enough to live On when they retire, but many only put in what they have to. Yes, I'm lucky as my Pension was a protected guaranteed amount (it isn't for most new employees anymore) and I'm not on much less than I was earning full time, but that just means you continue to pay Tax and on all your savings, and when at proper retirement age I will be taxed at the next Tax level, currently 40% so might even be better off not having it, seeing if I can cash in on the new rules, as I will actually end up with less I believe than I receive now if I don't sort out ready.
If I hadn't of bothered to pay larger sums into pension scheme, I would have had Pension Credits, Help in other areas, and I believe many people were/are hoping the State will look after them in old age. It's not going to happen, money is being spent elsewhere as needed. It's those that have Savings and a good pension thatwill loose out in one sense through saving and investing, they won't be able to claim all these extras. Rather than spending it all today and have nothing for tomorrow, people must now ensure they save and invest in a good pension scheme or properties. I must add that I don't know how people manage on the £200+ per week State pensions with the extras.