It may end up with “the perverse result that you reduce mileage on some [bus] routes”, as spoken yesterday by Go Ahead chief executive Keith Ludeman. It may even be that, as one industry insider is reported to have said to the Grauniad (sic), “everyone knows that the concessionary fares scheme as it currently operates is unsustainable”. But as for the possibility of limiting free travel in some way, well, it just ain’t gonna happen.
Ludeman was speaking about the seemingly perverse situation where you begin to see cuts because free travel reimbursement doesn’t compensate the operator for the increased numbers now travelling. The Guardian took up Ludeman’s statement that Oyster-style smart cards could act as a regulator to free travel, as a way of placing an electronic limit on the number of journeys taken or exacting some modest contribution from older people of, say 10p in the pound.
I well remember a conversation ten years ago with a senior manager operating in a PTE area. The PTE in question already offered free travel, at least for the bulk of the day. The manager said that PTE officers would’ve loved to cut the free travel budget, even abandon it altogether, but for one simple fact: it would be politically inexpedient.
In spite of some of the scheme’s flaws (in so-called honeypot areas, in places where operators are reimbursed less than half the fare foregone, etc), neither is it in the industry’s best interests to say “no” to free travel or see it limited. It does, however, need proper and sustainable funding, especially in the light of Help the Aged’s comment, also yesterday, that free travel is a significant tool in tackling isolation. That makes it more a social than a transport policy, as we already knew.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Never say Never
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Given the chip in the concessionary travel card it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme where free travel was charged back to the district council that had issued the card, so that holidaymakers from Shrewsbury riding the open tops along Bournemouth seafront (do they still run?) had their fares paid for by their home council in Shropshire . . .
But could it not also be argued that honey pot towns like Bournemouth benefit from the influx of tourists in other ways unrelated to bus travel? It could be the same for towns in one council area, that receives a substantial inflow from villages that are located out of that council's area. What of the areas from which the tourists come?
They are losing trade and this income to the honey pot in the absence of their residents.
In all I'd say that a truly national scheme demands national remuneration with any local extra statutory concessions dealt with by either supplementary passes, or a method of charge-back through the national scheme.
I'll now restore my hat to my head. ;D
Now that the scheme has been in force for some time, has anyone produced usage statistics so that funding can be accurately assessed and allocated ? Some patterns must now exist,surely ?
As for limiting usage, how about a system wherby when the annual funding has been used up,the seniors have to start paying again ? There is no such thing as endless free meals in these hard times.
Thoughts anyone ?
I don't see what is wrong with the scheme only covering the concessionary card holders local area. Why do they need to travel all over the country, especially in these hard times? The money saved would be better used suporting pensioners in other ways, especially those that need support.
The last comment might be valid forlarge conurbations However in some areas it would make even getting to the nearest largish town impossible, as either there are no or virtually no services to and from one in the same district council area, or indeed any such largish town. One such or the latter category is Christchurch, Dorset, and another New Forest, Hampshire. Nationally there must be others, including those settlements that lie on the borders of their districts.
I JUST CANT SEE WHAT THE OPERATORS ARE COMPLAINING ABOT.WHAT LOST REVENUE?THOSE CARD HOLDERS WHO STILL WORK TRAVEL BEFORE 9 OR 930 THUS STILL HAVING TO PAY THOSE TRAVELLING LATER ARE NOT TAKING REVENUE SEATS AS PROOF I OFFER MY OWN RECENT OITINGS WHERE I TRAVELLED ONLY ON COMMERCIAL SRVICES .AT NO TIME WAS THE BUS ANY WHERE NEAR FUL SO I WASNT DEPRIVING ANY REVENUE.THERE IS NO CASE YET PROVED WHERE OPERATORS AREN NOT MAKING A PROFIT FROM THE FEES PAID.ON TENDERED SERBVICES THEY ARE ALREADY GUARANTEED A [PROFIT BEFORE A WHEEL TURNS .PLEAS TELL ME WHAT REVENUE THEY THINK THEY AREC LOSING
Need I say no better or worse off again? Operators can take councils with inadequate compensation régimes to the transport tribunal, and should too.
...not to say that the more obvious mechanism would be to centrally fund free travel, like Scotland and Wales (the powers are in the act). If it was 24/7 free travel then you could combine it with the scotch and welsh schemes (also in the act).
I JUST CANT SEE WHAT THE OPERATORS ARE COMPLAINING ABOT.WHAT LOST REVENUE?
If you are receiving less than half the fare forgone, then you are receiving around half of the fare you used to receive from Councils and Passengers combined under the half fare schemes. So you need to carry twice as many free to get the same amount of income. Im many areas you can't physically carry twice as many without putting extra buses on. That is supposed to be covered by additional cost payments, but you find me a Council that willingly accepts them - and unlike the reimbursment rate they are NOT subject to the appeal process.
Operators can take councils with inadequate compensation régimes to the transport tribunal,
It's the Dft's appeal proces, nothing to do with Transport Tribunals, which are the appeal process against Traffic Comissioner decisions, not concessionary schemes.
You can appeal but it typically takes 9 months for the appeal to be heard. There is no appeal against the additional cost disputes. So, you run a business for 9 months waiting to hear how much your customers are going to pay you - try convincing any other business to run on that basis.
>>If you are receiving less than half the fare forgone, then you are receiving around half of the fare you used to receive from Councils and Passengers combined under the half fare schemes. So you need to carry twice as many free to get the same amount of income.<<
But is bit an adjustment made for expected riders? If it is si, then surely the argument that remuneration is at half rate is a little misleading. provided the expected uplift comes about. If the uplift is more, then surely income will exceed that on a no gain no loss basis.
RE COMMENT ON HALF FARE SCHEME.ITS ANOTHER SMOKESCREEN.I LIKE MANY NEVER UED MY HALF FARE CARD AS IT WAS STILL CHEAPER TO USE THE CAR.I HAVE NOT YET SEEN ANY EXRA BUSES FOR FREEBIES.ALSO MANY FREE CARD HOLDERS TAKE THEIR GRANDCHILDREN WITH THEM WHO STILL PAY ALBEIT AT REDUCED FARES.ITS JUST GREED.
And there was me thinking this was an informed discussion. there's little point in providing the facts if you simply don't or can't manage to follow a thread.
Anonymous said...
".I HAVE NOT YET SEEN ANY EXRA BUSES FOR FREEBIES."
Er, well, Anonymous, if you read through the original post (and perhaps a few of the earlier ones on this subject) you might understand that there aren't likely to be any extra buses for 'freebies' - the whole point being that there are actually likely to be less buses rather than more.
The fact is, Anonymous, like almost everything else in life, the buses/drivers/fuel, etc do all have to be paid for, even if you as a passenger don't pay for the ticket. Somebody else pays, except that, in this case, that 'somebody else' - the government - isn't paying enough.
It's easy enough to define the problem. The solution seems to be a bit more of a headache!
Post a Comment