The withdrawal of free travel for people over 60 will never happen as long as the current government’s in office. Last week’s local government association’s report may recommend its revocation but it just ain’t gonna happen. Yet. But what if it does, under a future government?
A woman purporting to speak for millions of free travellers on Thursday’s Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 said, and I paraphrase, buses will run anyway whether there are OAPs on board travelling free or not; so pensioners may as well travel for free.
And there’s the rub. If it were only that simple. There’s evidence that some operators are making cuts because of free travel. They can no longer sustain a level of service with such poor reimbursement. Expect more free travel related withdrawals from struggling operators to come.
But, how much harder would life be without free travel? “No better or worse off” the regulations may say but in reality free travel has become the lifeblood of local bus services to the extent that any means tested-induced collapse in what is a recession proof, rock steady market would have a profound effect on local transport. We may moan about generation factors and reimbursement rates but life without free travel would destabilise services completely. What, for example, would happen to marginal and rural services currently enjoying a free travel stimulus and where would the funding come to operate them under subsidy? And what would happen to the investment many have made in frequency enhancements and larger vehicles?
Sunday, 9 August 2009
End of Free Travel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It's difficult to know what the truth is, or what the answer is.
How much worse off are the bus operators? I know they are getting less revenue per passenger from the over-60s now then they did before the free pass was introduced - but how does that affect the overall revenue per journey? In other words, if they used to carry 15 over-60s at £1 each and 15 empty seats, and they are now carrying 30 over-60s at 50p each, it doesn't seem like they are actually losing out.
On the other hand, if the demand for free travel has exceeded the pre-existing spare capacity, that's a different story. If additional journeys are having to be run, or fare-paying passengers turned away or made to stand when there would previously have been enough space, then we need to look again at how this is funded.
But what would happen if the free travel was taken away, or severely curtailed? Would ridership stay above, fall back to, or drop below pre-April2006 levels? Are older people now so habituated into getting on a bus every time they get an urge to go somewhere that they would continue to do so? Or would they be so disgusted at the withdrawal of the free pass that they would boycott buses altogether?
Maybe one solution would be to give people a limited number of free journeys - maybe 200 per year - and then they would have to pay a reduced rate thereafter.
Stevie D, I think you fall into a typical trap.
My local operator is reimbursed just under 50p in the £.
In simplistic terms this means for every £1 fare he gets 50p.
Under half fare he received 50p in cash and about 35p in reimbursement. For every £1 fare, every concessionaire was worth about 85p.
If a bus carried 10 OAPs, he got £8.50.
The same bus carrying 10 free passengers equates to £5.00.
There are more free travellers now. It needs 70% more passengers (10 to 17) just to get back to the level he was at before free travel.
Fine if there's a 70%+ growth but there isn't.
Operator is therefore worse off under free travel and needs to cut accordingly. A couple of services have already been thinned.
To be blunt, operators cannot have it both ways. Operators that cut services and whinge loudly about inadequate reimbursement levels cannot also object strongly to a return to the old system. Any that do attempt to simultaniously make these two opposing complaints, are clearly not being completely honest one way or the other. After all, if they are genuinely worse off under the new system, as they claim, they should have no complaints about returning to the old.
The only conclusion that can be drawn about any such operators is that, despite all their grandstanding, they are actually much better off under the new system - and, if anything, should have their re-imbursement rate cut further.
It is true to some degree that they are making cuts because of free travel. This is because whatever formula you adopt for compensating operators for free (or reduced rate) travel skews the economics of the operation in one way or another. Typical compensation mechanisms work on basis of average fare charged which disincentivise certain types of trips (such as long ones, which free travellers are disproportionately likely to make). Any alternative formula would inevitably favour some or another type of journey. Consequently some operators may be withdrawing services because of free travel, but other routes may be added (or at least survive) because of it too.
The main problem for myself with this is that people using their bus passes abuse it on peak hours busses. I have had to in the past wait for the next bus as there was not enough room for me on the bus as the majority of people on the bus were using bus passes. As a result I recieved a lift from a friend to where I was going meaning the bus company lost out on a fare paying passanger. I am not the only person who has had this problem which must be a major problem for operators if fare paying passangers are prevented from using services as they are full with "free" travellers.
Yet the new Bournemouth-Weymouth 274 summer service lasted exactly one week. Why? Firstly because Purbeck Council said they wouldn't reimburse concessionary fares on this 6 week only summer only route. Quickly followed by Poole and Bournemouth Councils saying the same. So the route stopped after a week (mind the operator may yet have to face the TC about this) . . .
A Cumbrian Wrote
“Typical compensation mechanisms work on basis of average fare charged which disincentivise certain types of trips (such as long ones, which free travellers are disproportionately likely to make).”
OTOH a short hop on a long route surely brings an undeserved benefit to the operator.
May be any remuneration model will be unfair until the nettle of smart cards is grasped, and a national payment rate introduced. Together they would ensure that the operator was paid for work done and the tab landed on the card issuing authority’s desk.
Anonymous wrote
“The main problem for myself with this is that people using their bus passes abuse it on peak hours busses.”
Forgive me if I am wrong. But that, surely, can only happen if the council has granted an extra statutory extension. Some cities and urban areas have moved the start time to 9 a.m., and rural areas to “all day”. I doubt they would do that with no good reason. I suggest either because of spare capacity or the pass being useless without the extension e.g a service where you van go but not get back under the standard scheme.
22Q wrote
“Yet the new Bournemouth-Weymouth 274 summer service lasted exactly one week. Why? Firstly because Purbeck Council said they wouldn't reimburse concessionary fares on this 6 week only summer only route. “
How long before the service was registered did the co know the authority’s decision that it fell outside the scheme? IMO were the situation not clear it was a gamble taken, unless the target market was mums dads and kids. And what of rumours that another operator was running ahead to wreck the service? Could be that concessionary fares was but a small part of the issue.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4535779.___Free_bus_passes_for_all_over_60s_should_continue___/
appears to suggest that the consultants' view is not accepted by the LGA
coldhead: re. 22Q
To not [have to] include service operating for six weeks or less in free travel schemes is a new innovation for this year.
To correct the statements made by 22Q and cold head regarding the service 274 between Bournemouth and Weymouth.
When the service was first registered it was not the operators intention to accept OAP concessionary passes, as the service would only be operating for six weeks, and was primarily to be a tourist service. Part of the target market was mums dads and kids, witness the serving of Rockley Park, Sandford Park, Monkey World and the Tank Museum, along the route. Following a meeting between the operator and officers of Poole Council Transportation Services(who administer the joint Bournemouth and Poole Connect scheme), the operator decided that concessionary passes should be accepted as intending passengers may have simply walked away to an alternative free service and gone somewhere else for the day.
Unfortunately both Weymouth & Portland and Purbeck Councils, through their scheme administrators refused to accept the service under the six week rule thus effectively ruling out the use of such passes. Bourenmouth and Poole at no time withdrew their offer for the service to be part of the conncessionary fares scheme, but accepted the operators subsequent decision not to join the scheme.
The operator later decided to offer half fares to concessionary pass holders on a commercial basis, but regrettably loadings were such that the operator withdrew the service after one week. There is no evidence of spoiling tactics by another operator, what would be the point, but of course the X53 between Poole and Weymouth follows a more direct route and accepts passes, and there are many other parallel stage services over parts of the route that do likewise.
The operator may yet have to explain the unscheduled withdrawal to the Traffic Commissioners.
To add a little more context, Weymouth & Portland council has also declined to accept Sureline Buses service X between Weymouth and Sea View/Waterside in to their scheme this year citing the six week rule. I suspect the fact that many users would have been visitors and financial considerations were paramount.
So comments made elsewhere that a white bus was running 4 minutes in front are untrue then? Must have been the commentor hallucinating.
I hope it's not the end.
Post a Comment