Memorandum from TravelWatch SouthWest
(TPT 15)
The South West Public Transport Users' Forum
(SWPTUF) was established in 2001 to promote the interests of public
transport users in the South West of England government region
(comprising the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire,
Somerset and Wiltshire and the unitary authorities of Bath and
North East Somerset, Bournemouth, Bristol, North Somerset, Plymouth,
Poole, South Gloucestershire, Swindon and Torbay)—the Forum
became a Community Interest Company, limited by guarantee, in
August 2005. SWPTUF, which is a social enterprise company, acts
as an advocate for passengers to lobby for the improvement of
public transport in the region and works closely with the South
West Regional Assembly—with the dissolution of the former
Rail Passengers Committee for Western England in July 2005, SWPTUF
is now the sole representative body for public transport users
throughout the South West England region. SWPTUF adopted TravelWatch
SouthWest as its trading name in June 2006.
SCOPE OF
MEMORANDUM AND
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Only the concession fares aspect of the
inquiry are addressed. Only points 10 & 11 in the Terms of
Reference/Call for Evidence are considered.
2. Point 10. Is the Concessionary Bus Travel
Bill adequate? Only if Clause 8 in the Bill, that allows Orders
to extend to modes other than bus and Clause 10 that has Orders
that could create an UK wide scheme, have those Orders activated
quickly. Government is to be congratulated for setting up the
framework that could create an "adequate" concession
fares scheme.
3. Point 11. Are schemes sufficiently integrated
across modes and geographic areas? No, the same solution as above
is needed.
4. Clause 8 Orders should be used to deliver
extension to all local tracked modes but in the interim should
be used quickly to create a pilot on the 50 Community Railways;
cost estimate £3 to £7.2 million.
5. The "practicalities of mutual recognition,
including funding" (Explanatory Notes to the Bill—Note
27) should be addressed positively and urgently to allow Clause
10 Orders to be activated.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6. Current and post-2008 concession fare
schemes are largely UK exchequer funded (Paragraphs 11 to 14).
A largely UK funded scheme should offer broadly similar benefits
to residents of and visitors to all four "areas" of
the UK. From April 2007 UK residents in Northern Ireland will
have UK Exchequer funded "out of area" concession travel
in the Republic of Ireland. Other UK citizens will not be allowed
concession travel in all parts of UK (15 to 19). An UK wide scheme
is needed.
7. In many areas local rail offers the better
or only public transport option (20 to 26). Whilst concessions
on local rail are allowed for 46% of the population, examples
are given of a full fare 36 minute return rail journey with many
options of stay length at the destination but where the free bus
alternative is 225 minutes return trip for a 36 minute stay. The
local authority concerned makes a 50% "profit" on the
concession fares element of its RSG but refuse to spend 4% of
that on including local rail. Local tracked modes (27 and 28)
are part of concession schemes in some areas but the post-2008
situation will still deny their use to visiting pass holders.
An UK wide mode integrated scheme is needed.
8. Clause 10 of the Bill could allow an
UK wide scheme but resolution of the "practicalities of mutual
recognition, including funding" will be exacerbated by the
inclusion/exclusion of different modes in different localities
(29 to 34). Clause 8 should be activated to avoid this exacerbation.
9. Abstraction (35) is measured at 46% from
local rail to free bus. Community Rail Development Strategy targets
are being threatened by abstraction caused by concession fares
policy. Government policy needs "joining-up" (36 to
39). Extension to Community Railways (40 to 43) would cost between
£3m and £7.2m, about 0.5% of the cost of bus concessions.
Extension to all local rail would be far less than the £250
million quoted by DfT (44 to 47).
10. An UK wide bus and local tracked modes
scheme for residents and visitors is proposed NOT long distance
across UK travel. (Paragraphs 48 and 49).
UK FUNDED SCHEME
11. The current patchwork of concession
fares schemes is very largely UK funded. In England funding is
channelled via Local Authorities but they are 75% funded from
central government via Rate Support Grant. Government describe
the additions to the basic bus schemes as locally funded but people
not enjoying above statutory minimum schemes are likely to feel
that they have paid for 75% of the additions enjoyed by others
but not themselves.
12. The Scottish and Welsh schemes are funded
at aggregate level in those jurisdictions. The two Community Railways
soon to offer concession fares in Wales are being funded by the
Welsh Assembly Government not Local Authorities. WAG has no revenue
raising powers and uses UK Exchequer money. The same is true of
Northern Ireland. NI's scheme is funded via the Department for
Regional Development at province level from UK Exchequer funds.
13. In some areas pensioners see some of
their national taxes passed back to their Local Authorities via
RSG with an element for spending on concession fares. That element
is not always fully spent on concession fares (see paragraph 23)
but those pensioners are denied an "adequate" scheme
with above minimum entitlement that is available elsewhere. They
resent all the more paying 75% of schemes elsewhere that offer
greater benefit for others.
14. A largely UK funded scheme should offer
broadly similar benefits across the UK, to both residents of an
area and visitors to that area.
INTEGRATION ACROSS
DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS
(a) Cross Boundary Travel
15. On the island of Ireland concession
cross boundary travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic
of Ireland is already allowed to the first cross border destination
in both countries. This could be a model for the England/Wales
and England/Scotland borders.
16. From April 2007 free concession travel
anywhere in RoI and NI will be allowed by all pass holders on
the island. The DRD Press Release of 16 February 2007 says, "Under
the terms of the new Scheme, each government will pay for the
free travel within its own borders." (Reciprocal funding?).
As the NI concession scheme is funded from UK Exchequer, the UK
Exchequer (one way or another) will be funding the scheme.
(b) "Out of Area" Travel (eg English
not allowed concessions in Wales)
17. Whilst "Out of Area" concession
travel will be UK funded for NI (but not GB) citizens in RoI,
NI citizens won't enjoy the same in other parts of the UK. Similarly
residents of Great Britain will not enjoy "Out of Area"
travel in NI. Is it acceptable that UK funding has been found
for "Out of Area" concession travel for part of the
UK population (NI) for concession travel "abroad" but
not for all UK residents to enjoy "Out of Area" travel
within UK?
18. The Concessionary Bus Travel Bill in
parliament now offers at Clause 10 a potential way forward. Orders
could be made to allow mutual recognition of concession passes
across the four "areas" of UK, but only when the "practicalities
of mutual recognition, including funding" (Explanatory Notes
to the Bill—note 27) have been resolved. The magazine Transit
(23 February 2007—page 5) reported hopes that resolution
between England and Scotland may be possible. Wales and NI were
not mentioned in the report. This would only apply to bus concession
travel.
19. An UK wide scheme is required for a
largely UK Exchequer funded scheme.
INTEGRATION ACROSS
DIFFERENT MODES
AND RSG FUNDING
FOR CONCESSION
FARES
20. In some rural areas the remnant of the
railway left after Beeching often survived because the local rail/road/river/bridge
geography made bus replacement impractical. If concession travel
on such railways is denied, concession eligible passengers are
denied equity with people on reasonable bus routes and empty off
peak seats on such trains are wasted.
21. One such line is the Tamar Valley Line.
Appendix 1 demonstrates that for stations on TVL the journey times
by bus to Plymouth are between double and six times the train
journey time from the different stations. The operating days and
hours of the train are also superior. The (singular) AM Peak train
can have over 50% standing, being a casualty of the First Great
Western capacity fiasco. However, off peak trains do have empty
seats.
22. Appendix 1 shows that Bere Ferres in
particular effectively doesn't have a same day return bus service
to Plymouth (225 minute return bus journey for 36-minute stay
in Plymouth). Despite this West Devon Borough Council and Caradon
Council (on the Cornish part of TVL) don't add TVL to their respective
concession schemes.
23. The concession fares element in RSG
is estimated at Appendix 2 and cross checks with the government's
claim of national spend. Appendix 3 estimates that the distribution
of RSG gives WDBC £810,000 pa (in 2006-07) for concession
fares. Whilst not ring fenced to concession fares this is the
amount that WDBC would lose from RSG if the function (Clause 9
of Bill) moved to County or National level. WDBC estimate the
2006-07 out-turn (appeals by operators were dismissed or withdrawn)
at £392,323. The bulk of the "underspend" is largely
beyond WDBC's control. The bus network is sparse and the opportunities
for bus travel are limited. However, the outcome is that WDBC
make a "profit" of £418k pa on concession fares.
WDBC do not agree with the author's estimate of their £810k
from RSG for concession fares. They say, "WDBC is unable
to identify any evidence of RSG being received prior to 2006-07
for concession fares". This is hard to reconcile with the
notes to Appendix 2 that detail various government additions to
RSG since 1989-1990 for concession fares and what other authorities
accept
24. Appendix 6 has the author's estimate
of £34.6k pa for a free concession scheme on TVL (Appendix
7 has split between 2 Councils). The author has tried (but failed)
to persuade WDBC that £14.4k pa (less than 4%) of their £418k
pa "profit"' in their RSG for bus concessions should
be spent on concessions for TVL. This would allow Bere Peninsula
pensioners to enjoy concession travel (not effectively available
by bus) to Plymouth that they are paying for via national taxation.
25. WDBC is not misappropriating this £0.4m
as RSG is a general grant and doesn't have to be spent on concession
fares. Clause 9 of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill allows an
order to move the concession fares function (and RSG) from District
to County or National level. If this happens WDBC could be £0.4m
net worse off. There is an element of self destruction in WDBC's
refusal to offer an "adequate" scheme to its residents
on the Bere Peninsula but UK Exchequer money intended for concession
fares is not being used in that way. An UK-wide bus and local
tracked modes scheme is needed. Appendix 4 shows that 46% of the
UK population have mode integration but not all Local Authorities
can be relied upon to deliver this, despite adequate funding.
Appendix 3 compares RSG and Out-Turn budgets for the Devonwide
Partnership as well as for WDBC, the 8 authorities between them
show a "profit" of £5.7 million in 2006-07. WDBC
may not be the only authority denying an "adequate"
mode integrated scheme despite having the funding.
26. Appendix 1 looked at relative rail/bus
services on a branch line that is Community Rail designated. Many
small rail stations on the mainline also offer the better (only)
options to larger towns/cities than bus. Appendix 8 quantifies
a few examples. The results are similar to Appendix 1.
27. This "mode equity" issue is
not confined to rural areas. Latest government guidance on applying
for funding for LRT/Tram schemes says that application should
not be made unless integration with the local bus network is planned
and deliverable. This makes good sense. When the Tyne & Wear
Metro first opened (before bus deregulation) bus services were
curtailed to feed the Metro. Presumably the latest entreaty on
integration could see a better public transport overall but with
some reduction in the level of "competing/abstracting"
bus service. In such circumstances it is not reasonable to say
to concession passengers that they are denied concession travel
on part of the integrated system (the tram) and have to use a
now reduced bus service.
28. Happily (see Appendix 4) all the current
light rail and tram systems in UK offer free concession travel
except in one case where a £8 annual card has to be purchased
to enjoy free travel. In these areas the local heavy rail system
is also seen as part of an integrated whole and broadly the same
concession is offered on local heavy rail in those areas as for
light rail/tram. An "adequate" concession scheme would
regard each local public transport system as an integrated whole.
INTER-ACTION
OF INTEGRATION
BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS AND
INTEGRATION ACROSS
MODES
29. Depending on what Orders from the Concessionary
Bus Travel Bill are activated there could be inter-action between
the issues and problems of different area and different mode coverage
of concession fares schemes. With no Orders activated non-residents
of a Travel Concession Authority visiting a TCA within their own
"area" of UK, will be allowed free bus travel and denied
concession travel on local tracked modes, that is available to
resident pass holders. This makes it more difficult to deal with
the "practicalities of mutual recognition, including funding".
30. In a largely UK funded scheme these
practicalities must be solved across the UK
31. In RoI and NI both schemes allow free
bus and tracked mode travel. Hence their "mutual recognition"
has been aided by both schemes covering the same modes, thus not
producing an inter-action between area and mode.
32. Activating the Orders in Clause 10 of
the Bill could produce the UK wide scheme required of a largely
UK funded scheme, but can only happen when the "practicalities
of mutual recognition, including funding" have been resolved.
Resolution is exacerbated by this inter-action between different
areas and different modes. Clause 8 in the Bill allows an Order
to add other modes to the England wide bus scheme. These Orders
must be activated and similar action is needed the other three
areas of UK. This needs to be done for local heavy rail, light
rail, trams and underground railways (the local tracked modes)
to facilitate the activation of Clause 10 Orders.
33. If only (see paragraph 18) England and
Scotland achieve "mutual recognition" we would have
the unfair, confusing and hard to enforce situation of pass holders
from Birmingham and Glasgow allowed free bus travel in the UK
capital but its denial to residents of Cardiff and Belfast. The
residents of Belfast may be doubly confused, as they would be
allowed free bus travel in Dublin in RoI. But this is compounded
by mode difference. The pensioner from Birmingham will enjoy free
local rail and tram travel at home but will not be allowed this
in London. The person from Glasgow has a flat fare on local rail
and underground but will pay full fare on London's tube and local
rail. The Londoner will expect free use Glasgow underground but
not get it
34. Together Clauses 8 and 10 offer the
potential framework for an "adequate" mode integrated
UK wide scheme that is "fit for purpose" for a largely
UK funded scheme.
ABSTRACTION
35. There appears to be no UK wide inclusive
research but Report 179 from the Scottish Executive's Development
Department looking at the effect of the free (previously half)
bus fares said:
"A significant switch from rail to bus was
measured by on train surveys on routes in the Lothians and Strathclyde
where bus was offered as a free fare alternative."
They found between 19% and 66% pensioner abstraction
on different lines, averaging at 46%. There is no reason to suppose
that similar abstraction isn't happening in England and Wales.
Indeed the motivation for the WAG extension of concession fares
to the Conwy Valley Community Railway is abstraction, but the
author is not aware of any quantification.
COMMUNITY RAILWAY
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
36. This is government policy for about
50 lines that include low frequency rural branch lines with less
than 150 train-miles on a weekday (measured at publication of
CRDS) to lines with 30 times that service level, about 10 of which
enjoy the concessions at Appendix 4. Three quantified targets
were set. One seeks to double revenue and another to halve subsidy
per passengers. As subsidy is fixed for the term of a franchise,
this amounts to doubling passengers. Doubling passengers need
not be the same as doubling revenue. Fares could be put up to
increase revenue but the introduction of concession fares to CRs
would generate passengers that would not be compensated to the
TOC ("no better off-no worse off" doctrine) and increase
passengers without increasing revenue.
37. The abstraction of revenue paying CR
passengers who are over 60 years old but attracted to bus when
the half fare scheme on buses became free fare (see paragraph
35) will have worked against the revenue target. This may be disguised
by other increases in revenue. A concession scheme for TVL would
generate concession passengers amounting to about 12.8% of the
total passengers on TVL, leading to an 11.3% reduction in subsidy
per passenger, against the target of 50% reduction. (see Appendix
7.)
JOINED-UP
GOVERNMENT
38. The government CRDS and policy on concession
fares (unless the Order created by Clause 8 is activated for CRs)
are working against each other. If this were intended, accusations
of "closure by stealth" of CRs would be hard to rebut.
If this is an "unintended consequence", it can be easily
rectified by activating Clause 8 to include CRs in the England
wide scheme.
39. This could be a pilot to test implementation
before extension to other local heavy railways.
PILOT EXTENSION
TO HEAVY
RAIL ON
COMMUNITY RAILWAYS
40. This is happening in Wales already for
two CRs (see paragraph 12) and is funded from the UK Exchequer.
Appendix 6 has the author's estimate for extending concession
fares to TVL and all 50 CRs. The cost for all 50 CRs would be
between £3 million and £7.2 million, about 0.5% of the
cost of bus concessions. The usual purpose of a pilot may be negated
by the two pilots in Wales and the existence of concession fares
on local rail for 46% of the population. The "pilot"
suggested here is more by way of a "phased implementation"
to all local rail not setting any conditions on that extension.
Permanent extension to just CRs would not be acceptable. In Devon
and Cornwall most branch lines have CR designation but the Paignton/Newton
Abbot line with 7 long distance and 21 local services per weekday
is denied CR status because of longer distance trains. It is still
predominately a local railway and should enjoy concession fares
within integrated local transport. Appendix 8 gives examples of
where train is much the better or the only effective public transport
option from smaller stations on the mainline served by local trains.
These cannot be designated CR but are part of the local public
transport network.
41. About 20% of CRs already enjoy concession
fares, an "adequate" and equitable UK scheme would not
deny application of concession fares to the other 80% of CRs or
ignore the fact that 100% of pass holders in NI enjoy free rail
travel.
42. There are some empty seats off peak
on CRs and the Secretary of State objected to CRs carrying "fresh
air". In some areas CRs offer a better public transport option
than bus.
43. There are no arguments against extending
concession fares to CRs, except cost and that cost is very low.
EXTENSION TO
ALL LOCAL
HEAVY RAIL
TRAVEL—COST
AND DEFINITION
44. A pilot extension to CR is suggested
above but extension to all local heavy rail should happen and
need not be expensive. It is realised that this inquiry is not
concerned with fare levels. However, there remains a perception
that local rail travel is more expensive than bus.
45. This could deter the acceptance of local
heavy rail as affordable in a concession scheme. Appendix 5 dispels
that misconception and shows that for off peak rail journeys less
than 27 miles are usually cheaper than bus at national level data.
Six examples of branch lines in Devon & Cornwall show savings
on an off peak return journey of between £1.50 and £3
on five of the six branch lines and an extra cost of 80p on one
line.
46. For the debate in the Lords DfT estimated
extension to local rail at £250 million. Much of this would
not be "new public money" as 46% (see Appendix 4) of
the population already have this benefit and those areas represent
the busier local lines. Also the abstraction to bus will be partially
reversed and savings made on bus reimbursement, reducing the net
cost of extension to local rail. The author has requested from
DfT the detail of their estimate of £250 million but awaits
an answer.
47. The authorities in Appendix 4 manage
to define local rail. There should be no trouble with definition
in areas still to add local rail.
AN UK WIDE
CONCESSION SCHEME
FOR LOCAL
BUS AND
LOCAL TRACKED
MODES OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
NOT LONG DISTANCE
ACROSS UK TRAVEL
48. There is a half fare concession scheme
for long distance express coach travel and the £20 seniors
railcard for 33% discount on rail travel, that makes economic
sense for long distance rail travel, if not local rail travel.
The cost of extending free concession travel to long distance
coach and rail travel would be high and these are not essential
local journeys that pass holders need to make.
49. Extension to tracked modes is only proposed
for local journeys, but for both residents and visitors to an
area.
APPENDIX 1
COMPARISON OF BUS AND TRAIN JOURNEYS FROM
VILLAGES ON TAMAR VALLEY LINE TO PLYMOUTH
(See also Appendix 8 for non-branch line examples).
Source: All data taken from Traveline on 10
February 2007. Based on departure from village after 0930 (as
this is start time for statutory concession scheme) and return
from Plymouth after 1200 for Monday 12 February, except where
indicated. Times in minutes.
| Journey | Bus Time
| Train Time | BT/TT
| Bus Changes | Notes
|
| From Gunnislake | 96/119 |
45 | 2.39 | 1 or 2
| A, B, C |
| To Gunnislake | 78/93 | 45
| 1.90 | 1 or 2 | A, B, C, D
|
| From Calstock | 104/112 | 33
| 3.27 | 2 or 3 | A, B, C
|
| To Calstock | 88/102 | 33
| 2.88 | 1 or 2 | A, B, C, D
|
| From Bere Alston | 92/98 |
24 | 3.96 | 2 |
A, B, C |
| To Bere Alston | 87/97 | 24
| 3.83 | 1 or 2 | A, B, C, D
|
| From Bere Ferres | none | 19
| N/A | N/A | C, E
|
| From Bere Ferres | 109 | 19
| 5.73 | 2 | B, C, E
|
| To Bere Ferres | 96 | 18
| 5.33 | 1 | C, D, F, G
|
| Notes | |
| | | |
A. Max/Min Bus Times from different options offered by Traveline
B. Where Bus Changes more than 1, the 2nd or 3rd changes may save
a little time but are unlikely to be made by passengers. All bus
journeys have at least one change in Tavistock or Callington
C. All trains are direct, no changes
D. Some return journey times by bus depend on 5 minute change
at Tavistock or Callington, that, with buses experiencing congestion
coming out of Plymouth, may not be robust
E. Only AM bus service is 0915, so potentially not qualifying
for 0930 statutory start of bus concession scheme. The 0915 bus
journey time is shown in the 2nd "From Bere Ferres"
row in the table
F. The only return by bus that is possible on the same day requires
a 5 minute change at Tavistock, which, given note D, may force
cautious passengers to leave Plymouth on the bus to Tavistock
that runs 20 minutes earlier. If so the journey time becomes 116
minutes and BT/TT 6.44.
G. The inbound journey arrives at 1104, the only same day return
departure option is at 1200 (or 1140 for the more cautious). Hence
the maximum time in Plymouth would be 56 (or 36) minutes
RATIO OF
BUS TO
TRAIN JOURNEY
TIME (BT/TT)
The fourth column in the table shows how many times slower
the bus (taking the average between the fastest and slowest time)
is compared to the train. It ranges from just less than double
(1.90) for the journey To Gunnislake from Plymouth to six times
(5.73 or 6.44 -see Note F) for the From Bere Ferres journey.
COMPARISON OF
OPERATING TIMES
AND DAYS
Buses from Callington and Tavistock to Plymouth operate seven
days per week but buses from Gunnislake, Calstock, Bere Alston
and Bere Ferres do not operate on Sundays (but Gunnislake has
a summer Sunday service). The train does run on Sundays. The train
starts earlier than the local buses but as the statutory concession
scheme start is 0930, this is not relevant. However, the train
also operates a few hours later than the last local buses.
COMPARISON OF
LENGTH OF
STAY IN
PLYMOUTH OPTIONS
FROM BERE
FERRES
The 205 (or 225, see Note F) minute return journey by bus
from Bere Ferres to Plymouth allows 56 (or 36—see Note G)
minutes stay in Plymouth. The return journey time by train of
36 minutes allows many options of length of stay in Plymouth.
Using the first three trains to Plymouth after 0930 and the first
three PM return trains allows stays of, 145, 187, 210, 312, 326
or 428 minutes in Plymouth.
APPENDIX 2
CONCESSION FARES ELEMENT IN RSG
The element of concession fares grant from central government
to local government is contained within RSG but not specifically
identified. Local government has complained that the (unidentified)
quantum is insufficient. The validity of that claim would depend
on the quantum. An estimate of that quantum is therefore required.
Table One below makes this estimate.
Concession fares element within RSG was last specifically
identified in 1989-1990 at £296.9 million. After that it
was subsumed into the EPCS part of RSG. Three specific quantified
additions for concession fares have been made since 1989-1990
and are identified in Table One.
Bus fares and hence the cost of concession fares to local
government has risen since 1989-1990, but the level of increase
is not separately quantified within RSG. The key assumption in
Table One (Note b) is that the % increase in the concession fares
element subsumed within EPCS is the same as the overall per cent
increase in EPCS. Table One uses that assumption and the specific
additions for concession fares but takes care (Notes c, e, g and
i) not to "double count" the effect of those additions.
Table one
| Year | 1 |
2 | 3 | 4
|
| 1990-91 | 3891.0(a) |
| 296.9 | 296.9 |
| 2000-01 | 5700.8 | 46.5
| 435.0(b) | 435.0 |
| 2001-02 | 5960.7(c) | 4.6
| 454.8 | 508.8(d) |
| 2002-03 | 6269.4 | 4.2(e)
| 530.3(f) | 530.3 |
| 2003-04 | 7015.7(g) | 11.9
| 593.4 | 643.4(h) |
| 2005-06 | 7299.7 | 3.3(I)
| 664.6(j) | 664.6 |
| 2006-07 | |
| | 1014.6(k)(l) |
YearsNot all years shown, but they can be provided if required.
Columns
1. Control total for EPCS -district level services (£
million).
2. % increase in Column 1from Column 1 in row above.
3. Estimated concession fares content of Column 1 (£
million).
4. Total estimated concession fares in RSG (£ million).
Notes
(a) Includes £296.9 million for concession fares
from GRE in 1989-1990 when last separately identified.
(b) Assume that growth in concession fares element same
as overall growth, apply Column 2 to Column 3 in row above to
estimate this year's Column 3.
(c) Excluding £54 million specifically added to Column
1 for start of half fares scheme, to calculate valid per centage
increase in base EPCS to use to derive Column 2.
(d) The same £54 million added back to Column 3 to
derive Column 4.
(e) Based on £6014.7 total for 2001-02 for Column
1.
(f) Apply Column 2 in 2002-03 to Column 4 in 2001-02.
(g) Excluding £50 million specifically added to Column
1 for men allowed in scheme from 60+, to calculate valid % increase
in base EPCS to use to derive Column 2.
(h) The same £50 million added back to Column 3 to
derive Column 4.
(i) Based on £7,065.7 total in 2003-04.
(j) Apply Column 2 in 2005-06 to Column 4 in 2003-04.
(k) £350 million added specifically for free fares
scheme. Author not aware for Column 1 for 2006-07, so £350
million added to Column 4 in 2005-06, so actual value of Column
4 in 2006-07 would be higher.
(l) Government claim that they spend £1 billion on
concession fares, hence cross checks.
APPENDIX 3
DISTRIBUTION TO DEVON TCAS OF CONCESSION FARES ELEMENT
OF RSG AND 2006-07 OUT-TURN BUDGETS
Appendix 2 quantifies the element of RSG that is there for
concession fares. This Appendix estimates the distribution of
that element for concession fares to the Travel Concession Authorities
in Devon.
This element is within the EPCS FSS fund and is distributed
according to the formula used for that part of RSG. This was revised
for the addition of the £350 million for free fares. The
allocation of the total concession fares money in RSG can be estimated
by applying each TCAs % of the £350 million to the £1,014.6
million from Appendix 2.
The share of the £350 million for each TCA is taken
from Table 2.3 of a September 2005 report to the Devon Concession
Partnership supplied to the author by its Chairperson and Corporate
Director at WDBC
| Authority/Group | Share of £350 million Extra for free fares £m
| Share as % | Share of Con Fares element in RSG £m
|
| Plymouth | 2.03 | 0.58
| 5.88 |
| East Devon | 0.65 | 0.19
| 1.93 |
| Torbay | 1.28 | 0.37
| 3.75 |
| Exeter | 0.70 | 0.20
| 2.03 |
| Mid Devon | 0.37 | 0.11
| 1.12 |
| North Devon | 0.60 | 0.17
| 1.72 |
| South Hams | 0.44 | 0.13
| 1.32 |
| Teignbridge | 0.79 | 0.23
| 2.33 |
| Torridge | 0.40 | 0.11
| 1.12 |
| West Devon | 0.28 | 0.08
| 0.81 |
| Devon | |
| |
| Partnership | 4.86 | 1.39
| 14.10 (1) |
| Devon | 7.54 | 2.15
| 21.81 |
(1) Plymouth and East Devon are not part of Devon Partnership.
Ring Fenced?
The element for concession fares is not ring fenced to concession
fares. However, if the non-Unitary Authorities lose the function
to County Councils or all of the authorities above lose the function
to national level (Clause 9 of Concessionary Bus Travel Bill),
they will lose the amounts of RSG shown above.
2006-07 RSG AND FORECAST
OUT-TURN
BUDGETS (MID-FEBRUARY
FORECASTS)
| Authority/Group | RSG
| Out-Turn | "Profit"
|
| West Devon Borough Council | £0.81 million
| £0.39 million | £0.42 million
|
| Devon Partnership | £14.10 million
| £8.41 million | £5.69 million
|
APPENDIX 4
CONCESSION SCHEMES THAT OFFER FREE OR LOW FLAT FARE ON
TRACKED MODES OF LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT
| Authority | Mode
| Fare |
| England | |
|
| London | Local rail, Tube, DLR and Tram
| Free |
| West Midlands | Local rail and Tram
| Free |
| Greater Manchester | Local rail and Tram
| Free |
| South Yorkshire | Local rail and Tram
| Free |
| Merseyside | Local rail |
Free |
| Tyne & Wear | Local rail
| 50p flat fare |
| Metro | Free with £8 "Gold Card"
|
| West Yorkshire | Local rail
| 35p flat fare |
| Nottingham City | Tram |
Free |
| Nottinghamshire County | Tram
| Free but half fare 1600-1800 |
| Blackpool | Tram | Free
|
| Milton Keynes | Local rail |
35p flat fare |
| Isle of Wight | Local rail |
Free |
| Scotland | |
|
| Strathclyde | Local rail and Glasgow Tube
| 40p flat fare |
| Edinburgh | Local rail |
50p flat fare |
| Northern Ireland | |
|
| Whole of province | Local rail
| Free |
| Wales | |
|
110 people living in the Dolwyddelan area can use their bus pass
on the Conwy Valley Line, as, until recently, they had no daytime
bus service
The Welsh Assembly Government are to trial free concession fares
on Conwy Valley Line and Borderlands Line, possibly followed by
another three Community Railways.
POPULATION COVERED
BY FREE
OR LOW
FLAT FARE
SCHEMES
England 46%, Scotland 53%, NI 100%, Wales (currently) under
1% and UK 46%.
OTHER SCHEMES
Some local authorities offer 50% discount on local rail;
others offer a discount on the purchase of the £20 Seniors
Railcard that offers 33% discount on local and national rail fares.
NORTHERN IRELAND
From April 2007 NI pass holders will have free travel on
buses, trains and trams in the Republic of Ireland.
COMMUNITY RAILWAYS
About 10 of the 50 CRs enjoy the concessions above.
APPENDIX 5
BUS AND TRAIN FARES—AUGUST 2006
NATIONAL DATA—BARRY
DOE
Barry Doe is a respected independent consultant with a special
interest in fares. He writes in Railway Journals under the heading
of "Faredealer". He conducts surveys of bus and rail
fares over the years comparing rates per mile for singles, peak
returns and off peak returns. The quote below is from his latest
(August 2005) published survey.
"The tables here show that for all bar the 27-mile journeys
there are always bus operators charging more—sometimes significantly
more—than rail, especially for off-peak returns."
Since the concession scheme is off peak, this quote is particularly
relevant.
DEVON AND
CORNWALL DATA
The author compared bus and train fares on some Devon and
Cornwall branch lines. As the statutory concession scheme is off
peak, the appropriate off peak fares were used. Often on longer
bus trips or ones requiring a change of bus, the bus operators
off peak day ticket was cheapest, if so it was used. Prices in
£
| Journey | Cheapest Off Peak Fare
| Difference (% saving on bus fare) |
| Bus | Train
| |
| Bere Alston/Plymouth | 6.00
| 3.50 | 2.50 (42%) |
| Falmouth/Truro | 4.00 | 2.50
| 1.50 (38%) |
| Newquay/Par | 6.00 | 3.50
| 2.50 (42%) |
| Barnstaple/Exeter | 6.00 |
3.00 | 3.00 (50%) |
| Exmouth/Exeter Central | 4.80
| 3.00 | 1.80 (38%) |
| Looe/Liskeard | 2.20 | 3.00
| -0.80 ( -36%) |
The first five examples have large group operators running
the equivalent bus service. The last example is operated by Western
Greyhound (Small Operator of the Year Award winner for last two
years). The local data confirms the Barry Doe national data. The
reimbursement process does not rely solely on published ticket
prices but they are a major determinant of the compensation that
is paid to operators.
It would appear both at national and local level that savings
could be made if a concession pass holder travelled by local train
rather than bus. The % savings above are significant and the average
saving per pass holder switching to CR from bus for the CRs above
is £1.75. This figure may seem high compared to average bus
fares but the journeys here are the longer, higher fare local
journeys.
APPENDIX 6
COST OF CONCESSION FARES ON TVL AND ALL COMMUNITY RAILWAYS
Data at aggregate level for CRs is not availble to the author
The government's Community Rail Development Strategy has no data
on overall passenger numbers, average fare or % of passengers
who are pensioners using CRs. These three items of data are needed
to make an estimate of the cost of extending concession fares
to CRs. The author has used what data is available to him to make
an estimate.
For the Tamar Valley Line the last year of the Wessex franchise
produced 111k passengers (single passenger trips), of whom 15.8%
were over 60 and yielded £213k in fares revenue. Concession
eligible passengers would include some groups other than pensioners
and using 16% would yield 17,760 journeys, rounding up to 18K
should produce a conservative estimate. The average fare is £1.92,
so reimbursement to the TOC if those journeys were free would
be £34.6k pa. (£14.4k of which falls on WDBC—see
Appendix 7)
Grossing this to the 50 CRs should obviously not be done
by multiplying the TVL cost by 50 as the CRs vary in length (and
therefore average fare) and use level. The train-miles operated
on a CR will reflect frequency of the trains, which should crudely
reflect use level and the mileage element should reflect journey
length/average fare. It is assumed that the % of pensioners in
the population across the 50 CRs is not too dissimilar to that
of TVL. The only other estimate of the cost of concession fares
on CRs known to the author is from TAITH for the Conwy Valley
Line and the Welsh section of the Borderline. The CVL figure was
£57k.
The author deduced the train-miles for each CR at the time
of publication of CRDS. To test the idea that the cost of concession
fares could be proportional to train-miles the value of CVL/TVL
is 2.29 for train-miles and 1.65 for the cost of concession reimbursement.
The figures will never be exactly equal as any two CRs will have
slightly different % pensioners, different alternative bus services,
access to stations etc. but both values being within 0.35 around
a value of two lends some support to the hypothesis. Without better
data an alternative estimate is not possible but a range can be
put on the estimate by using CVL and TVL separately as well as
combined. The 50,420 train-miles used are for one day from the
Mon/Fri timetable at the time of CRDS publication.
TVL Estimate £34.6k x (50420/240) = £7.2
million.
CVL Estimate £57.0k x (50420/550) = £5.2
million.
Combined Estimate £91.6k x (50420/790) = £5.9m
Hence, the central estimate would be taken as £5.9 million
but the range should be borne in mind. However, this central estimate
is likely to be an over estimate of the total "new public
money" needed, for two reasons.
1. If concession fares are offered on CRs there will
be some transfer of concession use from bus to CR. Appendix 5
shows that local rail fares are cheaper than bus in most cases.
Thus the total reimbursement to bus and CR operators should show
a net reduction
2. About 20% of CRs are located in areas identified in
Appendix 4 and already enjoy concession fares. Expenditure here
would not be "new public money".
Quantifying the effect of these two factors is not easy and
the result should be viewed with caution. If the use level of
the 20% of CRs already having concession fares were that of the
average CR, the "new money" central estimate would be
closer to £4.8 million. Appendix 5 shows that for Devon &
Cornwall CRs the average saving to the concession budgets for
each pass holder switching from bus to CR is £1.75. Lack
of data makes an estimate of the likely level of bus to CR switching
difficult but a switch of one million journeys pa from bus to
the 50 CRs would reduce the "new money" bill to only
just over £3 million. Paragraph 35 shows that transfer levels
can be high (46%) when measured in the other direction.
APPENDIX 7
SHARE OF TVL CONCESSION COST BETWEEN CARADON AND WDBC
AND GENERATION OF PASSENGERS
SHARE OF
COSTS
The total estimate (Appendix 6) of the cost of free concession
fares on TVL of £34.6k pa is based on all 18k concession
passengers. If all CRs are included in an UK wide local bus and
local tracked mode scheme, all 18k (plus uncompensated generated
use) passengers would be eligible for concession travel. If this
doesn't occur quickly and Caradon and WDBC can be persuaded to
make a local 'add on' of TVL, the share of the cost between the
two would be of interest.
Some of the 18k concession passengers are leisure travellers
from Plymouth and beyond but the majority are residents along
TVL. A conservative estimate is made by assuming that all 18k
concession passengers are from the two council's areas. The passenger
split overall Caradon:WDBC is 55:45 and is assumed the same for
concession use. The off-peak day return fare from Gunnislake and
Calstock (in Caradon) are the same at £4.00. Bere Alston
and Bere Ferres (in WDBC) have the same off-peak return at £3.50.
Caradon costs should exceed WDBC costs by a factor of (55/45)x(400/350)=1.4
Caradon cost £34.6k x (1.4/2.4)=£20.2k
WDBC cost £34.6k x (1.0/2.4)=£14.4k
GENERATION OF
PASSENGERS
TRL publish a document, The demand for public transport:
a practical guide that is the "bible" for elasticities.
Chapter 6 deals with fare elasticity. It shows that fares elasticity
is higher for off peak and leisure use. There is a long-term effect
that is larger than the "short run" elasticity. Table
6.55 pulls together the findings from many studies and for "Suburban
rail—UK—off-peak—short run" quotes a mean
across studies of -0.79. This means that a 100% fare reduction
(free fares) would generate 79% more passengers.
Applying this to the 18k concession passengers on TVL means
that (0.79x18k) 14.2k extra concession passengers would use TVL.
This amounts to (14.2/111) 12.8% extra passengers over the whole
passenger base of 111k. The CRDS has a target to reduce subsidy
per passenger by 50%, increasing the denominator in that equation
by 12.8% will reduce the target by 11.3%, a worthwhile contribution
towards the 50% target.
This is based on a "short run" elasticity and will
produce more effect in the long term.
APPENDIX 8
COMPARISON OF TRAIN AND BUS JOURNEYS FROM SETTLEMENTS
ON RAIL LINES OTHER THAN CRs
Source. Traveline for 28 February 2007 post-0930 journeys
checked on 27 February.
Appendix 1 made the same comparisons from a stations/settlements
on a branch line that was designated CR. Small stations on mainlines
(that cannot be CR designated) often offer a vital public transport
link to larger towns/cities and some of those are mentioned below.
As with TVL the train is often a far better and sometimes the
only reasonable alternative. There is a "double whammy"
effect at Whimple and Lostwithiel, where bus services to the destinations
mentioned have been requested from the local authority but they
have declined to subsidise such services as a train alternative
exists.
Avoncliff to Bath
Hourly train to Bath taking 15 minutes. Original settlement
and railway station in valley bottom. Steep hills and narrow lanes
to newer part of settlement. Only upper part of Avoncliff served
by bus. Half-mile steep uphill walk from Old Peoples Apartments
to bus stop. Bus every two hours and takes 30 minutes to Bath.
Dunbridge (Station now renamed Mottisfont and Dunbridge) to
Romsey
Trains at 1200 and 1300 taking six minutes to Romsey, with
three return options. A bus at 0919 (before 0930), then no bus
till 1553 without a same day return.
St Germans to Plymouth and Liskeard
Train journey to Plymouth takes 18 minutes. One bus option
to Plymouth is possible with a change of bus and takes 75 minutes
but there is no same day return bus. In the Liskeard direction
the train journey takes 12 minutes. There is one bus option to
Liskeard taking 65 minutes with a change of bus but no same day
return by bus.
Kemble to Swindon and Gloucester
Hourly train to Swindon (16 minutes) and Gloucester (35 minutes).
Two changes of bus in both directions to both destinations are
needed. The only effective return bus trip to Swindon would need
284 minutes (32 by rail) for a 79-minute stay. The only effective
return bus trip to Gloucester takes 258 minutes (70 by train)
and yields 105 minutes in Gloucester.
Whimple to Axminster and Exeter
Train service two-hourly with some additional trains. 22
minutes to Axminster and 16 to Exeter Central. Only effective
return by bus to Axminster takes 269 minutes (44 by train) with
one change of bus for a 98-minute stay. To Exeter there are two
effective returns by bus, both with one change each way. They
take 198 or 176 minutes (32 by train).
Lostwithiel to Liskeard
Train takes 18 minutes and National Express 500 service connects
the two. There is no bus service.
Other Examples
There will be many other examples.
March 2007
| 
