Memorandum from Eric Martlew MP (TPT 42)
COPY OF
LETTER SENT
TO ERIC
MARTLEW MP REGARDING
CONCESSIONARY FARES
FROM THE
TOWN CLERK
& CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
CARLISLE CITY
COUNCIL
Dear Ms XXXX
Re Concessionary Fares Options for distributing
specific grant for 2008 free "National Concessionary Fares
Scheme"
I refer to your request for comments on the
four options being considered for the distribution of specific
grant and would comment as follows:
The basis of the grant distribution should take
account of:
— The prospective eligible take-up
by persons qualifying for the scheme, which will be more in urban
areas.
— Factors that might encourage bus
patronage such as shopping centres, attractions increasing tourist
travel to and from the area etc.
— The level of bus services provided
and their destinations, which will influence take up.
Of the four options available I believe option
1 and option 4 best meet these criteria ie
Option 1 includes:
— Day visitors, although the information
to be used is very old (1991). This is an existing factor in RSG
calculations and may be replaced by an "Attractiveness of
an Area to Day Visitors" factor in the RSG calculation in
future years.
— Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement
Allowance. Again an existing factor in RSG calculations.
— Net In-Commuters, reflecting bus
patronage.
— Density Area Up-lift to reflect the
number of potential destinations available, useful for tourist
related travel, although it is doubtful how relevant it is for
local travel.
Option 4 includes:
— Eligible population, obviously helpful
to assess the scale of the potential take-up of the revised scheme.
— Passenger journeys on buses. This
is the only indicator within the two options based on locally
provided data and is provided by the County Council.
— Overnight visitors—to reflect
the potential for travel in tourist areas.
— Retail floor space—to reflect
the potential demand for travel to out of town and principal shopping
centres. Presumably as the major centre within the area this would
benefit Carlisle with in flow from outside the area and cost Carlisle
for return journeys.
Unfortunately when the attributes contained
in the four options are given values/calculated (based on your
definitions) and are presented in cost terms the resulting grant
distributed at second tier level is at odds with the actual pensioner
ridership/remuneration to operators.
This is due to the fact that information on
`say' passenger ridership is obtained from the Transport Authority
and then pro-rata based on population rather than actual district
ridership trends.
Cumbria ridership statistics compared with potential
grant distribution illustrates the inequitable nature of using
transport authority data and then pro rataing it down to district
(second tier) level.
| Ridership 2007-08 *
| Option 1 £000 | Option 2 £000
| Option 3 £000 | Option 4 £000
|
| Allerdale | 632,843 | 195
| 127 | 187 | 465
|
| Barrow | 1,145,796 | 253
| 212 | 219 | 222
|
| Carlisle | 2,132,664
| 397 | 289 |
395 | 403 |
| Copeland | 492,869 | 222
| 153 | 211 | 203
|
| Eden | 68,346 | 93
| 118 | 98 | 325
|
| S Lakeland | 507,822 | 231
| 176 | 216 | 766
|
*Based on April to October 2007 trends.
Urban Authorities (Carlisle in above table) with up to 30
times the passenger ridership levels due to well developed bus
networks get similar levels of grant (or less grant) as small
rural authorities (Eden and South Lakeland) with very few buses
and therefore insignificant concessionary ridership.
The only way to redress this major flaw, (which is the reason
why urban authorities (in two tier Authority areas) are in such
financial difficulties in meeting the net cost (after grant) of
the 2006 free scheme.) is to distribute the grant to the Transport
Authority rather than individual districts.
Broadly there is likely to be enough specific grant to fund
the 2008 enhanced Concessionary Fares scheme but unless distributed
to the Transport Authority (based on options under consideration)
there will be very big winners (small rural authorities) and big
losers (urban authorities). Due to the flaw in the calculation
the problems being experienced by urban authorities in funding
the 2006 Scheme (£0.5 million overspend or 8.3% of net budget
requirement by Carlisle) will become even more of a problem from
1 April 2008.
Finally if the Department for Transport have come to the
view that funding the cost of the enhanced Concessionary Fares
scheme by specific grant is the way forward, surely this should
also be the view for grant funding for the 2006 scheme currently
funded via RSG.
I trust the above comments will influence you in deciding
on the most equitable way to distribute specific grant to help
fund the 2008 Free "National" Concessionary Fares Scheme.
November 2007
| 
