Taking lots of children by bus

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Press release - First West of England

Restrictions on the number of children under five carried for free to be removed from 29 March 2015

From this weekend (29 March) bus operator First West of England is set to remove outdated restrictions which have, to date, only allowed up to two children under the age of five to travel for free with each fare paying adult.   

Earlier this year a local Bristol woman, Amy Murdoch-Davis, highlighted concerns she had with First^s policy on the carriage of children under five years old.  It had meant that when travelling with her three children -  Esme (3) and twins Theo and Jim (18 months) - she had to buy one of them a ticket, despite all of them being under the age of five.   

She asked the company to change its policy, and First West of England responded saying it would.

First will change its policy on the carriage of children under five years old from the 29 March. In doing so it will make it easier for people to use local bus services with their children. First considers that the change is a very simple way to improve the customer service experience for those people using its local bus network.

The previous policy had been in place for many years, having originally been initiated to guard against incidences where one adult, taking multiple children under five years old out with them, inadvertently took the seats of what would otherwise be fare paying customers.  It now considers though that such circumstances are incredibly rare: with professional child carers being governed by set ratios specifying the maximum number of children that they can look after at any one time.

James Freeman, Managing Director of First West of England, says: ^We are pleased that Amy brought this issue to our attention. This policy was outdated; it was a legacy of the past that had yet to be updated. We are pleased that we^ve been able to resolve it so easily, removing the restriction altogether.

^There may be those who worry that this policy change opens the door for people to take advantage of what it offers, but we do not hold with this view.   Professional child carers are well aware of the rules governing how many children they can look after at any one time, while we consider most parents would not wish to take on the responsibility of looking after lots of children on their own at any one time.   In truth then this policy change simply benefits people like Amy, who to date have been unfairly penalised by archaic rules which prevent them from taking their own children out for the day by bus.

^We hope to welcome Amy, Esme, Theo and Jim, and others like them, on board our buses again in the near future.^

The policy change affects those travelling on First buses in the West of England (including Bristol, Bath, Weston-super-Mare and Wells).

Amy Murdoch-Davis says: ^I am very pleased with the changes that First is making. Specifically I^m impressed at how First has responded to what I asked them to consider.  Multiple births are now much more common than they used to be, with one in 40 babies born now being part of a twin, triplet or quad.  This change will directly benefit lots of families, including my own, who will be able to use public transport much more readily in future."
Children aged five and over (up to 15 years) will still be subject to normal fares, although in the West of England they receive a universal 50% discount off the cost of adult travel. Students and young people aged 16-21 years are eligible for 30% discounts on the cost of travel, with photographic proof of student status and / or a First ID card.

As well as changing its policy for the carriage of children under five at the end of March, a whole series of other alterations to local services will be made on 29 March.

[Adelante_CCT]

In truth then this policy change simply benefits people like Amy, who to date have been unfairly penalised by archaic rules which prevent them from taking their own children out for the day by bus.

No, you could take your children on the bus you would just had to have paid an additional child fare. Slight difference from being prevented from using the bus at all.

[Henry]

  Brilliant, so the odd occasion I take the bus I'm the only one who's paid a fare.

 But now not only have to stand-up for the 'freebie coffin dodgers' but also their grand-sprogs.

[ChrisB]

I seem to remember when I was a kid, we were all asked by our parents to stand for adults to sit....what changed? :-)

[grahame]

Brilliant, so the odd occasion I take the bus I'm the only one who's paid a fare.

To some extent that's how the system works.

case 1: Run a bus with a fare of 2 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get 10 paying passenger and 20 seniors.
case 2: Run a bus with a fare of 5 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get 2 paying passenger and 20 seniors.
case 3: Run a bus with a fare of 10 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get no paying passenger and 20 seniors.

Case 1 income to bus operator = 2 pounds x 10 + 50% of 2 pounds x 20 = 40 pounds
Case 2 income to bus operator = 5 pounds x 2 + 50% of 5 pounds x 20 = 60 pounds
Case 3 income to bus operator = 10 pounds x 0 + 50% of 10 pounds x 20 = 100 pounds
... and note that you've got less passengers in case (3) than (2) than (1), so space for more to join the bus!

Figures are illustrative; I believe that council payment is slightly under 50% of adult single fare for concessions.

But actually I think James Freeman has it right on the children.  Chances are that it's parents rather than grandparents with the hordes, and the "2" rule is illogical.    Choices were to scrap the limit, or to be more radical and to start charging a certain amount for the tinies.  The latter would be politically difficult but perhaps has its logic as the buggies take space, the children (and older children too) occupy space, and so (if carried free) are subsidised by those travelling without children.

[grahame]

I seem to remember when I was a kid, we were all asked by our parents to stand for adults to sit....what changed? :-)

I was on a bus the other day and seated in a seat that said "please give up this seat to a disabled person", but I looked around and couldn't find a disabled person.     Sorry - off topic; not a Fist bus but the Melksham Rail Link.   Lots of people using it, but all able bodied / off to work or on their way home.

[stuving]

Brilliant, so the odd occasion I take the bus I'm the only one who's paid a fare.

To some extent that's how the system works.

case 1: Run a bus with a fare of 2 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get 10 paying passenger and 20 seniors.
case 2: Run a bus with a fare of 5 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get 2 paying passenger and 20 seniors.
case 3: Run a bus with a fare of 10 pounds from "A" to "B" and you get no paying passenger and 20 seniors.

Case 1 income to bus operator = 2 pounds x 10 + 50% of 2 pounds x 20 = 40 pounds
Case 2 income to bus operator = 5 pounds x 2 + 50% of 5 pounds x 20 = 60 pounds
Case 3 income to bus operator = 10 pounds x 0 + 50% of 10 pounds x 20 = 100 pounds
... and note that you've got less passengers in case (3) than (2) than (1), so space for more to join the bus!

Figures are illustrative; I believe that council payment is slightly under 50% of adult single fare for concessions.

Except it isn't. TCAs^▸ (Track Circuit Actuator) are warned to guard against operators gaming the system like that. Remember, what the ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) reimbursement is meant to be (however it is estimated) is 100% of the fare for those who would have paid, and the marginal cost (almost zero) for those who would not have.

This is HMG's guidance text* - I'm afraid it's a bit hard to follow:

3.18 Whatever the level of aggregation at which the calculations are made, it is important, however, to use the same type and coverage of average fare in estimating the revenue forgone as the average fare used to determine the reimbursement factor. In both cases they should ideally be the level of average fare (or the change in average fare) that concessionary passengers would have paid in the absence of the scheme for a specific operator. A disconnect between the average fare forgone and the reimbursement factor (for instance by applying a TCA-wide reimbursement factor to an individual operator's average fare) may create an incentive for fares to be set with reimbursement in mind. Consistency in type and coverage of average fares particularly applies to estimating average fares and the change in average fares in future years.

Roughly, that is about how you estimate the proportions of foregone fares and "only-if-it's-free" riders. That's what the fractional payment is based on (if that's how payments are done - there are other choices). If a wider average split is applied to routes with a jacked-up fare it would, as it says "create an incentive for fares to be set with reimbursement in mind".

So in the example, if no seniors would have paid, the income is zero - if the TCA is on the ball. And the squeals coming from the bus companies suggest they are.

*See Concessionary travel for older and disabled people: guidance on reimbursing bus operators (England).

[Brucey]

I seem to remember when I was a kid, we were all asked by our parents to stand for adults to sit....what changed? :-)

I was brought up on the principle of first come first served, unless someone genuinely needs the seat (e.g. disabled, pregnant, elderly).

[paul7575]

I seem to remember when I was a kid, we were all asked by our parents to stand for adults to sit....what changed? :-)

Buses in Newcastle upon Tyne, where I grew up, had prominent signs that required those paying half fare to give their seat to a standing adult if required.

Paul

[Oxonhutch]

I was brought up on the principle of first come first served, unless someone genuinely needs the seat (e.g. disabled, pregnant, elderly).

My grandma made it perfectly clear to me that as a child on the bus (on a concessionary fare) I was to stand in the aisle if any adult wanted a seat.  Seemed very fair to me at the time. This was "up north" too Paul7755!!

[didcotdean]

What I recall is a prominent notice saying:

Children travelling at concessionary rates must not occupy seats whilst adults are standing.

[Brucey]

Hmm, maybe attitudes changed in the last 30 years or so.

But I don't think full-price vs concessionary fare is a good judge of requiring a seat.  Using that argument, season ticket holders are less worthy of a seat, as would those using a discount (e.g. railcard).

[didcotdean]

That is presumably why the notice expressly referred to children. Full fare was normally 14 but travel to and from school was still permitted at half fare.

[Oxonhutch]

I think it was more down to politeness and respect.  I was a child and perfectly capable of standing-up.  "Adults, who have been working all day to feed their children, deserve to sit down.  Besides, their legs are older... !!"  So said grandma, and she was a lovely woman.

Industry rail pass holders are required to vacate their seats if fare-paying passengers are standing. As a season ticket holder, with a considerable discount, I do believe that I have less right to a seat than someone who has paid the full single fare for the journey.  But then again, maybe I am still hearing grandma.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I remember travelling on green buses in Plymouth as a youngster in the 1960's and early 1970's, being told by mummy or grandma to stand if there was a 'grown-up' looking for a seat.