First Bus looks to reshape business

[whole diary]

[Fourbee]

Which will encourage even more free pass holders to use them - and we all know that bus companies aren't properly reimbursed for each journey.

This needs to be looked at, I think fares in general have got to the point where a large proportion of the journeys are effectively being subsidised by people who can ill afford it. There needs to be a balance struck, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the viability of routes is potentially being distorted by this system which is paying a nominal value for the journey.

It is also a question of fairness, some of the journeys are obviously longer distance discretionary ones. I have suggested getting the train to ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) passholders in the past, but they would much rather have a free journey above all else.

[LiskeardRich]

Which will encourage even more free pass holders to use them - and we all know that bus companies aren't properly reimbursed for each journey.

This needs to be looked at, I think fares in general have got to the point where a large proportion of the journeys are effectively being subsidised by people who can ill afford it. There needs to be a balance struck, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the viability of routes is potentially being distorted by this system which is paying a nominal value for the journey.

It is also a question of fairness, some of the journeys are obviously longer distance discretionary ones. I have suggested getting the train to ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) passholders in the past, but they would much rather have a free journey above all else.

A 10 mile journey where I lived in Redruth was £7.50 for a return ticket. Yet I could and did get the Megabus to London for £10 return on several occasions. How is Megabus making such good profits on long distance travel for so little, yet the local bus companies cant?

[old original]

Which will encourage even more free pass holders to use them - and we all know that bus companies aren't properly reimbursed for each journey.

This needs to be looked at, I think fares in general have got to the point where a large proportion of the journeys are effectively being subsidised by people who can ill afford it. There needs to be a balance struck, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the viability of routes is potentially being distorted by this system which is paying a nominal value for the journey.

It is also a question of fairness, some of the journeys are obviously longer distance discretionary ones. I have suggested getting the train to ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) passholders in the past, but they would much rather have a free journey above all else.

A 10 mile journey where I lived in Redruth was £7.50 for a return ticket. Yet I could and did get the Megabus to London for £10 return on several occasions. How is Megabus making such good profits on long distance travel for so little, yet the local bus companies cant?

I think it's because everyone pays the £10 on Megabus but probably less than a third of passengers on the local bus pay the full fare.

[JayMac]

Which will encourage even more free pass holders to use them - and we all know that bus companies aren't properly reimbursed for each journey.

This needs to be looked at, I think fares in general have got to the point where a large proportion of the journeys are effectively being subsidised by people who can ill afford it. There needs to be a balance struck, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the viability of routes is potentially being distorted by this system which is paying a nominal value for the journey.

It is also a question of fairness, some of the journeys are obviously longer distance discretionary ones. I have suggested getting the train to ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) passholders in the past, but they would much rather have a free journey above all else.

Are the bus operators really not being properly reimbursed for ENCTS though? The legislation requires that operators are no better or worse of than if the scheme wasn't in place. If they aren't being properly reimbursed then why isn't the industry lobbying on this point?

[ChrisB]

I've heard of Councils reimbursing a flat-rate per trip, for example....

[grahame]

I think it's because everyone pays the £10 on Megabus but probably less than a third of passengers on the local bus pay the full fare.

And I suspect that it's also because the Megabus providers are able to run fewer and much fuller services.

[LiskeardRich]

I recall a director of a struggling bus company saying cornwall council reimbursed him 45p a journey.

There is no way they can reimburse the actual journey fare as the old people just tap the machine a no point stating their destination or whether they're going 1 stop or the full route

[JayMac]

As I said. Legislation requires 'no better or worse off'. If councils aren't reimbursing operators to that end then surely the operators would be very vocal.

[grahame]

As I said. Legislation requires 'no better or worse off'. If councils aren't reimbursing operators to that end then surely the operators would be very vocal.

Some of them are vocal behind the scenes ... but where your income on a supported service comes from the local council in a subsidy contract first, ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) reimbursement second, and farebox third it's a very brave or foolish operator who risks his contract by bad-mouthing the council in public.

"No better, no worse" is a jungle to work out ...

[Bmblbzzz]

Interesting that they're saying changes in shopping patterns are affecting their revenue. It's not an effect I would have thought of, though I suppose it's quite an obvious one – maybe it didn't occur to me because living in the centre of a city (and having other modes of transport available and being fittish and youngish enough to use them, as well as having time and money for them) I would never take a bus to go shopping anyway; the internet shopping I have delivered replaces either a short walk or bike ride or a long train journey or is something I would simply not have bought otherwise.

But it's a good example of the interconnectedness and unexpected knock-on effects of things. People aren't going shopping so much, so it's harder for those who still want to do so, and perhaps more significantly, it's harder for people to get to work, or school, or... anywhere.

[stuving]

As I said. Legislation requires 'no better or worse off'. If councils aren't reimbursing operators to that end then surely the operators would be very vocal.

Some of them are vocal behind the scenes ... but where your income on a supported service comes from the local council in a subsidy contract first, ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) reimbursement second, and farebox third it's a very brave or foolish operator who risks his contract by bad-mouthing the council in public.

"No better, no worse" is a jungle to work out ...

Isn't it just - it's set out in all its implausible detail here. (Warning - the calculator is only suitable for connoisseurs of madly complicated Excel workbooks, and ditto ditto for the economic theory.)

The latest statistics are published by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) in their bus statistics, as summarised here. They don't include appeals, and the latest data I can find is for 2010 (in the last Bulletin on ENCTS published by DCLG):

26 appeals were lodged in 2010/11; nine of these were subsequently withdrawn and the remaining 17 have now been determined and issued.

If you want just one number from those stats, the reimbursement paid per journey by non-metropolitain English TCAs^▸ (Track Circuit Actuator) was 108p. Bearing in mind that's paid for every journey - there's no ENCTS all-day ticket - it's not as bad as I thought.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Interesting that they're saying changes in shopping patterns are affecting their revenue. It's not an effect I would have thought of, though I suppose it's quite an obvious one – maybe it didn't occur to me because living in the centre of a city (and having other modes of transport available and being fittish and youngish enough to use them, as well as having time and money for them) I would never take a bus to go shopping anyway; the internet shopping I have delivered replaces either a short walk or bike ride or a long train journey or is something I would simply not have bought otherwise.

May I offer an example here of Mrs A, who actually lives in Wrington, North Somerset? 

Mrs A has mobility issues, but still uses the local community bus (which is run by a charity) to travel to Nailsea and back with her companion, once a week.  They don't use the First Bus service, because that only goes from Wrington into Bristol and back.

As she is unable to carry anything on her mobility frame, Mrs A does her actual shopping online, and I then deliver it to her - that is when I tend to meet the fairly lightly loaded First Bus in a country lane ... 

My point is, rural bus services generally don't meet the requirements of many (particularly elderly) residents in such relatively isolated rural communities - so those buses are not used, and the whole service is then vulnerable to being withdrawn altogether as it becomes unviable.

 

[LiskeardRich]

As I said. Legislation requires 'no better or worse off'. If councils aren't reimbursing operators to that end then surely the operators would be very vocal.

Would that passenger of traveled otherwise? that bus would have run regardless so it could be argued if the passenger otherwise wouldn't have traveled then the no better or no worse would be zero.

[Bmblbzzz]

Interesting that they're saying changes in shopping patterns are affecting their revenue. It's not an effect I would have thought of, though I suppose it's quite an obvious one – maybe it didn't occur to me because living in the centre of a city (and having other modes of transport available and being fittish and youngish enough to use them, as well as having time and money for them) I would never take a bus to go shopping anyway; the internet shopping I have delivered replaces either a short walk or bike ride or a long train journey or is something I would simply not have bought otherwise.

May I offer an example here of Mrs A, who actually lives in Wrington, North Somerset? 

Mrs A has mobility issues, but still uses the local community bus (which is run by a charity) to travel to Nailsea and back with her companion, once a week.  They don't use the First Bus service, because that only goes from Wrington into Bristol and back.

As she is unable to carry anything on her mobility frame, Mrs A does her actual shopping online, and I then deliver it to her - that is when I tend to meet the fairly lightly loaded First Bus in a country lane ... 

My point is, rural bus services generally don't meet the requirements of many (particularly elderly) residents in such relatively isolated rural communities - so those buses are not used, and the whole service is then vulnerable to being withdrawn altogether as it becomes unviable.

 

In some cases it's got better. I remember my grandfather's delight when, just about the time we'd persuaded him to stop driving because his eyesight really wasn't safe, a bus stop appeared right outside his house in a village a few miles from Bath. Then he looked at the timetable: one bus a day, Tuesdays and Thursdays only. I've just looked it up now and there seem to be several buses a day into Bath (and the village has trains!). But I accept that's an unusual example.

Thing is, why do they put on such inappropriate services? Wouldn't it perhaps be better to start with some research, asking people in the villages where and when they want to travel, then put together a service to meet that need? Inevitably it would be a compromise between conflicting demands but as it is there seems to very little if any consideration of where and when people want to travel.

Edit: I guess another point you wanted to make is that while on the one hand replacement of shopping by home delivery might lead to fewer buses, on the other hand it reduces the need for those buses; so those who already found it hard to go shopping might now be better off in terms of access to shopping, even though it's harder to get to the shops. Swings and roundabouts.

[grahame]

Thing is, why do they put on such inappropriate services? Wouldn't it perhaps be better to start with some research, asking people in the villages where and when they want to travel, then put together a service to meet that need? Inevitably it would be a compromise between conflicting demands but as it is there seems to very little if any consideration of where and when people want to travel.

Gosh - where do I start?   

Researching what people want from buses turns out to be very much harder that similar rail research - people simple aren't as engaged / forthcoming, and if you're not careful you end up with strong input from a few lobby groups who may be blinkered and just looking out for their own journey (and sc**w everyone else).

Then network planning as a whole is what you want, but no-one's allowed to do that except in London (and Jersey have done it too) ... commercial companies can't agree a network between them ("cartel") and local authorities can't specify supported services that compete with commercial ones ("unfair competition").     Our option 24/7 team (lead by Lee)  has done quite a big pilot study (it's on the option 24/7 website) that reduces the number of vehicles but increases the journey opportunities ; this year it was ahead of its time, but next year it might be right with the bus services bill progressing ... or it might be too late if too many other services have been lost with a combination of First reducing commercial coverage, another operator doing the same, and 10% cuts in subsidy for those services.

The other thing to bear in mind when planning the services is that you want  /  need to make very best use of vehicles and drivers, and you have to conform to the law on things like driver hours and maximum route length.