Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

Ev 196 Transport Committee: Evidence
11.2.4 The principal multi-modal issue is bus-rail. Cheshire has 47 stations but local journeys are
dominated by bus. Most Cheshire districts oVer discounted over-60s railcards <strong>and</strong> rail vouchers
for disabled people but this is the limit of concessionary fares activity.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Eric Martlew MP (TPT 42)
Copy of Letter sent to Eric Martlew MP Regarding <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares from the Town Clerk &
Chief Executive, Carlisle City Council
Dear Ms XXXX
Re <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Options for distributing specific grant for 2008 free “National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
Scheme”
I refer to your request for comments on the four options being considered for the distribution of specific
grant <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> from the area etc.
— The level of bus services provided <strong>and</strong> their destinations, which will influence take up.
Of the four options available I believe option 1 <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> may be replaced by an “Attractiveness of an Area to Day Visitors” factor
in the RSG calculation in future years.
— Incapacity Benefit <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> is provided by the County Council.
— Overnight visitors—to reflect the potential for travel in tourist areas.
— Retail floor space—to reflect the potential dem<strong>and</strong> for travel to out of town <strong>and</strong> principal shopping
centres. Presumably as the major centre within the area this would benefit Carlisle with in flow
from outside the area <strong>and</strong> cost Carlisle for return journeys.
Unfortunately when the attributes contained in the four options are given values/calculated (based on
your definitions) <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> then pro rataing it down to district (second tier) level.
Ridership Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
2007–08 * £000 £000 £000 £000
Allerdale 632,843 195 127 187 465
Barrow 1,145,796 253 212 219 222
Carlisle 2,132,664 397 289 395 403
Copel<strong>and</strong> 492,869 222 153 211 203
Eden 68,346 93 118 98 325
S Lakel<strong>and</strong> 507,822 231 176 216 766
*Based on April to October 2007 trends.