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

of the travel has been generated by the concessionary travel scheme. There are further
assumptions to be made about the types of fare that would have been paid (st<strong>and</strong>ard or
discounted fares, singles or travel cards, etc). It is almost impossible to work out what
would happen in the absence of concessionary travel <strong>and</strong> what revenue has genuinely been
forgone. Such calculations have kept bus operators, travel concession authorities <strong>and</strong>
consultants busy of late. They have led to prolonged <strong>and</strong> acrimonious disputes between bus
operators <strong>and</strong> travel concession authorities, resulting in over 100 appeals to the Secretary of
State for Transport. Some authorities have accused bus operators of overcharging. Some
bus operators claim they are running services at a significant loss. 83 This is hardly
conducive to partnership working. 84
89. Despite guidance from the Government <strong>and</strong> various rulings by adjudicators on behalf
of the Secretary of State for Transport, the problem does not appear to be abating. For
example, according to the Centro-WMPTA Chief Executive, the major bus operators in
the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s are “unhappy with almost all the key aspects” of the reimbursement
scheme for 2008/09. 85
90. Even if the ‘no better, no worse’ calculation could be ascertained with confidence, there
must also be questions about this funding principle in the long run. As concessionary
travel increases, it is unclear where the incentive will come from for operators to invest in
services where concessionary travel passengers form a high percentage of the customers. 86
91. Some witnesses have argued that concessionary travel is distorting fare structures <strong>and</strong>
having a negative impact on fare-paying passengers by giving a perverse incentive to
operators to disproportionately increase off-peak <strong>and</strong> single adult fares. 87 This may be the
case but local authorities are not obliged to base reimbursement on a particular fare, as in
Scotl<strong>and</strong>. The Government has published a toolkit for local authorities to use when
calculating reimbursement. Whilst some local authorities do base reimbursement on single
fares they are encouraged to use a basket of fares. It is up to the local authority to negotiate
a mutually acceptable deal. 88
92. ITSO concessionary fare smartcards should make local enhancements easier to h<strong>and</strong>le
from the operator’s perspective (but passenger confusion may remain). A programme for
ITSO readers on buses is needed.
93. The current “no better, no worse off” mechanism for reimbursing operators is
unsatisfactory. It is arcane, time consuming <strong>and</strong> a recipe for disputes. It does nothing
to promote good partnership working between travel concession authorities <strong>and</strong> bus
operators. It is also questionable whether it provides a viable long-term funding model
for the industry. A new, more transparent mechanism is required that compensates
83 Q 113
84 See, for example, the exchange of letters between South Yorkshire PTE <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach Yorkshire in Local Transport
Today 477, 13 September 2007, p17 <strong>and</strong> Local Transport Today 478, 27 September 2007, p16.
85 Local Transport Today, 22 February 2008, p9
86 Q 111 <strong>and</strong> The Guardian, 10 March 2008, p28
87 Ev 87
88 In Scotl<strong>and</strong> operators are reimbursed at 73.6% of an operator’s adult single fare, capped at £63 million in 2007/08,
under a three-year agreement between the Scottish Executive <strong>and</strong> the Confederation of Passenger Transport.
27