Ah, yes. Tokens. I remember them. A couple of comments yesterday aroused fond memories of coloured plastic or shaped silver metal as issued by local transport authorities to older people and redeemed on the bus in lieu of cash. Yes, they worked… but did they work *well*?
So, why give them up, only to be replaced by smartcard technology that relies on complicated algorithms, a steady vehicle electrical supply, corruptible computer technology and an electronic ticket machine on the bus that might scramble at any moment. One good reason, of course. National policy.
Smartcards may have their downside and they may not be quite as robust as we all like to think. But tokens were never much of an answer, if we’re honest. Their genesis came from the age of the tram, when tram operators were trying to fill off-peak capacity allied to when municipals wanted trams to consume the electricity supply in which they’d heavily invested. Not perfect arguments for tokens and I doubt anyone would re-invent them today.
The main downsides to tokens were:
- They were open to fraud. Car driving older people would pass them off to some driver, taxi proprietor or even shopkeeper for various rates of returns, notably half their value. To those not needing them, they were seen as a perk. The driver would then cash the lot in and make a few bob. It was a universal benefit and easily exchanged for ready cash.
- Some people who didn’t use them would horde them instead. When the person moved, say, to a nursing home or perhaps died, relatives would unearth piles of unopened bags of tokens (and, often, would then try to palm them off through a friendly driver).
- Tokens used to run out. Everyone in a district got the same amount regardless of (a) need, (b) how often they used the bus or (c) the distances, relating to higher fares paid, that they travelled. They weren’t targeted to those who really needed them.
- The benefit was never universal. People in one district had a different allocation to another. Some benefited from half fare. Others got nothing. This was again highly inequitable.
- They were usually administered by treasurers who only saw the cost of the tokens and not their value. Some were trying their hardest to drop their schemes quicker than a burning potato.
- They needed counting, sorting, bagging and redeeming, usually via National Transport Tokens, with its margins.
- There was no easy method for an operator of understanding usage.
And the positives? They were easily understood by both customers & drivers. They could be used before 0930. And they ensured the LTA knew its budget: there was no variation according to usage, fares or honeypots.
27 comments:
The Free travel scheme has simply become unaffordable and in many cases people have passes and don’t really need them. They are for example being used by people to commute to work for Free. Many pensioners have cars. Should a scarce resource of cash be wasted giving them Free passes?
The solution is not tokens but smart card concessionary passes. The passes would cost £50 a year for the unlimited Free travel with an alternative option of being able to buy a £1 day pass for unlimited travel(For those that don't travel much or where bus services are very limited)
Yet another area is now axing more routes as the money runs out and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. In many cases bus companies have no pushed the fares up to help subsidies the scheme as far as they can and further increases just results in reduced revenues
One Bus company tried to save a route by asking pensioners to pay a small fare but the council would not permit it and the route is now being axed. This is the crazy situation the free passes are leading to.
It will be a hot potato but charges will have to be introduced.
The money has to be found from somewhere and the government & councils & bus companies do not have it
@Anon 0753
The money has to be found from somewhere and the government & councils & bus companies do not have it
Nor do some of the passengers have the money!
There are precious few benefits to being old in this country, so let's not try and take away one of the most valued and practical of them.
Has anyone got the figures for the cost of issuing each free smartcard ? I'm betting it is not zero.
On the railway the seniors choose it they buy a discount railcard...that is buy one, not get given one. If they don't they pay full fare.
How come old people are seemingly happy about this, but expect free bus travel ?
As for tokens, don't councils still issue taxi tokens, or have they been replaced now ?
@ dolphin:
Nor do some of the passengers have the money!
There are precious few benefits to being old in this country, so let's not try and take away one of the most valued and practical of them.
Nonsense, the basic benefit rate is double the amount for someone who's disabled or unemployed (the latter of whom don't get free travel). My wife's grandparents have more bloody money than we do yet they get the free pass and we pay £15 a week each.
Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge them it, they've worked damn hard for it. But when we look at the cost of the scheme is it really worth it? The poorest pensioners, those on guarantee pension credit, should get free travel. The rest have enough money to pay, at least half fare. We're selling off the NHS because we can't afford it, apparently, yet we keep going with the ridiculous free bus pass scheme?
I'd rather have decent healthcare than a free bus. Don't know about you.
At the very least the free passes shouldn't be valid before 10am or between 3pm and 6pm. I deeply resent paying so much for the bus yet having to stand for all the free pass holders (not to mention the argument I had last week when I asked one to move out of the buggy bay for me and my daughter).
dolphin said...
"..let's not try and take away one of the most valued and practical of them."
One of the problems is that the current scheme is definitely not practical, for various reasons, some of which have already been explained. It would be simpler to scrap the scheme altogether and increase the basic pension proportionately. Those pensioners who are well off would pay a little more tax; while those who are physically unable to use buses, and therefore get no benefit at all from the current scheme, would have more money to spend on things that they could use or enjoy. This would also save the costly administrative arrangements for distributing the money and resolving disputes, so that more money could (theoretically) be made available to the people who are supposed to benefit from the scheme.
The earlier local schemes did at least have some sense in that they assisted pensioners in gaining access to essential services, but there is no need to offer politically motivated free travel for non-essential journeys, particularly when it has negative effects on the financing of the bus industry in general.
The 'free' bus rides electoral bribe from Labour epitomised everything that is wrong with the British political system. It was ill thought through and does not help older or disabled people who live away from bus routes get around. The tax money that has actually been paid out could have funded an integrated system involving taxis and buses with maybe smart card technology. There will increasingly be a need to get older and potentially unsafe people out of their cars. How do you do that when they live up a hill that does not have a bus route?
The previous local scheme had some disadvantages in that if the nearest shopping centre was in the next councils area they had to pay
The two options I think should be looked at is either a £50 annual charge for OFF PEAK only travel or a limit on the number of journeys they can make. With SMART CARDS this can easily be done
Passes should also not be issued to those still working.
The above options would considerably reduce the cost of the scheme and provide some money to be put back into improving bus services
Limiting the scheme to OFF Peak only would alsoencourage more fare paying passengers and lower fares as many will not ue the servicce because they are cluttered up with OAP's and bbuggies which in spite of occupying the space of three seats travel for free
Anonymous said...
"Limiting the scheme to OFF Peak only..."
The national scheme is already limited to off-peak:-
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictransport/BusAndCoachTravel/DG_10036264
Maybe the times should be further restricted - for example to exclude the afternoon schools peak, and possibly weekends, given the changing travel patterns.
I remember the days back in the 80s when BR wanted to promote their newly branded 'Network Southeast'. I think you had to just pay £1 if memory serves me. There were several promotional Saturdays.The result was utter chaos. Every bit of rolling stock was pressed into service. People could travel from London to anywhere on the south coast. The sad fact is that there is no such thing as a free bus ride and there are huge knock-on consequences. To any pensioners I say this: Lobby for a decent pension. I strongly object to subsidising your fare and not getting a seat after I've had a day at worl.
The ability to use the Free passes at Peak times is a serious discouragment to commuters using them as is carrying unfolded buggies for free at peak times
Whilst the National schemes is only for after 9.30 many allow the use of the passes at any time
There is a very strong case for limiting them to off peak in both the Morning and afternoon.This would encourage greter use of the services by fare paying passengers
Problem is finding a politician brave enough to do something about the current farcical scheme where nether the provider or the consumer are truly satisfied with the arrangements - the providers complain they receive too little recompense per journey whilst not all consumers get the opportunity to 'consume' living away from a bus route or with tendered bus routes being withdrawn.
Can you imagine Tesco's reaction if the government of the day had tried shafting the supermarkets with an ill conceived legislation to give a minority of the population free food in return for their vote at the next election?
The current system besides being extortionately expensive causes higher fares and cuts to service
We now have in many cases the crazy situation of lower frequency services at peaks and higher frequencies off peak
In some cases off peal almost 80% of the passengers are not paying that is how crazy it has got.
With transport budgets set to be cut for the next few years & pensioner numbers increasing something has to give. So far it is higher fares and more service cuts and next year budget pressures will be even greater particular as inflation is way above forecasts
If usage of bus services to be increased fares need to be kept down and services increased and frequency increased. The current system causes fares to go up and routes to be axed and frequencies to go down as well as services starting later & finishing earlier.
This in turn means declining fare paying passenger numbers
THe cost of the scheme has to be reduced which means making changes to it. ither an annual charge or restrictions on how much the passes can be used. It could be say a maximum of 5 return journeys a week
There are endless option the simplest is probably best which is to make an annual charge for the passes
@RC169
Maybe the times should be further restricted - for example to exclude the afternoon schools peak,
Alas in the rural area in which I live the only buses of the day are at school times, morning and afternoon. So if this idea were adopted I would be disenfranchised from any free travel!
'Simply become unaffordable' compared to what - regime change in Libya etc.?
Really you mean it is not your priority, which is an opinion you are entitled to - but not a fact.
Has anyone done any research into the real impacts, balancing all the additional journeys against the lower revenue per journey? I suspect Lothian Buses get more out of me now than when I paid the equivalent of 540 for a season ticket, and the rural operators certainly do.
Giving car owning pensioners free passes is likely to generate a lot of discretionary journeys - i.e. revenue without cost; and keeps cars of the roads as well.
If the industry really hated the scheme, don't you think they would have got together and done something about it ? Seem to recall it was Mr Brown who came up with that idea, and nobody voted him in...but they voted him out.
If a council supports a service,and pays the operator for the free travel reimbursement,am I right in thinking they are paying twice,as one assumes revenue is taken into account when tendering and costing the service ?
Anonymous said...
"...to generate a lot of discretionary journeys - i.e. revenue without cost;"
If there was spare capacity on the journeys in question, then it would be revenue without cost; but if there was not adequate spare capacity, and the operator has to provide larger, or more, buses, then there most certainly will be cost involved. If the additional revenue doesn't cover the additional cost, then the bus operators will definitely suffer a loss.
If the other 'benefits' (such as reducing the number of car journeys made by pensioners) are considered worthwhile, then they need to be paid for. That means that the reimbursements to bus operators need to be adequate - perfectly logical, really - if the government want something to happen, they need to pay for it!
I;m afraid vote-desperate politicians are a menace. Labour also pulled a similar stroke with free access tl leisure centres for people over 60. Guess what? That's right the local authorities were not fully reimbursed. We need a new form of government for the 21s century, as the current model is about as bent as the MPs expense allowances.
Does National Transport Tokens (the company) still exisit - and how did/does it work?
Tokens were very rare in my part of the world and before my time.
Gareth.
Who still allows them to be used in the morning peak ? - I thought most had now withdrawn that 'extra'.
I work for a council that had tokens as an alternative to the bus pass. The writer is completely right as to the disbenefits and misuse. It was horrendous. Also once they were out there you never knew when they might surface for reimbursement from an operator so yearly budgets meant little.
We moved over to card vouchers which had the holders photo on it and our costs (reimbursement) plummeted. After ten years we still however have relatives coming in with hoards they have found expecting us to exchange them for cash - NO. When the national bus pass came in we then moved to a taxi voucher for those who are unable to access bus services (through'disability'). Not many lower tier authorities still do this due to the legal rules involved (put simply). Our take up is mainly women over 75 years of age!
@dolphin
“Nor do some of the passengers have the money!
There are precious few benefits to being old in this country, so let's not try and take away one of the most valued and practical of them.”
Ahem. Pensioners alive in Britain today have it better than any generation before them, and better than any generation for the foreseeable future. The benefits and pensions they get are stratospheric compared with what I'll be getting in 40 years. And these are the generations that have done very nicely thank you out of home ownership, being able to buy young and rake in the profits of ever increasing house prices.
I wouldn't cut the free bus pass completely, because I know that there are many pensioners who do rely on it and who don't have a lot of money for discretionary journeys. What rankles is when people like my parents, who own a nice house and two cars outright and have cut their foreign holidays from 3 a year to 2 so that they could join a golf club, get a benefit like a free bus pass.
There are various ways the cost of the scheme could be capped without taking away free travel from those who need it.
(1) Means-tested (probably allied to existing benefits criteria).
(2) in conjunction with (1), additionally available to anyone who surrenders their driving licence.
(3) Limited to the local area rather than nationwide.
Unfortunately, because the people who benefit from free passes that they do not need are the ones who are most likely to vote, it's unlikely any government would have the balls to take the action that is needed to bring this bribery into line.
"If the industry really hated the scheme, don't you think they would have got together and done something about it ?"
Its illegal to not take part in the free pass scheme, operators tend not to intentionally break the law.
"Seem to recall it was Mr Brown who came up with that idea, and nobody voted him in...but they voted him out."
Whilst it was Mr Brown who announced the scheme shortly before the 2005 election it was an election Labour won and Mr Brown was of course still the Chancellor.
"If a council supports a service,and pays the operator for the free travel reimbursement,am I right in thinking they are paying twice,as one assumes revenue is taken into account when tendering and costing the service ?"
Paying twice suggests operators get double the revenue required to cover costs so no. Whilst an operator factors in the revenue received from concessionary fares there are plenty of examples where local authorities arbitarily reduce a reimbursement rate to suit their constrained budgets so overnight an operator sees revenues reduce for driving the same number of miles and carrying the same number of people. In that case the only option operators have is to reduce service to match costs with the reduced revenue.
Operators have told us that they have decided to stop accepting tokens as so few are issued/received now and National Transport Tokens will only reimburse when they receive tokens in multiples of £50, or some equally high amount, which will take operators decades to accrue.
National Transport Tokens Ltd was/is based in Blackburn and owned by er...Stagecoach!
@Anonymous
“If a council supports a service,and pays the operator for the free travel reimbursement,am I right in thinking they are paying twice,as one assumes revenue is taken into account when tendering and costing the service?”
Well ... not really. Yes, they are paying twice, but the two payments go side-by-side, there isn't any double-counting.
Obviously it depends on the terms of the subsidy, and I know some councils run the contracts on the basis of only fare-paying passengers counting towards the income stream, and no reimbursement is made for pensioners because the calculation of the subsidy assumes there aren't any.
In other cases, it can work along the lines of ... "You're only getting 10 passengers on the service and you need 15 to make it profitable, so we'll fund it to the tune of the other 5." "3 of those 10 passengers are using bus passes, so we'll reimburse you for those three at the agreed rate."
You fundermentally misunderstanding the economics of how the it works.
The councils do pay twice.They are paying for the passes & for the subsidised service.
There are no if's and buts to it
Anonymous said...
"You fundermentally misunderstanding the economics of how the it works.
The councils do pay twice."
The phrase 'pay twice' is rather an over-simplification, which then implies that the bus operator receives two payments for the same thing. That isn't the case, as Stevie D has explained. One payment is a subsidy to the pensioners, i.e. the payment to the operator for carrying them at no charge; while the second is a payment for the provision of the bus service, which would not otherwise be provided at all (which you refer to as the subsidised service). As Stevie D has also explained, the councils take care to calculate the payments carefully to ensure that they do not pay for the same aspect of the service provision twice.
Yes, there are two payments from the local authority, but as you say yourself, they are for different things. It is not the same as a plumber unblocking your drain, and then sending you the invoice twice and expecting you to pay twice for unblocking the drain once - but the phrase 'pay twice' carries that misleading implication.
Post a Comment