Following a Freedom of Information request to the West Midlands Combined Authority, details have emerged over which bus routes are costing the most per passenger trip.
These are the 10 most expensive routes per passenger (calculations are annual subisdy amount divided by annual passenger count - 2017 figures)
T7003A 89 Solihull - Coventry via Meridan (plus HoE Taxibus tender contract T7003) 14,952 £84,203.80 (£72844.40 for the HOE taxibus section + £11359.40 for the 89) £5.63
T0719 36/41 Walsall - Alumwell/Willenhall 11,312 £42,949.92 £3.80
T0809 26 Walsall - Blakenhall 5,252 £16,380.00 £3.12
T0720 142 Stourbridge - Halesowen 15,184 £42,852.68 £2.82
T0812 30 Bilston - Darlaston 6,656 £18,720.00 £2.81
T0440 604 Mere Green - Kingstanding 44,304 £122,720.00 £2.77
T0371 S10 Solihull - Cranes Park 19,019 £49,686.52 £2.61
T0522 424/424E Perry Beeches - City Centre 73,476 £185,060.00 £2.52
T0022 229 Dudley - Bilston via Sedgley 21,788 £54,367.56 £2.50
T0127 208 Dudley - Merry Hill 5,564 £13,409.76 £2.41
at the other end of the scale, the following services have the cheapest subsidy per passenger
T0594 2 Turnberry Estate section 181,272 £22,776.00 £0.13
T0852 243 Dudley - Merry Hill 7,332 £1,243.72 £0.17
T0100 13 Wednesbury - Dudley 62,504 £11,554.40 £0.18
T0908 4 Arena - Coventry 57,200 £10,822.76 £0.19
T1330 9/9A Rail Station - Wainbody 119,236 £33,820.80 £0.28
T1335 18/18A Coventry - Tile Hill South 178,412 £52,489.84 £0.29
T0718 74 Walsall - Gillty Village 138,528 £40,773.20 £0.29
T0870 25 Erdington - Fox and Goose 119,600 £35,880.00 £0.30
T0578 937A Birmingham - Brownhills 64,220 £19,500.00 £0.30
T0821 49 Brandhall - Bearwood 140,504 £43,004.00 £0.31
Personally I believe that the routes which are most costly to the taxpayer, despite being deemed "socially necessary", should be reduced/withdrawn, or replaced by demand responsive solutions such as Uber or ArrivaClick.
935A hasn't ran for ages! It's the 937A now.
Quote from: Jack on February 15, 2018, 10:30:54 PM
935A hasn't ran for ages! It's the 937A now.
That was on the information that TfWM supplied and I forgot to edit out. I'll quickly change it
What about the section of the 2 in Leamore?
Quote from: Westy on February 15, 2018, 10:33:46 PM
What about the section of the 2 in Leamore?
Covered as part of the same contact.
Can you explain what the data is showing? My knowledge on subsidies is limited. Would I be correct in saying the 89 is the most expensive funding given by government?
Quote from: Trident 4194 on February 15, 2018, 10:41:59 PM
Can you explain what the data is showing? My knowledge on subsidies is limited. Would I be correct in saying the 89 is the most expensive funding given by government?
The first figure is passenger count for last year, the total amount is what subsidy the Combined Authority is paying per year and the smaller figure is what the subsidy is per passenger.
The 89 is getting the most subsidy per passenger out of all the routes that the combined authority subsidise.
Quote from: the trainbasher on February 15, 2018, 10:25:58 PM
Personally I believe that the routes which are most costly to the taxpayer, despite being deemed "socially necessary", should be reduced/withdrawn, or replaced by demand responsive solutions such as Uber or ArrivaClick.
I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this statement. Subsidised services can often maintain a steady network of commercial services as if someone using a subsidised service may go and use commercial services. If you drop the subsidy, you would lose the passenger on the commercial service too making that route also less viable.
I think you really need to look at the bigger picture with subsidy, at the impacts caused to other services around it and the social impacts caused by the withdrawal of a service.
Demand services such as the TaxiBus were clearly less cost effective, otherwise the 89 wouldn't have came into existence. As also mentioned in the Arriva Cannock thread by
@Bob , Sunday and evening journeys are also important as someone who can't travel on a Sunday will just find an alternative method for all 7 days of the week and another customer has been lost...
Most of the population clearly does care about their bus service, otherwise there wouldn't be council U Turns such as here: http://www.bususers.org/news-events/news/norfolk-campaigners-save-bus-subsidies/
It is a very interesting debate to have though but I would really think it is more of a case by case basis. If they didn't need the money, it wouldn't have the money.
It is always intriguing to see other peoples view points such as yours
@the trainbasher . :)
Quote from: the trainbasher on February 15, 2018, 10:25:58 PM
Personally I believe that the routes which are most costly to the taxpayer, despite being deemed "socially necessary", should be reduced/withdrawn, or replaced by demand responsive solutions such as Uber or ArrivaClick.
What a load of rubbish. Sorry but you haven't got a clue.
Quote from: Dom on February 16, 2018, 12:25:32 PM
What a load of rubbish. Sorry but you haven't got a clue.
Agreed to some extent. Without subsidies key locations would be cut off.
The figures only ever tell half the story. As has been pointe ed out if the subsidised service wasn't there then those passengers may also be lost from commercial services.
I can only speak from routes we operate but if you take the 424 for example although it is expensive to operate without it large areas especially around great barr would be quite a long distance from any other bus, therefore a percentage of those passengers would either use their cars or be virtually isolated in their own homes. A lot of these subsidised services cater for elderly & vulnerable people. You can't just say "book an uber we can't be bothered to pay for a bus for you".
Plus isn't the idea to keep people on the bus & decrease car/taxi numbers.
Quote from: Steveminor on February 16, 2018, 02:15:49 PM
The figures only ever tell half the story. As has been pointe ed out if the subsidised service wasn't there then those passengers may also be lost from commercial services.
I can only speak from routes we operate but if you take the 424 for example although it is expensive to operate without it large areas especially around great barr would be quite a long distance from any other bus, therefore a percentage of those passengers would either use their cars or be virtually isolated in their own homes. A lot of these subsidised services cater for elderly & vulnerable people. You can't just say "book an uber we can't be bothered to pay for a bus for you".
Plus isn't the idea to keep people on the bus & decrease car/taxi numbers.
The 424 goes all over the place! Yes I agree with you. Some of the estates the 424 serves in Great Barr are home to many elderly people without a car, just take the Whitecrest Estate for example. I have elderly relatives who live their and depend on the 424 to get them to places.
Not really related but the whole route takes a very long time to complete.
I agree it does but the idea of subsidised services is less about end to end travellers and more about linking areas without a bus to the rest of the network. The average passenger on the 424 spends 15 mins on the bus before transferring to another commercial bus route
Quote from: Steveminor on February 16, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
I agree it does but the idea of subsidised services is less about end to end travellers and more about linking areas without a bus to the rest of the network. The average passenger on the 424 spends 15 mins on the bus before transferring to another commercial bus route
Yep. The majority who use it from Whitecrest usually get off at Scott Arms for a direct service to the City.
Quote from: Jack on February 16, 2018, 05:53:28 PM
Yep. The majority who use it from Whitecrest usually get off at Scott Arms for a direct service to the City.
Not really, most who use it from Whitecrest get off at Scott Arms for the shops, as per the old 425
Quote from: Kevin on February 16, 2018, 07:53:00 PM
Not really, most who use it from Whitecrest get off at Scott Arms for the shops, as per the old 425
Yes and that. I forgot about that.
Quote from: Steveminor on February 16, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
I agree it does but the idea of subsidised services is less about end to end travellers and more about linking areas without a bus to the rest of the network. The average passenger on the 424 spends 15 mins on the bus before transferring to another commercial bus route
Same goes today for the route ive been working on, 62A in Wolverhampton. These routes are crucial for some people yet just because it's subsidised at rate that in the grand scheme of things isn't very high people believe it needs to be withdrawn.
@the trainbasher I tell you what, catch the 62 or the 424 tomorrow and go and tell some of the passengers to book an uber because you think the fee for that service is too high and means you spend money on it as you are a British tax payer. See the response you'll get.
Quote from: Dom on February 16, 2018, 10:07:04 PM
Same goes today for the route ive been working on, 62A in Wolverhampton. These routes are crucial for some people yet just because it's subsidised at rate that in the grand scheme of things isn't very high people believe it needs to be withdrawn.
@the trainbasher I tell you what, catch the 62 or the 424 tomorrow and go and tell some of the passengers to book an uber because you think the fee for that service is too high and means you spend money on it as you are a British tax payer. See the response you'll get.
Uber lost $4bn last year, their fares won't be affordable for ever
I have no problem that part of the money I pay in deductions may go to subsidised bus travel. I do, however have a huge problem with yet another pointless waste of my money being used for another freedom of information request.
As taxpayers, it's important to know where our money is being spent. We get a tax summary every year telling us. 2015-16, £47 of my tax was for transport. I don't need it broken down by the penny and on which route.
Quote from: Gareth on February 16, 2018, 10:39:18 PM
I have no problem that part of the money I pay in deductions may go to subsidised bus travel. I do, however have a huge problem with yet another pointless waste of my money being used for another freedom of information request.
As taxpayers, it's important to know where our money is being spent. We get a tax summary every year telling us. 2015-16, £47 of my tax was for transport. I don't need it broken down by the penny and on which route.
Well said!
Quote from: Gareth on February 16, 2018, 10:39:18 PM
I have no problem that part of the money I pay in deductions may go to subsidised bus travel. I do, however have a huge problem with yet another pointless waste of my money being used for another freedom of information request.
As taxpayers, it's important to know where our money is being spent. We get a tax summary every year telling us. 2015-16, £47 of my tax was for transport. I don't need it broken down by the penny and on which route.
Good point, well made!
Quote from: Gareth on February 16, 2018, 10:39:18 PM
I have no problem that part of the money I pay in deductions may go to subsidised bus travel. I do, however have a huge problem with yet another pointless waste of my money being used for another freedom of information request.
As taxpayers, it's important to know where our money is being spent. We get a tax summary every year telling us. 2015-16, £47 of my tax was for transport. I don't need it broken down by the penny and on which route.
I don't have any problem with people requesting information like this - for starters it's the right of people to do so and in many cases helps to make public bodies more accountable - if only the private sector was subject to a version of this type of legislation!! Anyway the information given by Trainbasher is quite interesting even though I don't agree at all with his conclusions - the whole point of subsidising socially necessary services is exactly that - they fulfil a social need.
Interesting the comment about Arriva Click - which is hailed as the future in some areas - they operate where I live and have done for a while - they have darkly tinted windows which disguises the number of people in them except in the dark - they don't appear to be well patronised at all and recently the local operator gave up some services - quoting locally that individuals seemed to prefer their own personal minibus (ie one passenger per vehicle) than catching the bus. I'm not sure if this is totally correct - I don't know anyone locally who uses Arriva Click and some prefer to use the traditional bus because you can use elderly persons passes. Many people on shorter journeys walk. The service doesn't look sustainable to me and Arriva has already changed the base from its own garage to the development around which part of the service is based. So as with the comment about Uber above, Arriva Click doesn't look to be sustainable to me.
In my opinion, Freedom of Information requests were introduced so that public bodies can be held accountable and so using them is everybody's right.
Next to a couple of points about subsidised routes. As an example take the 298/9 which aren't on Tom's list but can illustrate my point. To me these services use very few roads that aren't already covered by bus routes. So what would I do, the 276 uses roads that are very close to the 298/9, so very simple make one in each direction a 276A which would cover Springfield Ave and the Hagley Road that aren't on the 276 route. The section of the route between Lye Cross and The Hadcroft could be left uncovered, after all never seen anybody waiting for a bus at any of the stops.
Next point is what the figures don't actually tell us, for this one I will take the 142 route basically because I know of it and where it serves. The figures show that 15,184 people used the tendered journeys at a cost of £2.82 subsidy, what it doesn't say is how many people caught that bus because it just so happened to be departing at the right time when they could have caught another route. eg: Passenger travelling between Stourbridge and Pedmore Fields seeing 142 ready to depart so catches it even though the 276 would have done exactly the same points.
I see the point in tendering services to try and get the best value out of taxpayers money, but you have to think in places it isn't working correctly. In my first example, a slight diversion of an existing service could provide an equal or even more beneficial service to passengers opening up more journey opportunities, plus you would expect that the amount of subsidy required would be greatly reduced.
If this is the right place to point this out, there is a far from seamless join between Thandi and NXWM operations on the 37. Weekdays there is a gap of 75 minutes and 95 minutes on a Saturday in departures from Walsall. Not sure whose responsibility this is.
Thandi & nxbus could of made a lovely 10 minute service between them rather than thandi taking all customers running 2 minutes in front I know firms are free to run when they want
It'll be interesting to see if Nx retain the contract for the 37 when it comes up for renewal, or whether it will go to Diamond?
Thandi - My feelings are well documented!