REVEALLED - The most expensive subsidised route

[the trainbasher]

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that the routes which are most costly to the taxpayer, despite being deemed "socially necessary", should be reduced/withdrawn, or replaced by demand responsive solutions such as Uber or ArrivaClick.

[Jack]

935A hasn't ran for ages! It's the 937A now.

[the trainbasher]

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

[Westy]

What about the section of the 2 in Leamore?

[the trainbasher]

What about the section of the 2 in Leamore?

Covered as part of the same contact.

[Trident 4194]

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 trainbasher]

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.

[Adam 404]

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 .  :)

[Dom]

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.

[Trident 4194]

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.

[Steveminor]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[Steveminor]

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

[Jack]

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.

[Kevin]

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