Bus subsidy up by £300,000 despite record passengers

MORE than £1.1m. was collected in revenue from last year’s record-setting number of bus passengers, but the subsidy the States paid to CT Plus went up by more than £300,000.

buscontract

Contract payments totalling £4,714,465 were made to operator CT Plus in 2016, with a net subsidy of £3,690,499 reported by Traffic and Highway Services director Karl Guille.

A total of 1,653,728 people travelled on scheduled bus services last year, with a £2.23 subsidy per passenger – an identical figure to 2015.

Mr Guille said around three-quarters of the total revenue had come from regular cash fares.

‘Income during the calendar year 2016 totalled £1,103,725,’ he said. ‘Of this sum £789,911 related to £1 cash fares, £34,632 from £2 Night Bus fares, both cash and Pay As You Go product, and the remaining £279,182 was collected from the sale of various Smart Card products, including PAYG, visitor passes, and other unlimited travel passes.’

And while both the CT Plus contract and the retained income were higher than in 2015, this was attributed to the date that the current operating arrangements with the company took effect.

‘The contract payment to CT Plus in 2015 totalled £4,294,000,’ said Mr Guille. ‘Before April 2015 fare income was retained by the operator, but since the new contract commenced in April 2015, fare income has been passed to the States.

‘Between April and December 2015 the States received £935,000 in fare income from CT Plus.

Accordingly, the actual “subsidy” paid to the operator for providing scheduled and integrated school bus services in 2015 was £3,359,000.

‘In 2016, contract payments totalled £4,714,465 and fare income was £1,103,725, the higher sums reflecting a full 12 months of the new contract form. Accordingly, the actual “subsidy” paid in 2016 was £3,690,499.’

Comments for: "Bus subsidy up by £300,000 despite record passengers"

Lance Dynamo

This is a good thing, surely?

markB

Mmm!! So in "Real Terms" Gavin loves using that saying, how much is it costing us Tax payers to keep the bus service running???

Rupert Walthumstow

Embarrassing.

Insider

Would you rather they were paid more to carry less passengers? Surely a contract that incentives the operator to get more bums on seats is a good thing?

Alvin

Yes - but this contract does not do that. There is no incentive for them to increase passengers.

Loveridge

Whichever way you look at this. It would be much more preferable that this money was straying in the island. How much of that £3.7m leaves the island to benefit CT Plus and their bosses in the U.K.?

As an island, we can't even run and manage our own monopoly bus service - it speaks volumes.

Insider

But you have no evidence of that do you Trevor?

Jake

The headline says that bus subsidy has increased which is a bit misleading when the article actually shows net subsidy has decreased.

Jake

Best qualify what I see as the numbers are displayed in a very confusing manner;

Subsidy paid in April 2015: 4,294,000

Revenue paid to SOG: Nil

Net subsidy in 2015: 4,294,000

Subsidy paid in April 2016: 4,714,465

Revenue paid to SOG: 1,103,725

Net subsidy in 2016: 3,610,740 (3,690,499 in article, not sure reason for discrepancy).

Decrease in subsidy: 683,260 (603,260 using article figure).

The numbers they came up with for 2015 seem to be taking a subsidy amount set under the old contract and deduct the figure from the new contract to make last year look as good as possible and consequently this year as worse off in comparison. Definitely creative!

Rupert Walthumstow

Interesting, thanks.

Sloppy journalism or deliberately misleading?

Although I am a relatively keen bus user, it's utterly ridiculous that the taxpayer pays almost £3 towards every journey I take on it. Thanks guys!

asdfgn

What do you expect? The GP has an agenda to push and they can't let facts get in the way of that.

Alvin

Nothing sloppy or misleading... quite clear. Crystal clear.

The new contract started in April 2015. Under the new contract CT Plus get a massive increase in fees paid by the States but the States receive all the revenue from fares - not the operator as was the system before April 2015.

Now, in 2015 the States had to pay CT Plus a total of £4294000 but received back the sum of £935000 representing the fares collected from April 2015 to the end of that year, ( with 1237844 passengers carried during those 9 months, which averages out at 75.5 p per trip ). This means that the net subsidy as an expense incurred by the States was £3359000 for that year.

In 2016, the States had to pay CT Plus the sum of £4714465, an increase of £420465 or almost 10 % over 2015 !!!! However, revenues from fares have gone up, as the period is for 12 months, and, as we assume, there were almost 10 per cent more passengers, to £1103725, with 1653728 passengers carried but with an average fare per trip down to only 66.7 p !!! A drop in the average fare paid of almost 25 % !!! Now that is a shocker : but it strongly backs the claims that the increase in bus passenger figures in 2016 was down to more people travelling free !!

This should mean that the net subsidy for the States to bear during 2016 would be £3610740, and not £3690499, or £79959 less, as stated in the article above - why ?? Where is the difference ?? Anyway, this means that the subsidy has gone up by £331499 !!

Why ??

And all these calculations do not cover the cost of the school buses which is covered in this contract.

Rupert Walthumstow

What is your fascination with not using commas in large numbers?

Jake

You are using one figure from the old contract and netting it with a figure from the new contract which means you are not comparing like for like figures. If you use the figure for the year under the old contract and compare to the figure for a year under the new contract you get what I did above.

Alvin

Not sure which figure you are referring to Jake. I have taken the figures as posted in the article and have adjusted the number of passengers to suit the period April to December 2015 as the States only received revenue from fares for that period in 2015.

Sorry, Rupert.

Gojira

£4,294,000 paid to CT Plus minus the £935000 paid back to the States = £3,359,000 subsidy for 2015. Seems pretty clear to me.

‘The contract payment to CT Plus in 2015 totalled £4,294,000. Before April 2015 fare income was retained by the operator, but since the new contract commenced in April 2015, fare income has been passed to the States. Between April and December 2015 the States received £935,000 in fare income from CT Plus. Accordingly, the actual “subsidy” paid to the operator for providing scheduled and integrated school bus services in 2015 was £3,359,000.' Those are the words of the Traffic director himself.

Prospero

As I understand it, and according to a Deputy that was on the then Envo board, the senior presiding civil servant would not allow Envo

Prospero

Apologies, let the Sherry bottle fall onto keyboard !

...Envo Deputies look at the contract awarded to CT Plus on the grounds that it was "commercially confidential".

If true then a disgrace - if untrue the Deputy told me a alternative truth.

But, perhaps we can clear this up.

I wonder if ex-Dep Burford can enlighten us: Did her board scrutinise the CT Plus contract or was it in the gift of a senior civil servant.

Who is no longer a senior civil servant having been released into the wild. With a pay-off.

Or indeed any of the Envo board who currently still sit on that board - feel free to clarify ?

markB

Very Interesting.... Mrs Burford??

Alvin

Sure then and now... Barry Brehaut ??

Saints

Seems a bit of a coincidence that the subsidy of £2.23 per passenger is exactly the same as in 2015.

Nearly Local

Obviously the bus service is immune from the user pays strategy then !

Joke spending £3.6 million for the busses to drive round the Island empty

Alvin

I have been pretty supportive of the bus service as I believe that a service is necessary even if there is a cost to the community. However, I have been very critical of the way bus service contracts were handled back in 2012 and again in 2015. The bus service now is pretty good and is reasonably priced at a quid a trip - but through total mishandling of the situation the States is causing the tax payer to pay almost 50 % more than when the service was operated by ICW. The service back in 2011 was also pretty good and the only real noticeable difference is the late night weekend service and the glorious P2 which now, so is claimed today in the press, attracting almost 5 passengers per journey !!

The new contract started in April 2015. Under the new contract CT Plus get a massive increase in fees paid by the States but the States receive all the revenue from fares - not the operator as was the system before April 2015.

Now, in 2015 the States had to pay CT Plus a total of £4294000 but received back the sum of £935000 representing the fares collected from April 2015 to the end of that year, ( with 1237844 passengers carried during those 9 months, which averages out at 75.5 p per trip ). This means that the net subsidy as an expense incurred by the States was £3359000 for that year.

In 2016, the States had to pay CT Plus the sum of £4714465, an increase of £420465 or almost 10 % over 2015 !!!! However, revenues from fares have gone up, as the period is for 12 months, and, as we assume, there were almost 10 per cent more passengers, to £1103725, with 1653728 passengers carried but with an average fare per trip down to only 66.7 p !!! A drop in the average fare paid of almost 25 % !!! Now that is a shocker : but it strongly backs the claims that the increase in bus passenger figures in 2016 was down to more people travelling free !!

This should mean that the net subsidy for the States to bear during 2016 would be £3610740, and not £3690499, or £79959 less, as stated in the article above - why ?? Where is the difference ?? Anyway, this means that the subsidy has gone up by £331499 !!

Why ??

And all these calculations do not cover the cost of the school buses which is covered in this contract. It would be interesting to know the real cost of that - as well as a genuine clarification of the declining average fares paid and the increasing subsidy cost !!

Island Wide Voting

Alvin

What do you make of Traffic & Highways Director Karl Guille's quote in yesterday's Press concerning the P2 route ..

"The P2 is a community-based service,and does not aspire to be a commuter service",he said.

"This is reflected in the analysis of fare types,which shows that 75% of passengers - compared to 50% on other routes- are old age pensioners,students or parents travelling with small children"

The interesting part of that quote suggests that 50% of passengers on the normal routes do not pay any fare at all

Is this sustainable?

Donkey Boiler

Since the termination of the disastrous P1 service, Brehaut has refused to give details of the chronic waste of taxpayers' money on the little utilised P2. Maybe the idiot doesn't think this is taxpayers' money after all, and that it just 'will cost what it will cost'.

Devil's Advocate

"The interesting part of that quote suggests that 50% of passengers on the normal routes do not pay any fare at all

Is this sustainable?"

I'm guessing that these passengers don't have a viable alternative transport option - they can't drive because they're too young/old/disabled and can't get a lift or afford a taxi. I suspect providing parking and roadspace for 800,000 journeys' worth would cost the island more in providing parking and lost time due to traffic than running the buses.

Island Wide Voting

Good point DA

There will probably be more use made of the bus service when Baz gets around to removing most of the five hour slots around Town in favour of the residents .... a leftover from the YB era due to come into force in March / April I believe

RobB

DA

They may not be available to afford a taxi but the issue is that the cost of the P2 would probably be less if the taxpayer picked up the taxi fare for the little number of people that are using it!

Alvin

Sustainable, yes, because the States will keep on pumping more money into the bus service.

Sensible ? Obviously not.

Paul

So we give 4.7 million a year passenger subsidy ( receive a repayment depending on passenger receipts, paid when? Monthly, annually in arrears?) provide a further subsidy by buying the buses and presumably employ CS staff to administer the contract and payments. So what is the real annual cost of providing the bus service? Agreed there needs to be subsidy of some sort but are the States being hard on routes and frequency need, too many buses driving around empty.

Common sense

Despite the good intentions of the environment it is time to be realistic and cut the unused services and decrease the burden on the tax payer.

Dogwatch

I wish the bus drivers would take more care when turning tightly because they often seem oblivious to the fact that without care, the overhang at the rear of these monstrous buses can swing violently and dangerously across the adjoining or opposite lane - eg. near Town Church and Slaughter House.

As for Donkey Boiler's comment about the lack of information on costs of the P2 - "Maybe the idiot doesn't think this is taxpayers' money after all, and that it just 'will cost what it will cost". This is what is known as "mushroom management" - keep em in the dark and feed them on sh-t! Everyone should be used to that by now, just look at how we have all NOT been kept fully informed about refuse disposal non-strategy!

We could do a lot with £300,000,000 ++ build schools, hospitals, care of the aged and disabled, buy a decent ferry or even extend the runway!

Prospero

Dogwatch

Come to heel ! I'm not gonna bite. And make sure someone picks up after you !