Park and ride prices in Bath to rise from next month

“If First are to keep getting greedy maybe more investment in bus lanes should be made BUT with a view to bringing them in line with some American cities and out-of-town freeways where they have shared bus/carshare lanes. We have seen them in operation in Vancouver

https://vancouver.ride-share.com/en/my/mytext.php?section=hov

and on Oahu

http://tinyurl.com/cqzklx6

and they are very, very efficient - the zipper machine creates an extra lane in the commute direction when needed thus taking away the need for road building. Not that there would be room for that on Bath's roads but letting car share drivers use the bus lane would encourage more people to get together. Taxis are allowed to use them and yet there is often just the driver and one passenger on board - not really any kind of environmentally friendly transport as the taxi does double mileage having first to travel to the passenger's house. And yet people in their own cars with two or three occupants are "nasty, smelly and selfish"!! If people haven't been encouraged onto the buses so far I think it is safe to say that raising the prices will not do the trick. The only people I know who use it are pensioners who can do so for free.”

“What next for B&NES? Contracting out blood banks to Dracula? The sheer stupidity of the privatised UK transport system defies all logic, and as for anybody stupid enough to hand control to First with few controls!!!!”

“@council_spoke: that is helpful, but I wonder if you could clarify the first point. If First are permitted to 'increase fares' by a certain percentage, is that an increase for each tariff relative to the same tariff at the start of the contract? Or is it an overall increase in revenue divided by passenger numbers? Or something else?

I ask because the First Week and First Month schemes - which would be pretty pointless for all but a tiny minority of very-dedicated bus users - look suspiciously like some kind of fudge.”

“"....http://tinyurl.com/cy8x6ez or null"

Or http://tinyurl.com/d8egkam”

“Re Council Spoke comments

1. That'll be in line with the self reported bus industry inflation in costs which seems to outstrip anything in the real world since its pretty certain their drivers (a major element of their cost base) hasn't risen by 11.8% in 31 months. In any event if the contract started 11 months ago the relevant time period for an increase is 11 months not some arbitrary figure from when they last raised the costs!

2. £577 per site per day doesn't seem much. Far from extra capacity on half marathon being a cost, what actually happens is they wheel out some life expired fully depreciated wreck so subject to costs of driver and fuel, its quids in all the way! Similarly P&R expansion was known about when the contract was let in 2012 so will be factored into their tender - another non benefit!

3. That'll be the risk that they only make a killing rather than absolute slaughter! Presumably there are penalties built in so that when the service fails due to breakdowns of unreliable kit they (rather than the commuter) suffers - nope thought not!

4. Pardon us for not all turning up to the Cabinet meeting - and in any event - http://tinyurl.com/d7j89a5 makes it clear that even if we had turned up, we'd have been thrown out at this point and the details of the contracts were embargoed. Oops! Do you want to run that point again!”

“What's lacking here are incentives. How about:

* P&R having a per car rate
* Letting others use P&R as well if their journey begins or ends at termini
* Upgrading 'normal' service buses so they are *far better* than P&R ones
* Running buses at a frequency that reflects city operation, not a rural market town
* Letting people with extensive experience handle mass transportation. I recommend - http://tinyurl.com/cy8x6ez or null”

“Cost of using P & R for 4 tourists in one vehicle:

Winchester = £3 (£2.50 after 10 a.m.)

Salisbury = £3.50

Bath = £12.80

PS. As I write this, the Chronicle news-ticker says "Bath goes on tourism charm offensive". So B&NES are doing comedy as well, it would appear....”

“The current contract was awarded in March 2012. The key issues raised in the comments below are as follows:

1. Control over fares was not entirely handed over to First. The contract states that the operator may increase fares, but only annually, in line with inflation in bus industry costs. Fares have been held since September 2010 despite cost increases in the intervening period. An increase of 11.8% would be needed to cover the increases in bus industry costs over those 31 months and the increase proposed by First is well within that;

2. The local taxpayer purse still receives a substantial sum of money - £632,843 per annum at September 2012 prices – by giving access to the P&R sites and that is indexed annually in line with inflation. However, the local taxpayer does not have to shoulder the cost for the additional bus capacity required as a result of the Park & Ride site expansions, nor the extra capacity during Christmas or for special events, like the Bath Half-Marathon. Under the previous arrangement, the local taxpayer would have paid those costs;

3. The revenue risk of running the service now lies with First (not the local taxpayer) who have already responded to the challenge of growing customers by extending the range of tickets available on Park & Ride services to include their range of season tickets;

4. There was open, public discussion about the new contract at the Cabinet Meeting on 14 March 2012. The report paper containing full details of the contract and minutes are available here: http://tinyurl.com/dxm9sn8”

“SO our money pays for the park and ride site to be built, extended and presumably any business rates as it is a business.
More cars and therefore more passengers are expected to use the expanded facilities meaning more income for the bus company.
And the fares rise because the council contract allows First to control fares.
Time to review the contract and for the council project manager to explain to everyone why such a clause was included. The risks appear to be far too great and have now become an issue.
Sounds like Cllr Symonds back has been scratched by First.”

“The one (and only place) where the council can exert some control over bus fares, and lamely rolls over and hands it over to First. I'm almost shocked at the utter stupidity of this.

Not only does cheap P&R encourage travel, but it also acts as something of a brake on other bus fares because previously if they got too far out of balance people would start walking or driving to the P&R sites to get the cheaper P&R bus. Now First have got the control they want, they can start to incrementally close the gap between the two and not only raise revenues on P&R services but also protect their daylight robbery on other services.

Every time we discuss bus fares on here, its clear that some form of control of fares by council could make a difference in transferring people from cars to buses, and the one chance we have to put that in action and some dunderhead blows it. Perhaps Cllr Symonds might like to emerge from his cosy meetings with First big wigs (which they all seem to emerge from very happy if their Twitter comments are anything to go by) and explain what on earth he is playing at here. Sadly its now too late - we are stuck with this until the next contract review.”