What fare shall we charge, sonny?
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ARE THERE GOOD BUSINESS GROUNDS FOR CARRYING CHILDREN ON BUSES AT CONCESSIONARY RATES? FRANK BURRAVOE EXAMINES A VEXED QUESTION
HISTORY seems to be repeating itself. In road service fares, that is. Two 1968 appeal decisions of the Minister of Transport certainly create that impression. What is now apparently happening with children's fares looks like an encore of what happened earlier to workmen's concessionary fares.
Remember how stage carriage operators, faced with rising costs and the need for more revenue to balance them, conducted a threepronged series of sorties against that relic from tramcar days? Parliament had originally insisted that "artisans, mechanics and daily labourers" should enjoy this concession of a single fare for a double journey— a privilege later extended to cover workpeople generally (men and women).
One line of attack was directly on the rate; the second was on the hours during which the concession was available; and the third tackled the minimum charge. With tactical variations here and there, the strategy went something like this. Single fare rates for an outward and return journey were put up to single fare and a quarter. Then availability was cut down—the starting time being put back from 9.0 a.m. to 8.0 a.m. This would be coincident with or followed by a higher minimum. That would represent one round.
In succeeding rounds the rate would perhaps be put up to single fare plus a half, then plus three-quarters—or maybe double the single fare less a copper or two. Meanwhile the minimum charge would be progressively raised and times of availability further reduced. Finally the concession was abolished completely, both by company and municipal operators.
The process was so gradual that the beneficiaries scarcely noticed what they were losing. At least they rarely protested, well organized and sensitive to anything that touched their pockets though they were. Traffic Commissioners in all areas granted the many applications which the changes involved. The justification put forward was that the old grounds for the concession—low wages and very early morning travel at nonpeak times—had gone.
Is the same sort of process now going to be applied to children's fares? Apparently it is, at least among company operators. Notice what happened in the two appeals mentioned earlier. In the first one, the Borough of Lewes was aggrieved by a grant of the South Eastern Commissioners allowing higher chil
dren's fares (from one-half to threequarters of adult fares) to Southdown Motor Services Ltd. This grant was part of a decision estimated to produce a net increase in revenue of £117,000 in a full year. The second appeal, the decision on which came out only four days after the first, was by Chepstow UDC. It was against increased children's fares (one-half put up to roughly two-thirds of adult fares) granted to Red and White Services Ltd. in the South Wales and Western Traffic Areas. Here the estimated increase, in revenue for the company was £168,000, of which £44,000 would come from the scholars' and children's alterations.
ARGUMENTS FOR CHANGES
The arguments for the changes took these lines. Most children ride at peak, and hence expensive, times of operation. They now travel over longer distances. Relief buses often have to be put on for them. Much of the burden of higher fares would be borne, not by the children themselves (or their parents) but by local education authorities. Even after the increases, the concessionary element would still be considerable.
Contrary arguments ran thus: many schoolchildren do not qualify for free travel offered by education authorities; the increases were savage and totally unrealistic under the Government's prices and incomes policy, they flew in the face of national priorities; nationalized or monopolistic industries ought to take account of social obligations; it was wrong to single out children for such swingeing increases, which would create such resistance and recession of traffic; school buses carry capacity loads; when adult fares are ihcreased as well, a double burden falls on children.
During the appeal hearings, several other companies (among them Thames Valley Traction Co. Ltd., East Kent Road Car Co. Ltd. and Maidstone and District Motor Services Ltd., together with two big South Wales concerns) were mentioned as having already put up children's fares in much the same way. And following the recommendations of the two appeal inspectors, the Minister dismissed the appeals.
"It is not necessarily wrong in principle," his decision letter read, "to ask concessionary fare passengers to pay more, and whether he should or should not be asked to do so, given the necessity for additional revenue, depends upon the merits or demerits of such a step in comparison with those of possible alternatives."
Noting the argument that increased children's fares should have been avoided and ordinary fares increased in lieu, in par ticular on the ground that an increase in children's fares bore hardly on parents whose earnings were controlled under the prices and incomes policy, the Minister agreed with one of the appeal Inspectors that "an increase in ordinary fares also has an impact on low wage-earners and their families, and that either increase would be variable in its impact upon individual cases; this sort of comparison cannot therefore be conclusive" (Southdown). To tackle ordinary fares as an alternative would put more of an increase on the travelling public direct "as distinct from upon the local education authorities" (Red and White). But with customary caution, the Minister's letter added:
The Minister would not wish this decision to be interpreted as being in any
sense an expression of a general view as to the level at which a children's fares concession should be fixed; it appears to him that the level of chil dren's fares, as of other fares, is a matter to be decided on merits taking all relevant circumstances into account, including, as appropriate, detailed costings, and assessments of the value of a concession in retaining traffic.
The value of children's concessionary fares in retaining traffic is difficult to assess, not least because children are so often accompanied by adults. For that reason operators will have to watch closely what effect alterations in those fares have on overall revenue.
If there are good business grounds for carrying children (or, indeed, any other special classes of passenger) at conces sionary rates, Traffic Commissioners will no doubt have no hesitation in authorizing the concessions. But they may well begin to ask whether other passengers or operators should continue to bear the burden of concessions based solely on social grounds.
It may sound rather unsentimental to question long-standing concessions, but to do so is essential at a time when increases in ordinary fares on so many stage carriage services have just about reached the point of diminishing returns.
Cessation of services is a grim alternative to contemplate.