Buses - Are We Jealous Sheffield?

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, cgksheff said:

Many times I have wondered why my Council Tax goes towards a system that has conductors that walk past me holding my money out (clearly visible).

If I recall correctly, the tram operator, Stagecoach takes the revenue risk, so it makes not a jot of difference to your taxes whether the conductor collects the fare or not.

[cgksheff]

8 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

If I recall correctly, the tram operator, Stagecoach takes the revenue risk, so it makes not a jot of difference to your taxes whether the conductor collects the fare or not.

Wow!

So Stagecoach have a deal with local and national government that means that fare collection is irrelevant?

[Planner1]

9 hours ago, cgksheff said:

Wow!

So Stagecoach have a deal with local and national government that means that fare collection is irrelevant?

No. Taking the revenue risk means that the operator takes the risk on whether or not the fare income covers their costs.

 

The operating contract they have for the supertram is a fixed cost that Stagecoach pay the PTE/MCA, so collecting fares or not only affects Stagecoach's income.

 

National government have no role n the operating contract for supertram. 

[Annie Bynnol]

15 hours ago, LovePotion said:

The Guards on Railways aren't authorised PF collectors, except for on South Eastern Railway.  These are the Supertram bylaws here :- https://www.stagecoachbus.com/supertram/supertram-by-laws

Extract from Stagecoach By laws: "9. If a person travelling on Supertram, on being required to do so by an Authorised Officer, fails to produce a Ticket or a general travel authority, they shall be liable if required by an Authorised Officer to pay a Penalty Fare of £10 or such other amount as may be prescribed by Order of the Secretary of State for Transport from time to time and may be liable to prosecution under the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1989."

Supertram fare evasion is not deterred by this. I am not even going to try and go into the myriad  of regulations rail, metro, underground, tram and bus operators have can invoke, suffice it to say that the railways have Criminal Law, tried and tested Civil Law and the legal enforcement manpower on their side- Supertram and the buses do not. Supertram is not able to call on the BTP and is not going to Court to force a £10 award in a civil case that will cost them hundreds to process.

 

On some railway routes a 'Guard' etc. can choose to issue a PFN if the passenger is willing to accept its conditions. TPE and other operators also have facilities to pay immediately online. Some trains have no guards or conductors and RPI's and some gate line staff guards and conductors are collectors. The point being that there very little deterrence on Supertram.

 

[Michael_N]

21 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

This used to be the case on the Tyne & wear Metro system where any incidents of overhead lines coming down were blamed on vandalism but in actual fact they were down to bad maintenance and they got found out and stopped. 

As an aside, the TW Metro have machines where you buy tickets and regular enforcement officers checking tickets and issuing heavy fines. I dont think any machines have been vandalised, or have they just worn that excuse out? 

A week to the day, another section of the overhead wires have fallen down again. This time at Beighton. 
 

Blue line services are currently terminating at Donetsk Way.

 

Surely heads should be rolling at both Supertram and SYPTE who own the infrastructure. Major questions also need to be raised as to whether the system is safe to travel on! 

[cgksheff]

8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

No. Taking the revenue risk means that the operator takes the risk on whether or not the fare income covers their costs.

 

The operating contract they have for the supertram is a fixed cost that Stagecoach pay the PTE/MCA, so collecting fares or not only affects Stagecoach's income.

 

National government have no role n the operating contract for supertram. 

Thanks for that.

So it would then appear that the contract that they have is lucrative enough to render fare evasion not worth trying to prevent.

.... and as such we tax payers are carrying the cost.

[Planner1]

14 hours ago, cgksheff said:

Thanks for that.

So it would then appear that the contract that they have is lucrative enough to render fare evasion not worth trying to prevent.

.... and as such we tax payers are carrying the cost.

I think you are jumping to unsustainable conclusions.

 

Stagecoach tendered and paid an amount of money to the PTE to be the operator.

 

Stagecoach keep the fare income and they carry the cost if they don’t protect their revenue. Doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything.

[cgksheff]

16 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I think you are jumping to unsustainable conclusions.

 

Stagecoach tendered and paid an amount of money to the PTE to be the operator.

 

Stagecoach keep the fare income and they carry the cost if they don’t protect their revenue. Doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything.

As you keep saying.

I will repeat ... It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Stagecoach got such a good deal that they consider revenue protection not worth pursuing with vigour.

i.e. We, the taxpayers, got less from them than we could have.

[Planner1]

29 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

As you keep saying.

I will repeat ... It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Stagecoach got such a good deal that they consider revenue protection not worth pursuing with vigour.

i.e. We, the taxpayers, got less from them than we could have.

Well, people on here who appear to know more about it than I do reckon Stagecoach are losing money on the Supertram operating contract and don't want to continue with it. So I rather doubt that they consider that they got a great deal.

 

If you read post #103, it appears that the available fines for fare evasion aren't a deterrent.

 

Not collecting fares isn't exclusive to Stagecoach on the tram, I've seen it plenty of times on trains. I'd suspect it's more to do with individuals who aren't particularly good at their job rather than any lack of corporate will to collect the money.

[Annie Bynnol]

9 hours ago, LovePotion said:

I agree and that's because the Penalties are rarely enforced . With the current system, they can only really sting people once they get off the tram. And they can't have officers at every tram stop. If they did buy before you board, they could have officers issuing penalties and doing interviews under caution ONBOARD instead of just selling the chancers a ticket. 

As no Criminal charges can be brought against a tram passenger for simple fare dodging there is no need to interview under caution. There are no 'Officers' who could do this and no laws that allow detention for interview.

Again on the railway the availability of Criminal law means that RPIs (with  BTP support usually) can detain people for interview if they are suspected of fare evasion. They then interview under caution and depending on their legal teams the matter is dealt with under Criminal or Civil Law, a warning or dismissed. 

 

Hoping that our trams or buses could have the same criminal laws as the railway is not going to happen as it would require Government legislation. This Government wants to de-criminalize most of the railway fare dodging laws.

Fraud could be investigated by the civil police- but that requires a far higher level of proof.

 

A regular "tickets and passes" check by pairs of employees( can't use private security firms) will deter a large percentage of the opportunistic non-payers -and yes it would make the ordinary passenger happier, but I doubt if it would be cost effective. A solution would be that fare checking and evasion control would be part of the next contract with the operator-from 2024.