Concessionary Fares

Concessionary fares offer certain sections of the population the opportunity to travel on public transport at a reduced fare, which in some cases can mean free travel. The groups eligible for conces si onary fares differ between local authority areas and countries and are subject to varying levels of fare discount. In some countries conces si onary fares are legally binding upon public transport operators and public funding bodies ( UK - Transport Act, 2000). In other countries such schemes are voluntary and will differ between local authority areas.

The main objective of a concessionary scheme is to help overcome one of the key causes of social exclu si on namely low incomes. As such the overwhelming majority of conces si onary fares are applicable to the elderly, the disabl ed , those in full time ed ucation (under the age of 18) and those receiving social ben efit payments (e.g. the unemployed). By providing discount ed fares for these target ed groups it is hop ed that they will be able to afford public transport and so enjoy an improvement in their access to travel opportunities.

Public transport operators who allow passengers to travel at concessionary fares are reimbursed the difference between the normal fare and the discounted fare by either local authorities or the relevant transit authority. This can often cause disputes between the two sides because the number of passengers travelling on concessionary fares cannot always be calculated accurately. Many schemes rely on a pre-agreed formula based on surveys that sample bus users and the ticket types/fares they are travelling on. In an effort to overcome this a number of concessionary fare schemes in the UK (e.g. Hertfordshire council) have implemented a smart card pass that automatically records the numbers of concessionary fare passengers and the fares they pay.

Statistics however would appear to suggest that, among the elderly in the UK at least, affordability and access are becoming less of an issue. Between 1998 and 2000, 98% of pen si oners in Great Britain had some form of conces si onary fare available to them. The take up rate for such schemes was only 48%, a 12% fall from the 1989-1991 period when 60% of those schemes were ta ken up (CfIT, 2003). This reflects the upward trend in car use and driver licence holding that has been experienc ed amongst older people in recent years. Take up in areas was highest in London (81%) and lowest in rural areas (29%) where dependence on cars is higher and there are few bus services.

Adopting conces si onary fares may lead to an uptake in the usage of public transport however this increase is unlikely to lead to an increase in the current bus services and buses requirements to run the timetable. The majority of conces si onary journeys are underta ken during the off-peak (because of cost and the types of journeys underta ken by the elderly) and the majority of bus operators have plenty of spare capacity during this period to cater for any upturn in demand. If there was excess demand the choice of whether to increase the service is a deci si on, in the UK at least, for the bus operators to make. If such services were profitable then it is likely the operator would introduce them. The operator might even tailor the bus type to suit the elderly by introducing low floor buses to make boarding and alighting easier.

Description

Concessionary fares offer certain sections of the population the opportunity to travel on public transport at a reduced fares, which in some cases can mean free travel. The groups eligible for concessionary fares differ between local authority areas and are subject to varying levels of discount. In some countries concessionary fares are legally binding upon public transport operators and public funding bodies. In other countries such schemes are voluntary and will differ between local authority areas

The main objective of a concessionary scheme is to help overcome one of the key causes of social exclusion namely low incomes. As such the overwhelming majority of concessionary fares are applicable to the elderly, the disabled, the blind and young people. Some schemes also cover the unemployed but are in a minority. By providing discounted fares for these targeted groups it is hoped that they will be able to afford public transport and so experience an improvement in the equity of travel vis a vis other sections of society.

Public transport operators who allow passengers to travel at a discounted fare are reimbursed the difference between the normal fare and the discounted fare by local authorities or the relevant transit authority. This can often cause disputes between the two sides because the number of passengers travelling on concessionary fares cannot always be calculated accurately. Many schemes rely on pre-agreed formulas that are based on surveys that sample bus users and the ticket types/fares they are travelling on.

Terminology

The term "concessionary fare" refers to the discount ed fare applicable to a section of the population who tend to be associat ed with low incomes. "Concessionary scheme" refers to the rules governing who is eligible, what level of fare discount they are given and how bus operators are reimburs ed for accepting lower fares from those passengers who qualify for conces si onary fares.

Types of Concessionary Fare

A number of concessionary fare schemes must be implemented by law, an example of this is in the UK where the Transport Act 2000 implemented a statutory minimum 50% fare discount for local bus services for elderly and disabled people within England . In Scotland the same groups enjoy, as a minimum, free local bus travel for journeys not in the morning peak. In Wales concessionary travellers enjoy free bus travel anywhere in the country. The term elderly normally applies to those of nationally defined retirement age (60+ in the UK ), whilst there are several categories of disability that a person may come under (see http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/consult/cf/disabled for a description of all the categories).

The only other group who qualify for conces si onary fares by statutory right in the UK are students aged 16 and under living within three miles of their school who receive passes allowing them a discount ed fare when travelling to and from school on weekdays. In addition many local/transit authorities and operators operate conces si onary fares for students aged 17-18 who are in full time ed ucation. Some local/transit authorities and operators in the UK also offer concessionary fare for the unemploy ed or people receiving some type of state benefit, such as families on low incomes, e.g. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

In terms of implementation within the UK, concessionary fare schemes can be broadly split into two categories, a pass-based scheme and a token-based scheme. The former provides a pass to the user which entitles the bearer to reduced fare travel. With the latter the user purchases at a reduced rate (or is given) tokens in advance which can then be used towards meeting travel costs.

The pass-based scheme is the most popular in the UK with over 94% of local authorities operating a half fare concessionary fare scheme for the elderly, 90% for the disabled and 60% for blind people (DTLR, 2001). The rest of the local authorities offer either a flat fare or free travel scheme, whilst a very small number use the token system.

Variations in Charge

Whilst the Transport Act 2000 requires a minimum discount to be given to the elderly and the disabled, local governments and councils are allowed to increase this discount if they wish to (e.g. Scotland and Wales ) and also to extend it further to groups such as students and those on low incomes.

Technology

Individual passes and tokens are very easy to supply, with photo identification and low cost security devices needed (i.e. holograms, crests, watermarks). Smart Cards can be used to measure the levels of concessionary fares being used in an area. These are credit card sized swipe cards that are used with each concessionary fare transaction and recorded by readers at the depots. The data is stored here and can be used to provide source information. The examples below are those used in the Herts Smart Scheme (see Evidence on Performance), below left is the style of swipe card being used and on the right is the data recorder on the bus.

Figure 1 - SmartCard

Figure 2 - SmartCard Reader

Why introduce concessionary fares?

The main reason for introducing concessionary fares is to enable low income groups to have the same access to public transport as the rest of the population. As such concessionary fares are seen as a key element in tackling the problem of social exclusion. Concessionary fares within the UK must be implemented by law (Transport Act 2000) for the elderly and disabled . In addition concessions are frequently extended to other groups such as people under 18 years of age who are in full-time education.

The introduction of these concessionary fares has provided a large section of society with a realistic alternative to private transport. Any movement from private to public transport will help to decrease the congestion in focal areas, such as city centres, where it will also help to reduce the pollution being caused on the environment by gaseous emissions from exhausts and from noise pollution. Providing access to transport for those on low incomes will increase their opportunities to travel and allow them to access services and shops which previously were not available to them. Whilst this will have an intrinsic value in itself it will also provide very tangible benefits in the form of access to cheaper goods, cheaper services, education and employment.

Demand impacts

Concessionary fares can help to increase the usage of public transport, mainly buses, by reducing the generalised cost of public transport and so encouraging private transport users to change modes. Another important element to consider is the generation of addition trips particularly by those whose access to public transport was previously limited due to financial reasons. The Demand for Public Transport book (2004) estimated a generation factor of between 1.5-2.2 for schemes that offer free travel suggesting that between 150-220% additional journeys are being made as a direct result of offering free travel. For schemes offering half fare travel the generation factor is between 1.5 & 2.2, whilst for schemes that offer a flat fare the factor is between 1.2 & 1.9. This suggests that concessionary schemes are making transport more affordable for the groups it is targeting.

A study by Balcombe et al (1998) inferred concessionary fare elasticities of between -0.04 to -0.27, compared with full fare elasticities of between -0.27 and -1.03. This suggests that for many of the passengers travelling on concessionary fares the trips they are making are either essential and/or that bus is the only mode of transport they can afford/access. Statistics however would appear to suggest that, among the elderly at least, affordability and access are becoming less of an issue. Between 1998 and 2000, 98% of pensioners in Great Britain had some form of concessionary fare available to them. The take up rate for such schemes was only 48%, a 12% fall from the 1989-1991 period when 60% of those schemes were ta ken up (CfIT, 2003). This reflects the upward trend in car use and driver licence holding that has been experienced among older people in recent years. Take up in areas was highest in London (81%) and lowest in rural areas (29%) where dependence on cars is higher and there are few bus services.

Responses and situations
Response	Reduction in road traffic	Expected in situations
		Set off earlier/later to catch bus, befitting timetable.
		Bus routes may differ from the car route taken.
		May choose or be forced to travel to closer locations than they would have done with a car.
		Use public transport instead of own vehicle.
		Leave the car at home and catch the cheaper public transport.
		Pensioners and disabled may benefit from cheaper travel enough to sell unneeded car.
		-

	= Weakest possible response		= Strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response		= Strongest possible negative response
	= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Amongst the elderly, growth in concessionary fare travel by bus is likely to see an increase from the first year they qualify. This will be a result of reduced income and savings and becoming more comfortable with public transport as their experience increases. However as they become older a reduction in mobility is likely to see travel tail off.

Demand responses
Response	-	1st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years
	Earlier/later to fit timetable
	-
	Shop elsewhere
	-
	Public transport
	Elderly may have no need for own car anymore
	-

	= Weakest possible response		= Strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response		= Strongest possible negative response
	= No response

Supply Impacts

Adopting conces si onary fares may lead to an uptake in the usage of public transport however this increase is unlikely to lead to an increase in the current bus services and buses requirements to run the timetable. The majority of concessionary journeys are undertaken during the off-peak (because of cost and the types of journeys undertaken by the elderly) and the majority of bus operators have plenty of spare capacity during this period to cater for any upturn in demand. If there was excess demand the choice of whether to increase the service is a decision for the bus operators, in the UK at least, to make. If such services would be profitable then it is likely the operator would introduce them. The operator might even tailor the bus type to suit the elderly by introducing low floor buses to make boarding and alighting easier

Financing Requirements

The cost of implementing concessionary fares is difficult to estimate as is it likely to vary from location to location. It would be fair to say, however, that the initial set up costs would be low with little advertising needed, and the production and distribution of passes quick and cheap.

By far the biggest costs are those associated with running a conces si onary fares scheme, in particular the reimbursement of operators. This can be a contentious issue in some areas since without "smart card" technology it can sometimes be difficult to agree upon how many concessionary trips have been undertaken and at what fare. The usual method is to derive a formula based upon passenger surveys, but the final settlement can still come down to some hard bargaining from both sides.

If the concessionary fares system is a success then more frequent buses will be needed , however any such measures will, in the UK at least, only be implemented if they are self-financing. Elsewhere the bus operator may well have to increase the bus supply to meet any additional demand. They may also be forced to introduce suitable vehicles (e.g. low floor) to cater for the type of passenger who might generate the excess demand again adding to costs.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

The main objective of concessionary fares is to overcome social boundaries and provide equal opportunities to all. This allows people to access a wider range of goods and services and employment opportunities which might improve economic growth. A side effect of concessionary fares is to decrease the private transport usage in an area which in turn helps to reduce noise and exhaust pollution from having a fewer number of cars on the road.

Contribution to objectives
Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		Reduces delays and improves reliability.
		Less traffic dangers.
		Reduction in traffic.
		Increases the opportunity to travel.
		Fewer accidents.
		Allows more people easier travel, freeing up their time for more productive activities.
		Expensive scheme to maintain.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution		= Strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= Strongest possible negative contribution
	= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Concessionary fares could reduce car use in the area, and hence reduce congestion, unreliability, environmental impact and accidents.

When considering the problem of social exclusion, the implementation of concessionary fares will assist by allowing those who are receiving the concession to be given a more equal chance of access via public transport. This will aid them in pursuing what they want, i.e. to get a job in a previously inaccessible area, or go shopping in different locations.

Contribution to alleviation of key problems
Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion
Community impacts
Environmental damage
Poor accessibility
Social and geographical disadvantage
Accidents
Economic growth

	= Weakest possible positive contribution		= Strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= Strongest possible negative contribution
	= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

Winners from concessionary fares would be those who qualify for the concession. Car owners may also benefit from reduced congestion and delays. Retailers and employers might also expect to benefit from an increase in shopping and a larger available workforce. Taxpayers lose out because they have to finance the concessionary schemes.

Winners and losers
Group	Winners/Losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic		Possible reduction in congestion.
Small businesses		Possibly more shoppers.
High income car-users		Possible reduction in congestion.
People with a low income		Increases access to transport and widens the range of goods and services available to people.
People with poor physical access to public transport		-
All existing public transport users		Possible overcrowding and an increase in journey time (increase in boarding alighting time).
People living adjacent to the area targeted		-
People making high value, important journeys		-
The average car user		Possible reduction in congestion.

	= Weakest possible benefit		= Strongest possible positive benefit
	= Weakest possible negative benefit		= Strongest possible negative benefit
	= Neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

Scale of barriers
Barrier	Scale	Comment
Legal		No legal constraints.
Finance		May require significant subsidy.
Governance		Requires coordination between cities and operators; can be complex where many operators involved.
Political acceptability		Some concern over the costs of subsidy.
Public and stakeholder acceptability		Likely to be welcomed, though depends on who receives concessions.
Technical feasibility		Some modifications to fares systems needed.

= Minimal barrier

= Most significant barrier

Case Study 1: Herts Smart Scheme

In 1990 on behalf of the 10 district councils of Hertfordshire, England, the County Council administered the Herts Smart Scheme, beginning with concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled. Appeals by the four major bus companies in Hertfordshire to the Minister for Transport ended with them being reimbursed for the concessionary fares scheme.

Due to the fact that the operators should not be any worse off from the scheme, it is difficult to establish a method for reimbursement. In the end, the Minister for Transport found in favour of the operators, who said they were under paid and worse off because of the new scheme, and introduced a level of reimbursement that neither operators nor authorities were happy with .

To overcome this problem the operators and local authorities opted to introduce a Smart Card. The Smart Card would be used to record the level of travel being made on concessionary fares, allowing the reimbursement to be calculated accurately. This system satisfied both operators and Councils.

In 1997 a partnership was formed between Hertfordshire County Council, PCL and Arriva.Smart. Smart card readers were placed on a fleet of Arriva buses, serving the West Hertfordshire region, and their readers at the depot were upgraded.

The first Smart Concessionary Cards on offer were SaverCards. These were issued in December 1997 to over 3,000 school pupils in over 20 secondary schools and entitled them to concessionary travel to school in the Three Rivers District, Watford and Welwyn Hatfield. In April 1998 over 4,500 elderly and disabled people were issued with SaverCards, allowing them half fare travel in the same areas.

The initial plan was to run this pilot scheme for 18 months, but it was evident that there was huge potential for the scheme and it even received two national awards, The Institute of Transport Management Award for Excellence, awarded by the transport industry for the scheme's contribution to advancing the industry's technical standards, was awarded to the Herts Smart Scheme in February 1999, and The Society of Council IT managers (SOCATIM) gave the Herts Smart Scheme their Local Government IT excellence award in 1998. The scheme proved that by using the Smart Cards accurate levels of reimbursement could be calculated to run a successful system. The Council have continued to expand the scheme since 1999, to try and include other major operators in Hertfordshire.

The Integrated Transport SmartCard Organisation (ITSO) was set up by the Public Transport Executives of areas such as Manchester, London and Birmingham with a view to utilising the potential of Smart Cards. To do this they invited the Hertfordshire County Council to join them and to ensure that all the transport smart cards were compatible on all members' systems i.e. using a Herts Smart Scheme Card will allow travel throughout the country. This would ease travel over several member administrative boundaries with the use of just one card.

The Hertfordshire Council has now expanded its scheme to include many different concessions such as the Scholars Entitled Smart Card , Smart SaverCard , North Herts College Card , Elderly & Disabled Cards , the "Travel to Work" Card and the School Meals/Travel Combination Card .

Case Study 2: Tyne and Wear

A before and after study of actual travel patterns and public transport use took place in the Tyne and Wear region in the 90's (Balcombe & Astrop, 1995). Tyne and Wear is a large conurbation in the north-east of England and has an extensive bus, Metro and rail network. In 1990, the before study, there was a reconstructive interview designed to elicit from people how their use of public transport might have been different under various fare regimes. This involved hypothetical questions applied to real journeys. For each regime, the fares for every journey, over a seven-day trial, were calculated, and people were asked which, if any of them they would have foregone had they been required to pay these fares.

The fare regimes used in the reconstructive interviews are listed below:

A - Flat fare (10p single fare, 15p transfare - which allows transfers between public transport modes)

B - Half fare adults

C - Full adult fares, which, for most operators, approximated to those indicated by the graduated fare scale shown in the table below:

Table 8 - 1990 Journey Fares

Journey Length (km)	Fare (p)	Journey Length (km)	Fare (p)
0 to 1	22-25	5 to 10	65-67
1 to 2	25-28	10 to 15	80
2 to 3	35-37	15 to 20	95-96
3 to 4	40-46	Over 20	110
4 to 5	50-57

Source: Balcombe & Astrop (1995)

The after survey took place in March/April 1993, allowing for a one year adjustment to the travel patterns. The study design was very much like its predecessor to ensure compatibility with the necessary changes made. Results were collected by use of travel diaries, and those completing the diaries were invited to take part in reconstructive interviews.

The fare regimes used in the 1993 reconstructive interviews are listed below:

A - 3-step fare scale (low):
- 15 p for journeys up to 5km
- 20p for journeys between 5km and 10km
- 30p for journeys over 10km
B - Flat Fare:
- 20p single fare
- 25p transfare
C - 3-step fare scale (high):
- 20 p for journeys up to 5km
- 30p for journeys between 5km and 10km
- 50p for journeys over 10km
D - Half adult fares
E - Full adult fares which, for most operators, approximated to those in the table below:

Journey Length (km)	Fare (p)	Journey Length (km)	Fare (p)
0 to 1	25	5 to 10	78-80
1 to 2	30-35	10 to 15	90-95
2 to 3	40-43	15 to 20	108-115
3 to 4	50-53	Over 20	110-130
4 to 5	60-67

Source: Balcombe & Astrop (1995)

Journey purpose	1990	1993	Change (%)
Shopping	4.16	3.29	-20.9
Visiting	1.48	1.04	-29.7
Personal business	0.72	0.63	-12.0
Leisure	0.68	0.51	-25.3
Work or education	0.27	0.17	-36.6
Other/not stated	0.41	0.10	-74.8
All purposes	7.71	5.74	-25.5

Source: Balcombe & Astrop (1995)

Greater analysis for these results can be found in the "Responses to Concessionary Fare Changes in Tyne and Wear" by R J Balcombe and A J Astrop (1995).

The results showed that when the distribution of trip rates are plotted on a cumulative basis, there is a visible shift towards less frequent trip making following the removal of free concessions. Pass holders making no transport trips in the survey week rose from 15.6% to 19.0%. 51% of people made at least five trips in 1993 but in 1990 there were 55% making at least seven trips a week. The shift, measured in trips per week, was substantially greater for more frequent travellers, who would have been most affected financially by the introduction of fares, but smaller for less frequent travellers. There appears to be a stronger tendency in 1993 to follow outward with return trips.

Results suggest that when a reduced fare is imposed instead of free travel, people's use of public transport was inhibited for essential purposes less than those for optional trips. There was very little difference in trip lengths between the two years. Multi-stage journeys rose from 7% in 1990 to almost 9% in 1993.

The conclusions reached were that the research resulted in a higher estimate of the generation factor (comparing free and full fare travel) for elderly people than any other study. The value estimated for Tyne and Wear was 104% ± 20%, which is substantially more than the previous highest of 83% by Hopkin (1986). This could be due to Tyne and Wear representing the extreme end of the type of places and conditions included in Hopkin's study.

Consideration may need to be taken upon the affect of outside factors during the study other than that of introducing concessionary fares. One of these factors is that of inflation, that the 1993 values should be adjusted to 1990 prices when making forecasts.

Impacts on demand

The impact on demand depends upon the initial take up of a concessionary scheme, the amount of discount on offer, the cost of the concessionary pass and the current levels of public transport fares. In the UK the uptake of concessionary schemes varies by area and type of scheme on offer. The National Travel Survey 1999/2001 update gave an average take-up of 49% in Great Britain as a whole and in the London Boroughs 79% (DfT, 2002). The number of trips per pass holder also varies by scheme type, with for example higher trip rates for schemes which charge for passes than for passes which are free. This is because travellers are only likely to pay for a pass if they can be sure they will recoup the cost in full.

Evidence on the trip generation associated with concessionary schemes taken from Balcombe et al. (1998) has been presented earlier. As part of the same study additional data from four areas who hadn't implemented changes to their concessionary schemes was added and used to identify underlying trend in demand. The fare elasticities from the resultant models inferred fare elasticities that ranged from -0.04 to -0.27 for concessionary fares and which compared to full fare elasticities ranging from -0.27 to -1.03.

An early publication (Carulo & Roess, 1974) described 90 schemes offering reduced fares for senior citizens (old age pensioners), 54 of which furnished information on ridership and revenue and the success of the schemes was limited. Reduced fares often had little or no effect on the number of elderly passengers in 16 of the cases and in a further 2 saw ridership growth of less than 10%. The success in the other cases was hampered by the fact that the relationship was inelastic and that the reductions in fares actually led to a loss of revenue for the bus services.

When London implemented free off-peak travel to pensioners (Fairhurst, 1996), it saw an increase in patronage of between 10% and 50% depending upon economic status and sex (Table 11). This shows a very high elasticity but as you would expect produces no revenue at all and so decreases total revenue. This large increase is due to the fact that retired people have very little to spend on transport but do have plenty of spare time to take advantage of this offer.

Estimates of the Percentage Increase in the Number of Trips as a Result of the Free Scheme in London for Buses

	Male	Female
Non-economically Active	45%	50%
Economically Active	10%	10%

Source: Fairhurst (1996)

A before and after study for South Yorkshire PTE (SDG, 1991) examined the effect of an increase in the concessionary flat fare from 10p to 20p. The study found a 13% reduction in demand by pass holders, with shopping trips in particular being badly effected, reducing by 21%.

In summary, it seems that fare reductions for the elderly will not generate enough extra demand to outweigh the loss in revenue because of the inelastic nature of demand. Therefore it can be considered that this is not a wise policy to implement if the objective is to improve the financial position of the transit, unless the peak demand can be reduced to such an extent that cost saving are made. But if the objective is to provide a welfare service with little regard for the effect on revenue it can be considered to be effective.

Contribution to objectives

Economic efficiency is slightly improved by a reduction in congestion and by allowing people to access a wider range of goods, services and employment opportunities than before.

The reduction in traffic and so congestion and environmental externalities will help to make cities and neighbourhoods slightly more liveable.

The main objective of this policy is to allow for equity and social inclusion. This is done by targeting concessionary fare schemes at those who require them most. These concessions will improve the equality of travel opportunities and give people receiving them a greater opportunity to travel, shop, find jobs, visit family and friends etc.

Safety will be increased on two counts. One will be the reduction in traffic which will reduce the number of cars on the roads and so help to decrease the number of accidents that occur. The other area will be that people will be able to use public transport more often which is a safer form of travel than walking especially for senior citizens alone late at night.

Economic growth in the area may experience a sight increase due to the chance for the people who have received the concession to get new jobs and increase their shopping. If there is a large increase in patronage on public transport, the area will benefit from having more jobs available i.e. on the buses.

The success of a concessionary scheme will depend upon the number of people eligible for concession in a particularly area and more crucially if there is the demand for it which is a product of the attractiveness of existing transport services and destinations and the access they have to private transport. Large cities with good public transport services are most likely to see the highest patronage growth of all areas, since there will more attractive destinations and as importantly a public transport network to access them.

Contribution to objectives
Objective	Herts Smart Scheme	Tyne & Wear

	= Weakest possible positive contribution		= Strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= Strongest possible negative contribution
	= No contribution

Contribution to problems

In the absence of empirical evidence the table from first principles is repeated here.

Contribution to alleviation of key problems
Problem	Herts Smart Scheme	Tyne & Wear
Congestion-related delay
Congestion-related unreliability
Community severance
Visual intrusion
Lack of amenity
Global warming
Local air pollution
Noise
Reduction of green space
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups
Number, severity and risk of accidents
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area

	= Weakest possible positive contribution		= Strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= Strongest possible negative contribution
	= No contribution

Adverse side effects

Appropriate area-types
Area type	Suitability
City centre
Dense inner suburb
Medium density outer suburb
Less dense outer suburb
District centre
Corridor
Small town
Tourist town

= Least suitable area type

= Most suitable area type

http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/consult/cf/disabled/ (Accessed 13 th February 2003)

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/Transport/buspasses/default.html (Accessed 13 th February 2003)

http://www.transportconnect.com/konsult/index.html (Accessed 10 th April 2003)

enquire.hertscc.gov.uk/smart/history.htm (Accessed 10 th April 2003)

Balcombe, R. & Astrop, A. (1995) "Responses to concessionary fare changes in Tyne and Wear". TRL, Crowthorne, 166

Balcombe, R., Astrop, A., & Hill, E. (1998) "Concessionary fares: trip generation among elderly passengers". TRL, Crowthorne, 366.

Carulo, J.R. and Roess, R.P. (1974) "The Effect of Fare Reductions on Public Transit Ridership". Polytechnic Institute of Transportation Planning and Engineering, Brooklyn, N.Y.

CFIT (2003) "Public Subsidy for the Bus Industry: Concessionary Fares". Note for the CfIT July Plenary 2003. Available at http://www.cfit.gov.uk/foi/0307cfitp1.htm .

Department for Transport (2002) "Transport Statistics Bulletin " National Travel Survey: 1999/2001 Update". SB 02 (22). July 2002. London: Department for Transport, Transport Statistics.

DTLR (2001) " Concessionary bus fare schemes England: 2001". Transport Statistics Bulletin. DTLR, London.

Fairhurst, M. (1996) "Trip Making and the London Concessionary Travel Scheme: an Indicative Analysis Based on the LATS Household Survey". London Transport Marketing (unpublished draft).

Grayling, A. (2001) " Any More Fares? Delivering better bus services" . London IPPR.

Hopkin, J. (1986) " Concessionary Fares and Pensioners' travel patterns: an analysis based on the 1978/9 National Travel Survey". TRRL, Crowthorne, Research Report 69.

Transport Act 2000.

Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1980) "The Demand for Public Transport, Transport and Road".

Transport and Road Research Laboratory (2004) "The Demand for Public Transport, Transport and Road".

West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and Executive (1987) "West Yorkshire Concessionary Travel Scheme".