Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): ninth amendment. Subsidised Annual Bus Pass.

STATES OF JERSEY

PROPOSED GOVERNMENT PLAN 2024-

2027 (P.72/2023): NINTH AMENDMENT

SUBSIDISED ANNUAL BUS PASSES

Lodged au Greffe on 21st November 2023 by Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central

STATES GREFFE

2023  P.72 Amd.(9)

PROPOSED GOVERNMENT PLAN 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): NINTH AMENDMENT

____________

1  PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (1) –

After the words "Appendix 3 to the Report" insert the words –

", except that, on page 91, after the words "previously agreed increases in fuel

duty." should be inserted the words "£1,000,000 of the funding allocated from

the Climate Emergency fund to the 2022-2025 Carbon Neutral Roadmap budget

will be moved from the TR1 Policy subsidising electric vehicles and e-bikes to

finance a trial scheme to subsidise Avanchicard Annual Unlimited bus passes, by –

1. covering £295 of the total cost of £495 per annual bus pass; and
2. offering these subsidised bus passes to the public in tranches of 1,000;

such trial to commence on 1st January 2024 and to be reviewed after 6 months to assess the extent of uptake".

DEPUTY R.J. WARD OF ST. HELIER CENTRAL

Note:  After this amendment, the proposition would read as follows –

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to receive the Government Plan 2024 – 2027 specified in Article 9(1) of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019 ("the Law") and specifically –

1. to approve the estimate of total States income to be paid into the Consolidated Fund in 2024 as set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 1 to the Report, which is inclusive of the proposed taxation and impôts duties changes outlined in the Government Plan, in line with Article 9(2)(a) of the Law;
2. to refer to their Act dated 30th September 2016 and to approve the application of existing resources for work on the development of user pays' charges in relation to all aspects of waste, including commercial and domestic liquid and solid waste;
3. to approve the proposed Changes to Approval for financing/borrowing for 2024, as shown in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 2 to the Report, which may be obtained by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as and when required, in line with Article 9 (2)(c) of the Law, of up to those revised approvals;
4. to approve the extension of the use of the existing Revolving Credit Facility to include the provision of funds that would otherwise be implemented through bank overdraft or bank overdraft facilities under Article 26 (1)(a) of the Law, should  they  be  needed,  subject  to  the  limits  outlined  in  that  article;

5. to approve the transfers from one States fund to another for 2024 of up to and including the amounts set in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 3 in line with Article 9(2)(b) of the Law;
6. to approve a transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Stabilisation Fund in 2024 of up to £25 million, subject to a decision of the Minister for Treasury and Resources based on the availability of funds in the Consolidated Fund as at 31 December 2023 in excess of the estimates provided in this plan, or from budgeted underspends identified before 31 December 2024;
7. to approve each major project that is to be started or continued in 2024 and the total cost of each such project and any amendments to the proposed total cost of a major project under a previously approved Government Plan, in line with Article 9(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Law and as set out in Appendix 2 - Summary Table 4 to the Report;
8. to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for 2024, for each Head of Expenditure, being gross expenditure less estimated income (if any), in line with Articles 9(2)(g), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Law, and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Tables 5(i) and (ii) of the Report;
9. to  approve  the  estimated  income,  being  estimated  gross  income  less expenditure, that each States trading operation will pay into its trading fund in 2024 in line with Article 9(2)(h) of the Law and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 6 to the Report;
10. to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from each States trading operation's trading fund for 2024 for each head of expenditure in line with Article 9(2)(i) of the Law and set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 7 to the Report;
11. to approve the estimated income and expenditure proposals for the Climate Emergency Fund for 2024 as set out in Appendix 2 – Summary Table 8 to the Report; and
12. to approve, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Law, the Government Plan 2024-2027, as set out at Appendix 3 to the Report, except that, on Page 91, after the words "previously agreed increases in fuel duty." should be inserted thewords "£1,000,000 of the funding allocated from the Climate Emergency fundto the 2022-2025 Carbon Neutral Roadmap budget will be moved from the TR1 Policy subsidising electric vehicles and e-bikes to finance a trial scheme tosubsidise Avanchicard Annual Unlimited bus passes, by –

1. covering £295 of the total cost of £495 per annual bus pass; and
2. offering these subsidised bus passes to the public in tranches of 1,000;

such trial to commence on 1st January 2024 and to be reviewed after 6 months to assess the extent of uptake".

REPORT

Summary

This amendment addresses the process of redirecting monies from the subsidy of electric cars to a wider audience of public transport users in Jersey.

A key factor in reducing road traffic is an increase in the use of Jersey's bus service as the  go-to  means  of  transport  for  most  commuters  and  those  traveling  in  Jersey. Travelling around St Helier, or short journeys around the island, this move to bus travel is particularly important.

Background

There currently exits a yearly bus pass that costs £495, so the infrastructure to administer and issue these passes is in place. I am unable to state how many passes exists due to a lack of information from the department (see WQ 411/2023).

This subsidy will not affect the income of the bus company as they will still receive the same amount of money for the yearly pass. It may, however, promote bus usage. Increasing the number of people using the service and the frequency of routes should be part of any Key Performance Indicator for any bus contract. Supporting wider use of the service can assist in this area.

There is indirect evidence of the success of providing subsidies for passes in the popularity of the Avanchi 18 pass, which currently stands at 5954 in circulation (WQ 436/2023). The phased approach of 1000 passes at a time means an effective allocation of funds to demand.

Conclusion

The subsidy in this amendment would reduce the cost of a yearly pass to £200, or 54p per day. This is an attractive offer and could encourage many more people to buy and use this pass.

The amendment suggests tranches of 1000 passes. The mechanism by which this could be managed has been left to the discretion of the Minister or the bus company, however, I would suggest a first come basis. Should this be successful further tranches of passes could be sold with this Amendment budgeting for 3000 passes in total.

There are a number of benefits to this scheme:

1. Encouraging the frequent use of buses with a yearly pass will move people out of cars and onto buses, reducing traffic congestion;
2. Fewer cars encourage walking and cycling and if this scheme is successful, in conjunction with a wider and more frequent service from any new bus provider, money put aside for active travel in the Carbon Neutral Roadmap can be used more effectively;
3. The  bus  fleet  already  uses  biofuels  which  are  less  polluting  in  terms  of particulates in the air so any increase in usage and commensurate decrease in cars would improve air quality;

4. Encouraging and incentivising public transport as go-to means of travel, so increasing usage, leads to an appetite for increased investment in buses in the future;
5. This scheme, in combination with the already existing Avanchi 18 scheme, enables families to change the way they travel, giving them access low-cost transport across Jersey. This may be particularly important if edge of town parks are developed as suggested by the constable of St Helier;
6. Even if people only use the pass once or twice a week, this still has an impact on the number of car journeys undertaken;
7. The annual pass would cover the town hopper, which could increase its use. The current fare structure for the hopper service is an obstacle for frequent use for those without some form of prep pay pass that includes this fare;
8. People are more likely to use the bus for short journeys, leaving the car at home and thus reducing traffic and time spent searching for a parking space;
9. This scheme will provide guaranteed income for any bus provider and certainty of travel patterns due to the ability to track usage with a pass of this type;
10. The opportunities for people to stay in town after work, or travel into town in the evening, are increased with this scheme so they can shop or socialise with friends without having to worry about driving or parking, potentially benefiting the night-time economy of St Helier and beyond.

Financial and staffing implications

The pass will cost £295,000 per thousand passes so re-allocating £1,000,000 from the EV car subsidy into this scheme funds 3000 passes. Funds remain in the EV allocation so a comparison of the effectiveness of the two schemes on traffic levels can be made.

Each 1000 passes would raise £495,000 for the bus provider. This can help with planning for services and extension of the routes provided due to certainty of income.

I note that should this scheme be successful and produced effective change in habits, it remains an option for government to increase funding should they wish.

Appendix

Here are some examples of other schemes used to subsidise travel and some research into impact. This is an interesting context for change.

France

Article L.3261-2 of the French Labour Code requires employers to cover part of the cost of season tickets subscribed by their employees for travel on public transportation systems  between their habitual residence and place of work, regardless of where they may live.

Employers must pay for 50% of the cost of their employees' travel tickets, even if they live far from where they work - Lexology

Example  of  an  employer  providing  subsidised/free  public  transport  for employees:

University of Exeter

The  University  has  partnered  with  Stagecoach  to  offer  staff  working  at  the Streatham and St Luke's Campuses discounted travel passes.

There is a free minibus service from Exeter St David's railway station to Streatham Campus for staff and students. The minibus service also includes the St Luke's campus and Veysey building at certain time of the day.

• For staff in Cornwall, First Bus operates a number of frequent service bus routes  linking  major  towns  in  Cornwall.  Staff  are  able  to  receive subsidised  bus  transport  with  First  Bus  using  a  zoning  system.  A discounted  travel  pass  to  travel  at  any  time  within  Cornwall  is  also available.

Travel  |  Benefits,  rewards  and  recognition  |  University  of  Exeter,  accessed 13/10/2023

Impact

A suite of activities were associated with the University of Exeter's Sustainable Travel Plan 2016-2020 including:

• Encouraging cycling

• Supporting car sharing

• Subsidised bus services

"Patronage on both the University-subsidised D bus service and the University - funded shuttle bus from St David's Railway Station to our Exeter campuses continues to grow year-on-year for both staff and student passenger journeys."

Staff and Student Travel - Sustainability - University of Exeter (from Annual report 2016/17), accessed 17/10/2023

"Overall, the university's GHG emissions from travel have reduced by 48% since the 2018/19 baseline."

2021_22_Year_End_Report.pdf (exeter.ac.uk), p. 8, accessed 17/10/2023

Employer subsidized public transit pass: Assessing disparities in access, use, and latent demand

Abstract

In 1999, the U.S. Transportation Equity Act enabled employer subsidized public transit  passes  to  be  tax  free  benefits  to  employees  and  tax  deductible  to employers. Public transit agencies can use these to increase ridership, revenue or efficiency. Assessing disparities in access, use and willingness to use the incentive can help improve the policy's effectiveness and help promote equitable access to its benefits.

The analysis uses employed respondents from a travel survey in Atlanta, Georgia (2001–2002,  n = 3430)  categorized  based  on  whether  they  were  offered  a subsidized transit pass  by  their employer, whether they used it or not, and whether they would be likely  to use the pass if it was available to them. Socio - demographic  characteristics,  the  presence  of  other  incentives  and  built environment around home and work were compared across groups, and three logistic regressions were used to estimate parameters for each of the following questions: What socio-demographic and employer location characteristics are associated with working for an employer offering subsidized transit passes? What

are the factors associated with using a pass if the incentive is offered? Finally, for those who were not offered a transit pass, what factors are associated with being likely to use a transit pass?

Results suggest an undersupply of employer subsidized public transit passes for lower income workers, who were however more likely to report being likely to use

a subsidized pass when not receiving one. Interestingly, however, lower income individuals with access to a transit pass were less likely to use it than their wealthier counterparts. Employment in sales and services, a workplace with limited nearby destinations and low quality transit service between home and work  may  further  exacerbate  disparities  in  use  of  subsidized  transit  pass. Promoting transit pass programs to employers in sales and services, and other lower income jobs and coordinating transit service improvements in locations where  these  employers  concentrate  may  increase  subsidized  transit  pass program effectiveness and distributional benefits. The work also suggests that socioeconomic  disparities  exist  not  only  in  infrastructure  development  and congestion charging, but also in policies used to influence mode shifts to public transit.

Case Studies on Transport Policy,  vol. 6, issue 3, September 2018, pages 353 - 363, accessed