Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

House of Commons
Transport Committee
<strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong>
<strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong>
on Public Transport
Fifth Report of Session 2007–08
Report, together with formal minutes, oral <strong>and</strong>
written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons
to be printed 26 March 2008
HC 84
Published on 1 April 2008
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£0.00

The Transport Committee
The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine
the expenditure, administration <strong>and</strong> policy of the Department for Transport <strong>and</strong>
its associated public bodies.
Current membership
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP (Labour, Crewe <strong>and</strong> Nantwich) (Chairman)
Mr David Clell<strong>and</strong> MP (Labour, Tyne Bridge)
Clive Efford MP (Labour, Eltham)
Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside)
Mr Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative, Kettering)
Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)
Mr Eric Martlew MP (Labour, Carlisle)
Mr Lee Scott MP (Conservative, Ilford North)
David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann)
Mr Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester Blackley)
Mr David Wilshire MP (Conservative, Spelthorne)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons St<strong>and</strong>ing Orders, principally in SO No
152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The Reports <strong>and</strong> evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Annette Toft (Second
Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tim Steer (Committee Specialist),
Alison Mara (Committee Assistant), Ronnie Jefferson (Secretary), Gaby
Henderson (Senior Office Clerk) <strong>and</strong> Laura Kibby (Media Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport
Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone
number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is
transcom@parliament.uk.

Contents
Report Page
1 Introduction 3
2 Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> 5
The extent of integrated ticketing today 5
National rail 5
Local transport 5
Integrated bus ticketing 6
Integrated ticketing across modes 7
Sale of tickets 8
Integrated ticketing between different geographical areas 9
Government strategy on integrated ticketing 9
Transport Direct 10
3 Smartcard technologies 11
New technologies, new opportunities 11
The Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) St<strong>and</strong>ard 14
Smartcards in London—Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO 16
4 Revenue protection <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors 18
Fare evasion—the scale of the problem 18
Ticket gates—not the only solution 19
Staff safety 20
The powers of revenue protection staff 20
The rights of the passenger 22
5 <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel 23
English national concessionary travel scheme 23
The costs <strong>and</strong> funding arrangements 24
Reimbursement of bus operators 26
Extending the scope of concessionary travel 28
List of recommendations 30
Formal Minutes 34
Witnesses 35
List of written evidence 36
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 38
1

1 Introduction
1. On 1 April 2008 the English national concessionary travel scheme will be launched,
giving free national bus travel to older <strong>and</strong> disabled people in Engl<strong>and</strong>. This provides an
opportunity for the Government <strong>and</strong> transport operators to take a major step towards
integrated ticketing, with the introduction of smartcard concessionary travel passes
throughout Engl<strong>and</strong>. We have, therefore, inquired into the extent to which integrated
ticketing on public transport has been achieved for all users; the issues regarding
smartcards; arrangements for revenue protection (stopping fare-evasion) which will be
affected by new forms of ticket; <strong>and</strong> the impact of concessionary travel in Engl<strong>and</strong> which is
costing £1 billion per annum. We have not looked at fare levels as this issue was addressed
in our previous report How fair are the fares? 1
2. The history of public transport conjures up images of machines <strong>and</strong> infrastructure—
Brunel’s Great Western Railway with its engines, tunnels <strong>and</strong> bridges; the London
Routemaster bus; the reintroduction of trams in Manchester; <strong>and</strong>, more recently, St
Pancras International Station <strong>and</strong> High Speed 1. By contrast, the humble ticket rarely gains
a mention. Yet ticketing arrangements are just as important as vehicles <strong>and</strong> infrastructure
from the passenger’s point of view. How <strong>and</strong> where tickets are sold, whether different
tickets are needed for different stages of a journey <strong>and</strong> the form that the ticket takes, all
have a bearing on individuals’ travel choices. The Government recognised this in its 1998
White Paper, A New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone, which proposed more
through-ticketing <strong>and</strong> easier ticketing arrangements as a central part of its strategy for
raising the st<strong>and</strong>ard of public transport. 2
3. <strong>Ticketing</strong> is an area which has seen rapid change in recent years: paper tickets served the
railways for 150 years <strong>and</strong> the magnetic stripe ticket for 30 years. 3 Contactless smartcards,
usually in the form of a plastic card with an embedded chip that can be read without being
inserted into a machine, have been in use for around 10 years <strong>and</strong> in London the Oyster
card is now commonplace. However, even these systems are being challenged by new
technologies, such as ticketing chips or screen displays in mobile phones <strong>and</strong> combined
travel, credit <strong>and</strong> bank cards. 4 We are grateful to Transys, who operate the Oyster system 5
on behalf of Transport for London (TfL), for showing us some of this new technology, as
well as giving us a demonstration of the Oyster system.
4. The latest rail franchises have varying commitments to introduce smartcard ticketing,
<strong>and</strong> arrangements are in h<strong>and</strong> to extend the Oyster Pay-as-you-Go system throughout the
National Rail network in London by 2010. It is already available on some routes. A zonal
fares structure has been introduced <strong>and</strong> station equipment to facilitate smartcard use is to
be installed, including ticket gates at Waterloo.
1 Transport Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2005–06, How fair are the fares? Train fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing, HC 700
2 Department of Environment, Transport <strong>and</strong> the Regions, A New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone, Cm 3950,
July 1998
3 Q 71
4 The Barclaycard “OnePulse” card combines Oyster, a credit card <strong>and</strong> a cashless payment card. In November 2007, the
mobile phone operator O2 launched a trial of 500 telephones with embedded Oyster cards.
5 See Section 3 for an explanation of Oyster
3

4
5. Smartcards offer a range of new possibilities but it is important to remember that
integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> smartcards are separate, though related, issues. Greater integration
can be achieved without smartcards <strong>and</strong> smartcards do not, in themselves, produce
integrated ticketing arrangements. Technology must be the servant <strong>and</strong> not the master,
assisting with the implementation of policy, not dictating its direction.

2 Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
The extent of integrated ticketing today
6. None of our witnesses dissented from the view that integrated ticketing—the issuing of a
single ticket which will cover several legs of a journey, sometimes by different modes—was
a good thing. Many witnesses were also of the view that public transport ticketing in the
Engl<strong>and</strong> was still not sufficiently integrated, either between different modes (e.g. bus <strong>and</strong>
rail), across transport authority boundaries <strong>and</strong> sometimes even within a mode (e.g.
between different bus operators in the same city).
National rail
7. Comprehensive through-ticketing is provided between passenger train operators on the
National Rail network. Train operators are obliged, as a condition of their passenger
licences, to participate in through-ticketing arrangements covering most station-to-station
journeys 6 in the country. In addition, passengers can buy rail tickets that include other
modes (London Underground, <strong>and</strong> some light rail systems <strong>and</strong> ferries) <strong>and</strong> even some
major visitor attractions. 7 Some 413 million rail tickets were sold in 2006/07. 8 Of these,
around 100 million included some sort of add-on, such as a London <strong>Travel</strong>card or a
passenger transport executive 9 multi-modal ticket. It is also increasingly possible, under a
voluntary initiative by rail <strong>and</strong> bus operators, to buy a combined rail <strong>and</strong> bus ticket called
“PlusBus” 10 for over 200 towns <strong>and</strong> cities outside the metropolitan areas.
Local transport
8. In London there is a tradition of integrated ticketing on public transport, between the
rail networks <strong>and</strong> other services now provided by TfL. For example the London <strong>Travel</strong>card
allows the holder to use bus, tram, Underground, Dockl<strong>and</strong>s, Overground <strong>and</strong> National
Rail services. It can be bought in paper ticket format (with magnetic stripe), or for period
(season) use can be held on an Oyster card.
9. Outside London, there is no requirement for rail or bus operators to provide integrated
ticketing. Since bus deregulation <strong>and</strong> the consequent reduction in powers of the passenger
transport executives, this is left entirely to the market <strong>and</strong> to voluntary arrangements
between operators <strong>and</strong> local transport authorities. In the metropolitan areas <strong>and</strong> larger
cities, a range of multi-modal <strong>and</strong> multi-operator tickets are available for local buses, trains,
trams <strong>and</strong> metro systems.
6 Train operators are also required to sell tickets that include London Underground but there is no statutory
requirement to sell tickets to other destinations, such as metro or bus stops.
7 Ev 132 (It is not generally possible, however, to buy a through rail ticket with light rail as the first stage of the
journey, e.g. Manchester Metro to London.)
8 Data provided by the Association of Train Operating Companies from the LENNON passenger revenue database.
Statistics on the extent of multi-modal journeys were not available from the National <strong>Travel</strong> Survey.
9 There are six passenger transport executives in Engl<strong>and</strong>: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne &
Wear, West Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> West Yorkshire. Strathclyde PTE became a Regional Transport Partnership in 2006.
10 Ev 167
5

6
Integrated bus ticketing
10. Through-ticketing between rail stations has existed for so long that nowadays we do
not even think about having to buy a second ticket when changing trains. Bus passengers,
on the other h<strong>and</strong>, often have to buy a new ticket every time they change bus <strong>and</strong> on the
return journey, unless a day ticket is available. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive told us that this discouraged interchange <strong>and</strong> integration. For many passengers,
they argued, integrated bus ticketing was more important than inter-modal integration. 11
The problem is not a new one. Even before bus deregulation in 1986, some operators
required passengers to buy a new ticket every time they boarded a bus. 12 Though the
Government recognised this problem in 1998, it confined itself to welcoming the limited
work that was already being done by operators.
Rail operators are required to offer through-ticketing for all rail journeys. [...] There
are no equivalent obligations on bus operators. We welcome the positive action
taken by some companies to accept other operators’ tickets or participate in area
ticketing schemes, but more needs to be done. We also welcome the increasing
number of operators who are starting to introduce initiatives such as railbus tickets.
We will encourage their wider use. We want to see more ‘travelcard’ schemes across
the country. 13
11. Ten years on, only limited progress has been made <strong>and</strong> in some cases the situation is
worse. The Public Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong> Schemes Block Exemption Order 2001 (from the
Competition Act 1998) has enabled more local authorities <strong>and</strong> operators to conclude joint
ticketing agreements. 14 However, the competitive structure of the industry outside London
<strong>and</strong> fears of entanglement with the Office of fair Trading mean that, outside the main
cities, multi-operator tickets are still an expensive rarity. Through <strong>and</strong> return tickets are
often not available even from the same operator. A day ticket or period ticket may suit the
frequent traveller, but it is not suitable for all travellers. A journey that involves buying two
or more bus tickets each way will be expensive, which is likely to dissuade young people
<strong>and</strong> others on low incomes from travelling.
12. The situation is somewhat better in the passenger transport executive areas where
multi-modal, multi-operator travelcards are generally available. Even here, however,
difficulties remain. In West Yorkshire, with 37 operators, a total of 88 different singleoperator
ticket types are available. 15 Sometimes single-operator <strong>and</strong> multi-operator bus
tickets will be in competition with each other. This provides choice for the passenger but it
also makes the ticketing process confusing <strong>and</strong> expensive. There is virtually nothing in
Putting Passengers First 16 (the Government’s review of bus issues) that addresses these
issues. A Government amendment to the Local Transport Bill, proposes revising the
11 Ev 76
12 We were given the example of Midl<strong>and</strong> Red West in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire (Ev 166).
13 Cm 3950, p. 42
14 Q 75
15 Ev 85
16 Department for Transport, Putting Passengers First, December 2006

competition test to permit agreements between bus operators, so long as they are in the
public interest.
13. Ten years after it expressed its commitment to promoting integrated bus ticketing,
the Government has achieved too little of practical value. It is a nonsense that the
everyday act of changing buses is still made unnecessarily inconvenient <strong>and</strong> expensive
by poor ticketing arrangements. The Government needs to pay more attention to
resolving these basic problems which penalise passengers <strong>and</strong> deter others from using
buses at all.
Integrated ticketing across modes
14. Multi-modal travel cards are available in most passenger transport executive areas. For
example, in Greater Manchester, one in twelve bus journeys (19 million) were made using
multi-operator <strong>and</strong> multi-modal integrated tickets. However, these can be expensive for
the occasional traveller. Passenger transport executive attempts to develop <strong>and</strong> promote
multi-modal <strong>and</strong> multi-operator schemes can be frustrated by operators who focus on
their own schemes in order to protect their own market share. The more limited, singleoperator
schemes do, however, provide a lower price option for passengers.
15. We recommend that the Traffic Commissioners be given powers, in response to a
reference by either party, to arbitrate where bus companies <strong>and</strong> local transport
authorities are unable to agree terms for multi-operator tickets.
16. In 2006, the major rail <strong>and</strong> bus operators launched PlusBus—a combined bus <strong>and</strong> rail
ticket which allows unlimited bus travel in a defined zone within the main towns <strong>and</strong> cities
outside the metropolitan areas. 17 PlusBus tickets are now available for over 200 towns <strong>and</strong>
cities. Sales are rising fast—76,000 in 2006/07 <strong>and</strong> a forecast of 150,000 in 2007/08 18 —but
still amount to only a tiny fraction of total rail tickets sold <strong>and</strong> the scheme is still relatively
unknown. 19 This is a commercial venture which seems to have potential but it remains to
be seen if the operators are serious about investing sufficient money in it to make it widely
available <strong>and</strong> attractive to the public. 20
17. In 2006/07 approximately 23% of the total distance travelled on passenger transport in
Great Britain was made by coach or non-local bus. 21 By comparison, local bus accounted
for 24%. Despite the scale of coach travel, coach seems to be a st<strong>and</strong>-alone mode with little
ticketing integration in place or planned. There was no reference to coach travel in Putting
Passengers First. This lack of integration is surprising, given the fact that the principal
operator of long distance coaches (National Express) also has local bus operations, metro
<strong>and</strong> rail franchises. Only a h<strong>and</strong>ful of witnesses commented at all on coach issues, with the
general consensus being summed up by Peter Tomlinson of Iosis Associates:
17 Ev 168
18 Local Transport Today 480, 25 October 2007, p14
19 Q86 [Mr Dobbs]
20 Q 440
21 Department for Transport: SB (07) 22: Public Transport Statistics Bulletin GB: 2007 Edition, p50
7

8
Long distance coach services are currently operated entirely separately from other
modes, with no sign of a move towards integration with those other modes, either of
ticketing or, in the larger picture, of services. 22
18. Coaches are used by millions of passengers every year <strong>and</strong> they often serve locations
<strong>and</strong> routes that are not easily accessible by rail. The Government seems to have a blind
spot regarding integrating coaches with other modes, despite the potential to improve
linkages with rail <strong>and</strong> bus services. The Government should give coaches greater
consideration in future statements of public transport policy.
Sale of tickets
19. Train operators are promoting online ticket sales <strong>and</strong> use of ticket vending machines to
reduce the transaction cost of sales, currently around £400 million per annum. 23 Many
passengers st<strong>and</strong> to benefit from this, both in terms of the convenience offered by online
sales <strong>and</strong> in terms of operators’ cost-savings freeing resources to be used in other ways.
20. The increased opportunities to buy tickets through alternative outlets, such as the
internet, is welcomed <strong>and</strong> of benefit to many passengers. However, it is slightly simplistic
to point to growing internet sales figures to demonstrate popularity if passengers are
effectively forced to use certain sales outlets because others are not available. The National
Passenger Survey showed that while 65% of passengers were satisfied with ticketing
facilities at stations, 19% were dissatisfied. Similar results apply to telephone bookings. 24
21. A reliance on online sales leaves passengers without access to the internet or without
credit cards at a severe disadvantage. A further problem for some passengers is that the full
range of tickets—including PlusBus <strong>and</strong> cycle reservations—is not available online or
through ticket vending machines. Combined with the reduction in the number of station
ticket offices, <strong>and</strong> of the hours during which they are staffed, these changes in
arrangements for the sale of tickets might bring benefits overall, but they conspire to make
life very difficult for a minority of prospective travellers. 25
22. The Rail White Paper promises a simplification of the rail fares structure to make it
easier for customers to compare <strong>and</strong> choose the most appropriate ticket. 26 Trainline.com
has highlighted the derogation that allows train operators to sell certain tickets, such as the
“megatrain” ticket, only through restricted channels, such as their own websites. This
means that a potential passenger might need to search multiple websites to locate the best
fare. “This situation will get significantly worse as smart ticketing is introduced because, in
our view, TOCs [train operating companies] will use this derogation over a wider range of
tickets.” 27
22 Ev 67
23 Ev 133
24 Ev 131
25 See, for example, Ev 71 <strong>and</strong> Ev 185–189 on the problems faced by cyclists trying to book train <strong>and</strong> ferry tickets.
26 Department for Transport, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, Cm 7176, July 2007, paras 10.22-10.44
27 Ev 122

23. As the rail industry promotes online ticket sales <strong>and</strong> other methods that reduce
ticket retailing costs, it is imperative that the full range of tickets, including multimodal
options, be available at all main outlets. We recommend that the Government
explores this issue with the Association of Train Operating Companies <strong>and</strong> includes
requirements for ticket availability in future passenger licence conditions if necessary.
If not, the Government’s commitment to fare structure simplification in its Rail White
Paper will be meaningless.
Integrated ticketing between different geographical areas
24. For those who live near the boundaries of transport authority areas, the lack of
integrated ticketing between areas <strong>and</strong> sharp fare increases at the boundaries can present
real problems. As we have already noted, the passenger transport executives offer multimodal
travelcards but a passenger whose routine journeys (for example, to work) involve
crossing a passenger transport executive boundary, might be required to buy two
travelcards or to rely on a combination of travelcard <strong>and</strong> individual tickets. 28
25. There is currently a further problem with concessionary bus travel in Engl<strong>and</strong>, with
people on the boundaries of their local area often unable to use their pass for local journeys
into neighbouring authority areas, even when these contain the shops, hospitals or other
amenities on which they depend. This boundary problem will largely disappear with the
introduction of national concessionary bus travel in April 2008. For those people living on
the borders of Engl<strong>and</strong> with Wales or Scotl<strong>and</strong>, these problems will remain.
Government strategy on integrated ticketing
26. The Government’s approach to integrated ticketing has been to require throughticketing
(<strong>and</strong> now some smartcards) on the railways, but to leave integration of bus <strong>and</strong>
other ticketing to the private operators <strong>and</strong> local transport authorities. It has largely sought
to enable <strong>and</strong> not to direct. The strategy appears to be one of allowing market forces to
drive implementation, through customer dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> industry initiatives. Key elements of
its approach include:
a) support for the development of smartcard systems through a common st<strong>and</strong>ard (ITSO
– see section 3) for rail, concessionary travel <strong>and</strong> London;
b) measures in the Rail White Paper, including a simplification of rail fares structure <strong>and</strong>
proposals for zonal rail pricing in major cities; <strong>and</strong>
c) support for Transport Direct which provides integrated travel <strong>and</strong> ticketing
information. 29
27. In the eyes of many witnesses, the Government’s strategy for integrated ticketing is far
from clear or robust. 30 Many witnesses commented that they were unaware of any such
28 See, for example, Ev 65 [Mr Horan].
29 Ev 171–172
30 For example, Ev 67 <strong>and</strong> Ev 125.
9

10
strategy, including those in the industry who are keen to know. Coverage of ticketing issues
in strategy documents is patchy. Whereas the Rail White Paper does address ticketing
issues, Putting Passengers First (on buses) has very little to say on the subject.
Transport Direct
28. Transport Direct is a free, online journey planner run by the Department for
Transport. As well as providing public transport, car <strong>and</strong> aircraft routes between any two
locations, it currently allows users to:
a) compare public transport options with car travel;
b) obtain a car route that takes into account predicted traffic levels at different times of the
day;
c) get an estimate of the cost of a car journey;
d) buy train <strong>and</strong> coach tickets from affiliated retail sites without having to re-enter journey
details;
e) use mobile phones to find out departure <strong>and</strong> arrival times for railway stations
throughout Britain <strong>and</strong> for some bus or coach stops; <strong>and</strong>
f) calculate CO2 emissions for a car or public transport for a specified journey.
29. Transport Direct is therefore a rather more sophisticated, though complex, tool than
those offered by some other providers such as Network Rail <strong>and</strong> the AA. It is designed to
promote transport choices based on a wide range of options <strong>and</strong> information. The
Government says that Transport Direct is an important part of its integrated ticketing
strategy. It was launched in 2005, costing £37 million over the first three years. Transport
Direct now claims over 15 million user sessions since its launch, with 20% of users claiming
they did something different as a result of using the site. 31 This may be so but its profile is
still low: it was mentioned by hardly any other witness.
31 Local Transport Today 476, 30 August 2007, p10

3 Smartcard technologies
New technologies, new opportunities
30. The era of the paper ticket may be drawing to a close. Technologies now exist that
enable more sophisticated <strong>and</strong> integrated ticketing arrangements. “Virtual” tickets can now
be included in smartcards or in mobile phones or other electronic items, which are read
automatically (or semi-automatically) at some point on the journey. 32 The most
intensively-used system is the London Oyster. Launched in 2002, there are now 15 million
Oyster cards in circulation, used for some 7 million journeys each day. The Oyster card
allows users to mix a fixed period <strong>Travel</strong>card with Pay-as-you-Go credits that can
automatically charge for extensions beyond the <strong>Travel</strong>card’s validity. They are also
significantly quicker to read than magnetic paper tickets <strong>and</strong> this has increased passenger
throughput at busy Underground stations, <strong>and</strong>, along with other changes, has helped to
reduce bus boarding times.
31. TfL told us that
Overall, TfL considers that the introduction of the Oyster smartcard has been
unambiguously positive. It has improved the customer experience in many ways.
Certainly customers can proceed through TfL stations <strong>and</strong> board TfL buses much
more quickly than used to be the case, <strong>and</strong> they are unanimously positive about this.
[…] Customers now have a wider choice of travel products including the Oyster Payas-you-Go
stored value product which was impossible to deliver using paper
tickets. 33
32. TfL pointed out, however, that such a scheme does not come cheap: TfL pays its PFI
contractor substantial service charges to provide <strong>and</strong> operate the Oyster system. These
costs are deemed justified because of the benefits that the system provides.
33. Outside London, the take-up by the transport industry of smartcard technologies has
been limited. It is mainly restricted to the metropolitan areas <strong>and</strong> some other cities, mostly
those which have been part-funded by the local transport authorities. Smartcard systems
can be complex <strong>and</strong> expensive <strong>and</strong> may not be appropriate in all situations, particularly for
infrequent travellers or less intensively used transport systems.
34. Smartcards present new challenges to transport operators <strong>and</strong> public authorities. They
offer the potential for a new level of passenger convenience, flexibility <strong>and</strong> choice in
ticketing. The technology <strong>and</strong> economics are advancing fast <strong>and</strong> smartcards are likely to be
commercially viable for a wider range of transport uses in future. In the right
circumstances, they can also provide the transport operators with major benefits, including
reduced costs of ticket sales, better monitoring, <strong>and</strong> more accurate allocation of costs <strong>and</strong>
revenues. However, they are not appropriate for all people on all journeys. For example,
32 A related development is the contactless bank card, which can be used for low-value purchases in place of cash.
Although Barclaycard already issue a card which combines Oyster, a credit card <strong>and</strong> a contactless payment, a
contactless bank card could be used on its own for public transport, if the appropriate systems were installed.
33 Ev 159
11

12
long-distance rail passengers may not wish to have a high-value ticket included in a
smartcard, which they cannot visually check. The Association of Train Operating
Companies has been involved with ITSO from the outset but it is not convinced that
smartcards are what the public wants for many journeys on National Rail. 34
35. A ticket that can be easily bought, at an acceptable price, <strong>and</strong> widely used has to be
backed by robust customer service arrangements <strong>and</strong> contractual agreements between
multiple parties. The initial investment in the smartcard equipment can be costly but the
greater challenge tends to be the ongoing operation of the system <strong>and</strong> maintaining it to a
st<strong>and</strong>ard that retains the customer’s confidence.
Smartcard ticketing is inherently very, very different from paper ticketing. It is an
invisible medium where people are unable to see the content of what lies inside their
smartcards <strong>and</strong> it raises its own customer service challenge. The biggest customer
service challenge around smartcards is that the customer needs to have absolute
confidence that they will always be charged the right fare <strong>and</strong> that money is not
going to disappear from their cards. 35
36. A single national transport smartcard may seem an attractive proposition but it is
currently impractical. 36 The challenge is therefore to find the right combination of scale,
functionality <strong>and</strong> sophistication at a price that is attractive to the passenger <strong>and</strong> which
provides a worthwhile return on investment (in either commercial or social cost-benefit
terms). An advanced system such as Oyster may be appropriate for London but it would be
unnecessary <strong>and</strong> prohibitively expensive for, say, all buses in rural areas. London shows
that the benefit of smartcards can be significant. But London is a special case, with an
extensive, integrated public transport system, low car-ownership, measures to restrain car
use, a large <strong>and</strong> growing population <strong>and</strong> a strong economy.
37. There are examples of smaller-scale smartcard systems that have been in operation for
several years <strong>and</strong> proven themselves to be viable. Cheshire County Council’s Chester
<strong>Travel</strong>card for buses was established using the powers in the Transport Act 2000 <strong>and</strong> the
Public Transport Schemes Block Exemption Order 2001. 37 Three popular yet incompatible
smartcard schemes also operate in Nottingham. 38
34 Ev 133
35 Q 255 [Mr Verma]
36 Ev 125
37 Ev 192
38 Q 170 [Mr Jones]

Smartcards: lessons learned
Lessons can be learned from the experience of London, Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> elsewhere with
smartcard technology. Some of these are:
• Much of the challenge associated with the introduction of smartcards lies not so much
in the technology itself as in the business processes <strong>and</strong> with the agreements necessary
to allocate costs, payments <strong>and</strong> liabilities.
• Smartcards are not a simple solution. The London Oyster has proved complex <strong>and</strong>
expensive but successful; the ambitious Scottish Entitlement Card has proven to be a
more difficult project <strong>and</strong> is still being rolled out.
• It is important to keep in step with commercial operators <strong>and</strong> the technology industry.
Some witnesses have suggested that Holl<strong>and</strong> offers a good model for industrygovernment
partnership.
• Passengers’ expectations rise <strong>and</strong> dissatisfaction can result from those parts of the
system aspects that are not integrated, such as the parts of the London rail network that
do not accept Oyster, despite the increase in some fares as a result of zoning.
• A single overall customer or “systems integrator” is crucial to drive progress as in
London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
38. The limited take-up by the transport industry of smartcard technologies is the result of
two major factors:
a) The structure of the transport industry, particularly the bus sector, is competitive <strong>and</strong>
fragmented. 39 This makes long-term planning more difficult <strong>and</strong> investment more
risky. Countries that have implemented smartcards on a large scale, such as The
Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, tend to be those where the national or regional authorities have more
direct control over transport operations. 40
b) The business case for the industry to adopt smartcard technologies on a large scale has,
until recently, been weak. 41 The operators argue that integrated ticketing is not a high
customer priority, <strong>and</strong> the returns do not justify the substantial investment, particularly
in a declining market. The problem is greater for the bus industry.
39. However, the signs are that the industry is now more receptive as technical issues are
being resolved <strong>and</strong> potential benefits recognised, although the structural difficulties
remain. 42 The necessary infrastructure <strong>and</strong> economies of scale through shared back-office
39 Ev 85
40 Ev 66
41 Ev 68
42 Qq 172–174
13

14
services have not been put in place. Outside London, the regulatory framework has not
been sufficiently strong to require it to happen.
40. Conventional ticketing systems will still be needed to cater for those passengers for
whom smartcards are unsuitable—at least, for the foreseeable future. This applies in
London as well as elsewhere. 43 Differential pricing—discounts for Oyster users but fare
increases for those buying conventional tickets—are one reason why the Oyster card is
much preferred. A single Zone 1 Tube journey with a paper ticket costs £4.00, comparable
to the cost of a short black cab journey, whereas using Oyster it costs only £1.50. It is
reasonable to charge a modest differential to encourage uptake of smartcards <strong>and</strong> to
reflect any additional costs of issuing paper tickets, but those passengers who cannot or
choose not to opt for smartcards should not be heavily or unfairly penalised. The
Government must ensure suitable guidelines on differential pricing are included in
decisions on rail fares, rail franchises <strong>and</strong> other fare regulations.
The Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) St<strong>and</strong>ard
41. As smartcards become more common it is obviously desirable that the products are
compatible, as far as possible. A common st<strong>and</strong>ard is a good thing because it provides a
platform for a range of products <strong>and</strong> uses <strong>and</strong> should reduce costs. The UK has developed
the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard which is intended to ensure that smartcards <strong>and</strong> smartcard equipment
are interoperable.
ITSO
ITSO (the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation) was founded in 1998 as a result
of discussions between various UK passenger transport authorities on the lack of suitable
st<strong>and</strong>ards for inter-operable smartcard ticketing. ITSO’s initial role was to create a
specification or industry st<strong>and</strong>ard to make interoperable smartcards a reality. It is
supported by the Department for Transport <strong>and</strong> its members include bus operators, train
companies, suppliers to the industry <strong>and</strong> local authorities. Originally a UK initiative, ITSO
has been adopted as an international st<strong>and</strong>ard. The scope of the organisation’s work has
spread beyond smartcards <strong>and</strong> ITSO has therefore been adopted as the official name <strong>and</strong>
not merely as an abbreviation.
42. The specification for interoperable, contactless smartcards that ITSO has developed is
intended to cover the entire system, from the dimensions of the smartcard itself, to how the
data are written to the smartcards <strong>and</strong> the communication protocols for cards <strong>and</strong> readers.
ITSO is a set of technical specifications <strong>and</strong> not a product or system in its own right. Two
different systems could be designed independently that were nonetheless both ITSOcompliant
<strong>and</strong> therefore interoperable. Agreements between all the parties (transport
operators, ticket sales outlets etc) covering customer service arrangements, charges,
allocation of revenues, liability, etc still need to be made for each ITSO product.
43 Q 288

43. There was a clear consensus among our witnesses that having a common st<strong>and</strong>ard,
such as ITSO, was in principle the right approach. However, industry witnesses were
critical of the ITSO organisation, the Government’s project management <strong>and</strong> the speed at
which the ITSO specification has developed. 44 Nonetheless, a significant amount of
progress has already been made with ITSO: it is the st<strong>and</strong>ard for concessionary travel bus
passes in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> 45 <strong>and</strong> it has been included in the conditions for new rail
franchises. It now seems certain that ITSO will be the st<strong>and</strong>ard for transport smartcards on
bus <strong>and</strong> rail networks outside London, for the near future.
44. The Government funding for ITSO-compliant concessionary travel cards is likely, in
the long run, to give a boost to the introduction of ITSO equipment on buses. However,
this is proceeding slowly <strong>and</strong> few of the 15 million concessionary travel passes will function
as smartcards in the first instance. Of the 324 travel concession authorities, 253 are non-
ITSO-compliant; <strong>and</strong> only 5 to 10% of the bus fleet will be ITSO equipped by the end of
2008. 46 Further take-up will depend on how well the Government <strong>and</strong> travel concession
authorities encourage operators to equip their buses with ITSO smartcard readers. Given
the potential of ITSO smartcards to provide passenger data, to allocate costs more
accurately <strong>and</strong> to enable concessionary travel across the UK, it is important that ITSO
continues to develop quickly. 47
45. Transport authorities <strong>and</strong> operators have sought to ensure compatibility amongst these
new technologies through a set of ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ards. The English national concessionary
travel scheme passes that are now being issued are ITSO-compliant smartcards. A number
of smaller ITSO-based smartcard schemes are also in operation or planned, such as
Yorcard in South Yorkshire, which is to be piloted on three bus routes in Sheffield <strong>and</strong> on
rail routes to Doncaster.
44 Ev 65
45 Although concessionary travel passes in Scotl<strong>and</strong> have been ITSO-compliant for several years, the installation of
smartcard machine readers on buses has taken longer than anticipated due to the need to conduct integrity testing
on the ITSO equipment. Approximately 700 Stagecoach buses are now equipped.
46 Ev 198
47 Ev 65
15

16
Oyster on rail services in London
Oyster is available on all London Overground services <strong>and</strong> on interavailable routes on
other National Rail services. Oyster is available from around 100 stations served by
National Rail.
The rules governing what journeys can be made from these stations are complicated as not
all services accept Oyster Pay-as-you-Go. This causes a large degree of customer confusion.
On the London Overground, which TfL took over in November 2007, Oyster Pay-as-you-
Go is accepted at all stations <strong>and</strong> on all routes. Additionally Chiltern <strong>and</strong> c2c accept Oyster
on all their routes within London; One Railway (now National Express East Anglia)accepts
Oyster on all services in the Hackney area; <strong>and</strong> London Midl<strong>and</strong> accepts Oyster between
London Euston <strong>and</strong> Watford Junction.
The roll out of Oyster to the remaining London stations depends on when the Train
Operating Companies <strong>and</strong> TfL conclude the commercial agreements. TfL expects this to be
in 2009.
Smartcards in London—Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO
46. A major dilemma is that the biggest smartcard system in the UK is not an ITSO system,
but the London Oyster. Despite its success, Oyster cannot be developed into a national
system. Oyster was developed before ITSO <strong>and</strong> they are currently incompatible.
47. An interoperability study is underway, funded by the Government, to assess the
feasibility of adding ITSO readers to the Oyster system. It was suggested to us by TranSys
that it would be possible to produce a single card containing both types of chip, but the
arrangements required to support both systems would be complex. There are also potential
problems with the longer time it takes to read <strong>and</strong> write to an ITSO card compared to
Oyster. Although measured in milliseconds, the difference can be critical at busy stations
or on buses in London.
48. Given London’s status as the most heavily used public transport network in the UK,
<strong>and</strong> its position as a major interchange point for National Rail journeys as well as several
major airports, it would seem to be perverse if it were not compatible with the national
smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard. However, there are at least three major issues that need very careful
consideration if compatibility is to be achieved.
a) Firstly, doubts exist about value for money. According to TfL, to make London ITSOcompliant
would cost in the region of £50 million, 48 yet dem<strong>and</strong> to use ITSO products
(as opposed to Oyster) on the London network is currently small <strong>and</strong> growth
uncertain. Since most users of TfL services are London residents or regular commuters
who already have an Oyster card it is not clear what problem is being solved. 49
48 Q 310 but see also Ev 122 in which Trainline.com suggests that an ITSO-compliant smartcard could be used on the
Oyster system without modifying existing gates <strong>and</strong> systems.
49 Ev 160

) Secondly, the complexity of the customer service arrangements could be formidable.
For example, who would deal with a passenger who bought an ITSO-compliant
smartcard in, say, Newcastle, took the train to London, <strong>and</strong> discovered that his ITSOcompliant
smartcard did not work on the Underground? 50
c) Thirdly, as we have already noted, TfL has concerns about the processing speed of
ITSO products compared with Oyster. This could result in a reduced capacity at peak
hours <strong>and</strong> additional costs. 51 The problem is not merely the delay but also that a longer
processing speed may result in more ‘torn’ transactions (i.e. those where the smartcard
is not properly read by the reader <strong>and</strong> the passenger has to touch again or the
transaction is simply not recorded). The Chair of ITSO described this as “a red
herring”, with ITSO’s benchmark time of 0.6 seconds being perfectly adequate for use
in London. 52
49. Oyster is a proven large-scale system, used <strong>and</strong> trusted by millions of passengers.
ITSO-compliant smartcards have shown themselves workable in smaller schemes but
have yet to be tested on a large scale. The Government must not force ITSO onto the
London Oyster system. It is imperative that any introduction of ITSO on the Oyster
system be rigorously piloted to prevent any loss of operational efficiency or customer
confidence in smartcards. Testing must include arrangements for supporting
customers using ITSO products out-of-area. Given the uncertain level of dem<strong>and</strong> for
ITSO in London, the costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of the investment should also be robustly
assessed. This must have regard to the need to avoid financially penalising TfL for
having been at the vanguard of smartcard ticketing in the UK.
50. One of the clear lessons from Oyster is that, to make real progress, a strong customer or
“systems integrator” is needed. 53 Some industry witnesses have suggested that the train
operating companies, through the Rail Settlement Plan, 54 should take over ITSO as they
have demonstrated their competence with running the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement
Agreement. The Government’s strategy of using ITSO as a way to promote integrated
ticketing is a step in the right direction, but not enough. It is fine in theory but not
producing results in practice. ITSO may be a useful technical specification but it is
designed to facilitate integrated ticketing, rather than to make it happen. The
Government needs also to articulate a clearer strategy for the development of
integrated ticketing in general <strong>and</strong> smartcards in particular. The current laissez-faire
approach is inadequate. The Government must listen carefully to the transport
operators <strong>and</strong> the technology industry. The criticisms of ITSO need to be addressed
<strong>and</strong> the Government must ensure it has adequate technical capacity to provide
leadership in this area.
50 Qq 255–256
51 Q 264
52 Ev 198
53 Ev 126
54 The Rail Settlement Plan is part of the Association of Train Operating Companies. It provides central retail support
services to the UK train operating companies. This includes the distribution of fares <strong>and</strong> timetable data, the
provision of other retail information to all National Rail retailers <strong>and</strong> the allocation <strong>and</strong> settlement of rail revenue
to operators.
17

18
4 Revenue protection <strong>and</strong> the powers of
ticket inspectors
Fare evasion—the scale of the problem
51. Approximately £400 million – about 8% of revenue – is said to be lost each year from
unpaid rail fares; 55 <strong>and</strong> further significant amounts are lost from unpaid bus fares.
Additional, though smaller, amounts are lost on the Tube, trams <strong>and</strong> other public
transport systems. This comprises ticketless travel <strong>and</strong> travel with a ticket that is invalid for
the journey. This is as a result of a range of inadequate sales facilities, mistakes, <strong>and</strong>
deliberate deception by a minority of passengers.
52. This is a substantial sum lost to the transport system <strong>and</strong> it is worrying that the
transport operators do not have more accurate or consistent information. For example,
First plc has quoted conflicting figures of £40 million <strong>and</strong> £15 million for its rail operations.
Industry specialists are critical of the validity of the survey methods <strong>and</strong> the figures quoted.
There is further confusion about how much is lost due to deliberate fare-dodging <strong>and</strong> how
much due to failure to provide the passenger with the opportunity to buy the correct
ticket. 56
53. Some witnesses take the view that revenue protection is a matter for the operators: they
alone should decide how much action to take as it is in their commercial interests. We do
not share this view. Firstly, lost revenue impacts on the honest fare-paying passenger, not
just the shareholder. There is also plenty of evidence that passengers are annoyed by faredodging
<strong>and</strong> it undermines their faith in the system. Secondly, fare-dodging is often
associated with other anti-social behaviour. Tackling one problem tends to alleviate the
other.
54. Too much revenue is being lost through a failure of the transport operators to provide
the appropriate ticket sales facilities, to sell tickets on-board, <strong>and</strong> to carry out basic checks.
This is not the same as fare evasion. It is simply non-collection of fares. The view of several
informed witnesses is that revenue protection investment represents good value for money
<strong>and</strong> that there is nationwide scope for improvement. 57
55. Revenue protection does not get the attention that it warrants: a bigger <strong>and</strong> more
sophisticated effort is needed. The extent of the problem is poorly understood. It
ranges from passengers willing but unable to pay their fares through to deliberate fare
evasion. Fare-dodging is often associated with other antisocial behaviour <strong>and</strong> efforts to
curb one are likely to impact positively on the other. More regular <strong>and</strong> coordinated
research <strong>and</strong> monitoring of the problem are required. Leaving it to individual
companies who are likely to be averse to sharing or publishing information means that
no one has a clear picture <strong>and</strong> revenue protection measures are likely to be inadequate.
55 Ev 133
56 Ev 94 & 95
57 Ev 161

Ticket gates—not the only solution
56. The Government has recognised the unsatisfactory situation regarding lost rail
revenue.
Lastly, the Government will review with operators the role of gating across the
network. Operators estimate that around five per cent of revenue is lost on the
network due to ticket-less travel. The Government considers this to be an
underestimate, since every recent survey conducted on individual parts of the rail
network has shown losses to be considerably higher. 58
57. Gates (ticket barriers) clearly have value on a closed system such as the Tube <strong>and</strong> there
are certainly those who support additional gating of National Rail stations. However, the
focus on gates is too narrow <strong>and</strong> overlooks the complexities of the situation. According to
Transport Solutions, “station gating.[…] is not necessarily cost effective, is often customer
unfriendly <strong>and</strong> many of the benefits claimed for such equipment are overstated or
misapplied.” 59
58. The types of ticket gate deployed on the National Rail network accept only the credit
card size magnetic paper tickets, <strong>and</strong> not the larger format tickets often delivered for
internet or telesales, nor the number of other pass styles without any encoding. Further,
there is a significant rejection rate on magnetic tickets, even when valid. As smartcards are
introduced into the National Rail network, beyond the existing application of Oyster, these
gates would require substantial modification. Taken with proposals to extend the reading
by gates of mobile phones <strong>and</strong> barcodes on print-at-home tickets, this becomes an
increasingly complex challenge, both for operation <strong>and</strong> systems support.
59. Passengers with tickets that do not, for whatever reason, work the barriers correctly,
have bulky items of luggage or are in wheelchairs cannot pass the regular gates. They
require prompt assistance. “Meeters <strong>and</strong> greeters” are effectively barred from platforms
<strong>and</strong> general passenger movement is restricted or delayed. Gates can take up valuable space
<strong>and</strong> isolate station trading facilities, while detracting from the appearance <strong>and</strong> customer
environment of many historic or Listed stations. When no staff are available to supervise
them they must be left open which rather defeats their purpose. 60
60. There are moves to install ticket gates at more rail stations. Yet ticket gates are not a
panacea. They cannot be used by all passengers <strong>and</strong> staff are still required to be present.
Gates introduce new drawbacks including delays <strong>and</strong> obstructions for passengers; they
are not in keeping with historic stations; <strong>and</strong> they are not always the best method of
protecting rail revenue. The Government, in consultation with the rail industry <strong>and</strong>
passenger groups, needs to review this one-track approach <strong>and</strong> develop a more holistic
policy.
58 Cm 7176, para 10.44
59 Ev 95
60 Passenger Focus, whilst generally in favour of additional gating, identifies other shortcomings. See Ev 182.
19

20
Staff safety
61. Transport staff—particularly bus drivers <strong>and</strong> railway ticket inspectors—face an
unacceptable risk of assault <strong>and</strong> abuse when checking tickets or undertaking revenue
protection duties. In 2006/07, there were 299 recorded assaults on railway staff in
London. 61 On London buses in the same period there were 21 recorded major assaults <strong>and</strong>
115 minor assaults on revenue protection officers alone. 62
62. The RMT makes the point that these risks are increased when ticket offices are closed
or vending machines out of action.
All too often staff have to issue penalty fares to passengers who have started their
journey at stations where the ticket office is shut <strong>and</strong> the ticket vending machine is
out of use due to v<strong>and</strong>alism. 63
63. The transport unions <strong>and</strong> passenger groups are concerned that cut-backs in ticket
office staff <strong>and</strong> opening hours are making it difficult for some passengers to get the right
ticket when they need it.
The powers of revenue protection staff
64. The laws <strong>and</strong> regulations currently governing revenue protection on public transport
have developed over many years. Different laws apply to railways, to London
Underground, to buses in London <strong>and</strong> to buses outside London. 64 There is inconsistency
across modes <strong>and</strong> even within modes.
61 Ev 197
62 Ev 162
63 Ev 184
64 Q 303

The legal framework for revenue protection
• Railway revenue protection is governed by the Railway Byelaws <strong>and</strong> the Regulation of
the Railways Act 1889 (last updated in 2005). Under these byelaws, revenue protection
staff may require a person refusing to pay the appropriate fare to give their name <strong>and</strong>
address. If the person fails to desist or leave the premises, they may be removed using
reasonable force. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage forms the basis of the
contract between the passenger <strong>and</strong> the train operator.
• Section 130 of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended) allows the Secretary of State to
make regulations regarding the charging of financial penalties (‘Penalty Fares’) to
passengers unable to show a valid ticket when asked. The Railways (Penalty Fares)
Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/576, as amended), allows the Secretary of State to make
Penalty Fares Rules. All train operators wishing to charge penalty fares must submit a
penalty fares scheme to the Secretary of State for approval. Penalty fares are a charge,
not a fine, enforceable initially through the civil courts.
• Bus ticket inspectors function under sections 24 <strong>and</strong> 25 of the Public Passenger
Vehicles Act 1981 <strong>and</strong> the regulations made under those sections which include the
Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors <strong>and</strong> Passengers)
Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1020). The Regulations contain provisions requiring
passengers to have valid tickets (prepaid, paid on entering the vehicle, or paid on
dem<strong>and</strong> by a conductor or inspector) <strong>and</strong> a power for the driver, conductor or
inspector to charge them an additional fare if they stay on the bus beyond the validity of
their original ticket, or if they do not have a ticket. Passengers who contravene the
regulations can be removed from the vehicle (by a crew member or, if necessary, the
police), <strong>and</strong>/or prosecuted for an offence under s25 of the 1981 Act, with a maximum
fine at level 3 on the st<strong>and</strong>ard scale (currently £1000).
• Bus revenue protection staff in London have additional powers. The Railways (Penalty
Fares) Regulations 1994 also covers buses operating for TfL in London. This enables
revenue protection staff to impose penalty fares. This facility is not available to
transport operators outside the capital.
Source: Ev 175
65. The consensus amongst those who gave evidence to us seems to be that the powers
available to revenue protection staff are generally adequate for rail but much less so for
buses. 65 The principle revenue protection concern of bus operators (outside London) is
that staff have no powers of arrest or sanction of penalty fares. They also lack effective
powers to verify the person’s name <strong>and</strong> address. 66 The ability to secure a conviction
therefore depends on intervention by the police whose “interest tends to be low”. 67
65 Ev 143
66 Ev 74
67 Ev 143
21

22
66. An integrated ticketing system should be backed by an integrated revenue
protection system. Whilst the current regulations for rail are generally satisfactory,
those for buses are not. The powers of bus revenue protection staff should be
strengthened. In the longer term, the Government should move towards a unified
system of public transport revenue protection. The implications of new ticket types <strong>and</strong>
technologies will also need to be considered.
67. TfL described to us some of the inconsistencies <strong>and</strong> limitations on revenue protection
in London. This situation is likely to improve if the Transport for London Bill currently
before parliament is enacted.
The rights of the passenger
68. It is equally important that the rights of individual passengers are respected. Whereas
the transport operators <strong>and</strong> public transport authorities seem generally content with the
current balance of powers, passenger groups are less so. Indeed, we received a disturbing
personal account (in confidence) from one passenger alleging serious injustice, abuse <strong>and</strong>
financial cost as a result of being accused of fare evasion. London <strong>Travel</strong>watch provided
evidence that this is not an isolated incident.
69. The rail industry has a statutory appeals procedure for passengers wishing to challenge
a penalty fare. However, not all the appeals processes used by train operators are clearly
<strong>and</strong> wholly independent.
The manner in which some of them work (most notably the self-styled “Independent
Penalty Fares Appeals Service”) gives rise to frequent criticism in our casework, not
least because what is effectively the same organisation also operates as a debtcollection
agency (“Revenue Protection Support Services”) outside the scope of the
penalty fares regulations, <strong>and</strong> thus beyond the supervisory reach of the Department
for Transport. 68
70. Bus passengers who wish to appeal against revenue protection actions have no
independent body to turn to. The operators run a Bus Appeal Body but this is entirely
voluntary <strong>and</strong> its findings are not binding.
71. The current appeals procedures for bus <strong>and</strong> rail are not sufficiently independent.
The consequences of being accused of fare dodging can be serious <strong>and</strong> it is important
that the procedures are just <strong>and</strong> rigorous. The current principal rail appeal panel is
associated with the rail industry <strong>and</strong> this undermines its credibility as a truly
independent arbiter, sitting equidistant from the passenger <strong>and</strong> the train operating
company. The bus industry appeals body has no regulatory backing. The Government
should consult on new arrangements. For rail this might involve giving responsibilities
to the Office of Rail Regulation or Passenger Focus; for bus it might be the Traffic
Commissioner or the proposed Passenger Transport User Committee.
68 Ev 81

5 <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel
English national concessionary travel scheme
72. Since April 2006, in Engl<strong>and</strong>, residents aged 60 <strong>and</strong> over <strong>and</strong> disabled people have been
entitled to free bus travel within their local area after 9.30am <strong>and</strong> before 11pm on weekdays
<strong>and</strong> at all times on weekends <strong>and</strong> bank holidays. Some people have enjoyed additional
concessions, such as travel before 9.30am, as a result of local enhancements paid for by
their local council (travel concession authority).
73. We have looked before at the issue of concessionary travel. Whilst we have welcomed
the principle, we have also raised concerns about the implementation, costs <strong>and</strong> anomalies:
in 2006 we concluded that it was a mess. 69
74. On 1st April 2008 the English national concessionary travel scheme will be launched
<strong>and</strong> the national entitlement will be extended to allow free bus travel across Engl<strong>and</strong>. This
is the latest stage in the development of concessionary travel in Engl<strong>and</strong> (see box), the
result of the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Act 2007. We again welcome this move which will
benefit millions of older <strong>and</strong> disabled people. It brings Engl<strong>and</strong> closer to the st<strong>and</strong>ards of
concessionary travel already enjoyed by residents in other parts of the UK.
75. The evidence presented to this inquiry shows that the extension by the Government of
the national concessionary travel st<strong>and</strong>ard is popular <strong>and</strong> generally supported but the
overall policy objectives are unclear. It has stimulated dem<strong>and</strong>s for further concessions. A
few witnesses object to the free travel concession in principle but most are concerned about
the costs, distribution of funds, reimbursement of operators <strong>and</strong> the unintended
consequences, all of which are expected to increase with time.
76. Older <strong>and</strong> disabled people are travelling by bus more often as a result of the free
concessionary fares scheme. However, the extent of the current <strong>and</strong> future benefits
(economic, health, congestion, environmental, etc) <strong>and</strong> value for money are unclear. It is
important that the anecdotal benefits of concessionary travel—reduced social exclusion
<strong>and</strong> isolation for older people, improved health, fewer car trips, etc—are substantiated by
rigorous research. We were not reassured by the Minister’s response that national
concessionary travel was a “political decision”. 70 It may be that concessionary travel
represents such good value for money that it should be extended to other sections of
society or modes of transport, as it has been in London. The Government has undertaken
some preliminary evaluation of the benefits but this needs to go much further. 71
77. The ability to travel for free across the country by bus is a great boon for those who
enjoy it <strong>and</strong> we welcome it. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch <strong>and</strong> such
funds—over £1 billion per annum—must give value for money. The Department for
69 Transport Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2005–06, Bus Services across the UK, HC 1317, 26 October 2006
70 Q 440
71 Tickbox.net, National Bus Concession Survey for Department for Transport, Feb 2008
23

24
Transport should commission an evaluation of the benefits of the national scheme for
free local bus travel.
Development of concessionary travel
• Under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities have discretionary powers to provide
concessionary travel for elderly <strong>and</strong> disabled groups. Most provided half-fares on offpeak
buses within the local area. Although this is largely superseded by subsequent
legislation, the power to provide local enhancements, such as concessionary rail travel
<strong>and</strong> taxi tokens, continues.
• The Transport Act 2000 introduced a national minimum st<strong>and</strong>ard across Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
Wales for concessionary travel. It imposed a duty on district <strong>and</strong> unitary councils to
provide half-fare travel on buses within the council area between 9.30 <strong>and</strong> 23.00 <strong>and</strong> all
day on Saturday, Sunday <strong>and</strong> bank holidays. A concessionary travel pass had to be
issued at no charge.
• The <strong>Travel</strong> Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 equalised the age of eligibility between
men <strong>and</strong> women at 60. The age for entitlement will increase for both sexes between
2010 <strong>and</strong> 2020 in line with women’s retirement age.
• From April 2006, the national st<strong>and</strong>ard was extended to provide free off-peak bus travel
in the local area. The additional cost of free local concessionary travel is £350m pa for
Engl<strong>and</strong>, (£450m for UK).
• From April 2008 around 11 million older <strong>and</strong> disabled people will be entitled to free
off-peak bus travel throughout Engl<strong>and</strong>, as a result of the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Act
2007. The Act allows for reciprocal arrangements to be made between Engl<strong>and</strong>, Wales,
Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> to recognise their respective concession schemes. The
additional cost is £212 million in 2008/09. The Department for Transport has
introduced a new funding distribution formula for travel concession authorities in
respect of this element of 2008 concessionary bus travel.
• <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel is a devolved matter. Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> introduced free national
off-peak bus travel for elderly <strong>and</strong> disabled people in 2002 <strong>and</strong> 2003 respectively. The
Wales concession now includes free rail travel for certain residents on Conwy Valley
<strong>and</strong> Heart of Wales Railways on a 12-month pilot basis. Since April 2007 all Northern
Irel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Republic of Irel<strong>and</strong> residents aged 65 <strong>and</strong> over can avail of free internal
travel on bus <strong>and</strong> rail in both jurisdictions.
The costs <strong>and</strong> funding arrangements
78. There are 324 travel concession authorities in Engl<strong>and</strong>. These are the passenger
transport executives, the London boroughs, the district councils <strong>and</strong> unitary councils. In
London <strong>and</strong> the shire counties, the travel concession authorities are not the transport
authorities, which can have repercussions for coordinating expenditure on bus services.

79. <strong>Concessionary</strong> bus travel costs around £1 billion each year. Local authorities in
Engl<strong>and</strong> reimbursed bus operators some £712 million for concessionary travel in
2006/07. 72 The additional cost of the national scheme from April 2008 is £223 million in
2008/09, allocated to local authorities in Special Grant. The Government has also paid local
authorities some £31 million to issue the new national concessionary travel passes. In
addition, it has funded ITSO Services Ltd to support the 253 ‘non-smart’ travel concession
authorities.
80. The experience of Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales is that free national travel leads to significant
additional dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> questions have arisen regarding the overall affordability of these
schemes. 73 In Engl<strong>and</strong>, growth in ridership as a result of the free local bus travel introduced
in 2006 has been significant. “For example all PTE areas who previously had flat fare
concessionary schemes are reporting 20%–30% increases in use, <strong>and</strong> this may rise further
as pass-holders gain a better underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the travel opportunities presented by the bus
network.” 74 The Government acknowledges that the turn-around in bus ridership outside
London is primarily due to concessionary travel. 75
81. The costs of concessionary travel are set to grow in real terms as bus industry costs
<strong>and</strong> fares are increasing faster than inflation. Outside London, concessionary travel
support exceeds the amount spent on supporting non-commercial bus services. (The
Mayor of London provides a high level of revenue support for all bus services.) It is
important that national concessionary travel is properly funded.
82. <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel authorities continue to be concerned about the rising costs of
concessionary travel <strong>and</strong> the distribution of funds by the Government. 76 The Government
has described the new funding as “generous” <strong>and</strong> says “We are confident this funding will
be sufficient in aggregate.” 77 We accept that the Government has increased the funding to
local authorities for concessionary travel <strong>and</strong> that, in aggregate, it may be sufficient.
However, this does not mean that the right amount always goes to the right places.
83. The Government has consulted on funding arrangements <strong>and</strong> modified them in the
light of representations. 78 For 2008/09, the Government has adopted a formula based on a
combination of eligible population, bus passenger journeys, overnight visitors <strong>and</strong> retail
floor space. However, this is a least-bad system <strong>and</strong> there remain winners <strong>and</strong> losers.
84. Some travel concession authorities receive significantly more than they spend whilst
others are out of pocket. We were given the examples of Cheshire, Cumbria <strong>and</strong>
Northamptonshire which show that, although the aggregate grant may be adequate, travel
72 Department for Transport, Transport Statistics Great Britain 2007, Table 6.14
73 Local Transport Today 488, 22 February 2008, p9
74 Ev 87
75 Department for Transport, Autumn Performance Report 2007, Cm 7266, December 2007, p31
76 Ev 196 <strong>and</strong>, following the announcement of the 2008/09 Special Grant allocation, Local Transport Today 484, 20
December 2007, p1
77 Department for Transport, National Bus <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares: Additional Special Grant Funding Key Points <strong>and</strong> FAQs,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr
78 Department for Transport, Consultation Response Document: Local Authority special grant funding for the 2008
national bus concession in Engl<strong>and</strong>, 19 February 2008
25

26
concession authorities that attract large numbers of visitors are underfunded. This problem
could be substantially relieved if the Government reduced the number of travel concession
authorities. <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel is an increasingly large financial risk for local authorities,
particularly district councils <strong>and</strong> passenger transport executives 79 <strong>and</strong> one over which they
have little control: they cannot (<strong>and</strong> should not) constrain dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> they are not
permitted to set a cap on reimbursement to bus operators. Although district councils are
generally reluctant to cede functions <strong>and</strong> funding to county councils, it appears that, in
respect of concessionary travel, this is something that at least some, such as Carlisle City
Council, would now welcome. 80 It would still be possible for district councils to issue the
travelcards, under a voluntary arrangement with the county council, if this was deemed
locally beneficial.
85. These budget constraints <strong>and</strong> distribution anomalies have had some worrying
consequences. For example, in Greater Manchester, in order to balance its budget, the
Passenger Transport Authority increased the child concessionary fare from 50 pence to 70
pence. 81
86. The anomalies within, <strong>and</strong> disputes over, the distribution of concessionary travel
grant to local authorities look set to continue, despite the ‘generous’ funding provided
by the Government <strong>and</strong> the new funding formula. We find it is unhelpful that the
transport authority <strong>and</strong> the travel concession authority are often not the same body
<strong>and</strong> may inadvertently work against each other. These problems could be considerably
reduced if the Government exercised its powers under section 9 of the <strong>Concessionary</strong>
Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Act 2007 to transfer the travel concession functions from district councils to
county councils. This would have the additional benefit of making the transport
authority the travel concession authority in these areas. We recommend that the
Government proceeds with this as soon as possible.
Reimbursement of bus operators
87. Reimbursement of bus operators is based on the principle that they should be no better
<strong>and</strong> no worse off for carrying concessionary travel passengers. 82 They are reimbursed for
the fare revenue foregone <strong>and</strong> for any additional expenses incurred, for example if
additional staff or vehicles are required. This is based on the premise that off-peak
concessionary travel passengers will take up empty seats, at little marginal cost to the bus
operator. Whilst this may seem simple in principle, it is far from simple in practice.
88. Although we strongly support the concessionary travel scheme, we have some concerns
about the mechanics of the reimbursement calculation, which requires not only data on the
actual level of concessionary travel (passenger numbers) but also an estimate of how much
79 Ev 78
80 Ev 197
81 Ev 78
82 Regulation 4 of the <strong>Travel</strong> Concession Schemes Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/77), made under section 94(1) of the
Transport Act 1985 states: It shall be an objective (but not a duty) of an authority when formulating reimbursement
arrangements to provide that operators both individually <strong>and</strong> in the aggregate are financially no better <strong>and</strong> no
worse off as a result of their participation in the scheme to which the arrangements relate.

of the travel has been generated by the concessionary travel scheme. There are further
assumptions to be made about the types of fare that would have been paid (st<strong>and</strong>ard or
discounted fares, singles or travel cards, etc). It is almost impossible to work out what
would happen in the absence of concessionary travel <strong>and</strong> what revenue has genuinely been
forgone. Such calculations have kept bus operators, travel concession authorities <strong>and</strong>
consultants busy of late. They have led to prolonged <strong>and</strong> acrimonious disputes between bus
operators <strong>and</strong> travel concession authorities, resulting in over 100 appeals to the Secretary of
State for Transport. Some authorities have accused bus operators of overcharging. Some
bus operators claim they are running services at a significant loss. 83 This is hardly
conducive to partnership working. 84
89. Despite guidance from the Government <strong>and</strong> various rulings by adjudicators on behalf
of the Secretary of State for Transport, the problem does not appear to be abating. For
example, according to the Centro-WMPTA Chief Executive, the major bus operators in
the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s are “unhappy with almost all the key aspects” of the reimbursement
scheme for 2008/09. 85
90. Even if the ‘no better, no worse’ calculation could be ascertained with confidence, there
must also be questions about this funding principle in the long run. As concessionary
travel increases, it is unclear where the incentive will come from for operators to invest in
services where concessionary travel passengers form a high percentage of the customers. 86
91. Some witnesses have argued that concessionary travel is distorting fare structures <strong>and</strong>
having a negative impact on fare-paying passengers by giving a perverse incentive to
operators to disproportionately increase off-peak <strong>and</strong> single adult fares. 87 This may be the
case but local authorities are not obliged to base reimbursement on a particular fare, as in
Scotl<strong>and</strong>. The Government has published a toolkit for local authorities to use when
calculating reimbursement. Whilst some local authorities do base reimbursement on single
fares they are encouraged to use a basket of fares. It is up to the local authority to negotiate
a mutually acceptable deal. 88
92. ITSO concessionary fare smartcards should make local enhancements easier to h<strong>and</strong>le
from the operator’s perspective (but passenger confusion may remain). A programme for
ITSO readers on buses is needed.
93. The current “no better, no worse off” mechanism for reimbursing operators is
unsatisfactory. It is arcane, time consuming <strong>and</strong> a recipe for disputes. It does nothing
to promote good partnership working between travel concession authorities <strong>and</strong> bus
operators. It is also questionable whether it provides a viable long-term funding model
for the industry. A new, more transparent mechanism is required that compensates
83 Q 113
84 See, for example, the exchange of letters between South Yorkshire PTE <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach Yorkshire in Local Transport
Today 477, 13 September 2007, p17 <strong>and</strong> Local Transport Today 478, 27 September 2007, p16.
85 Local Transport Today, 22 February 2008, p9
86 Q 111 <strong>and</strong> The Guardian, 10 March 2008, p28
87 Ev 87
88 In Scotl<strong>and</strong> operators are reimbursed at 73.6% of an operator’s adult single fare, capped at £63 million in 2007/08,
under a three-year agreement between the Scottish Executive <strong>and</strong> the Confederation of Passenger Transport.
27

28
operators <strong>and</strong> avoids the waste <strong>and</strong> rancour generated by the current system. The
Government should investigate this as part of its review of Bus Service Operators
Grant. Some people argue for a national reimbursement mechanism as in Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
Whilst this appears attractive we do not support it at this stage. Engl<strong>and</strong> is much larger,
with greater variation, <strong>and</strong> we fear this would simply increase costs as the Government
would be unlikely to scrutinise claims as closely as local government. A rapid roll-out of
ITSO equipment on buses would help improve the accuracy of ridership data. Fewer
travel concession authorities would also help.
Extending the scope of concessionary travel
94. The concessionary travel scheme is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success
<strong>and</strong> there are calls for it to be extended to other modes of transport <strong>and</strong> to other categories
of people. The National Pensioners Convention is seeking “free nationwide travel on all
public <strong>and</strong> local transport”. This would give concessionaires greater choice <strong>and</strong> would
include tram, rail <strong>and</strong> community transport services <strong>and</strong> tokens for taxis.
95. Many local authorities continue to use their powers under the Transport Act 1985 to
enhance the national concessionary travel scheme for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people living
locally. Typically, the passenger transport executives will provide concessionary travel on
local trams <strong>and</strong> trains; other councils permit travel before 9.30am; <strong>and</strong> in rural areas some
councils provide tokens for taxis or allow concessions on community transport or dial-aride
services. This can cause confusion <strong>and</strong> accusations of ‘postcode lottery’ but this is an
inevitable corollary of allowing local enhancements.
96. The Government’s view is that this is a matter for local authorities. For example,
regarding rail “The Government recognises that there will be people, particularly in rural
areas, who have better access to a rail service than to a bus service. It remains open to local
authorities to provide free travel by rail in such circumstances.” 89 <strong>Travel</strong> Watch SouthWest
<strong>and</strong> others have pointed out that, in some areas, free bus travel has abstracted significant
numbers of passengers from local rail services, which makes no sense as both receive public
subsidy. 90
97. Help the Aged, the Joint Committee for the Mobility of Blind <strong>and</strong> Partially Sighted
People, the Community Transport Association <strong>and</strong> other groups representing older <strong>and</strong>
disabled people argue for a range of specific extensions to the national scheme. They point
out that conventional buses are, in practice, not accessible to many older <strong>and</strong> disabled
people <strong>and</strong> so the neediest are often unable to take up the concession to which they are
entitled. This is not simply a lack of low-floor buses but a more fundamental point that
many people entitled to concessionary travel find it difficult, if not imposable, to use public
transport. 91 Separate grants are available to people with more severe mobility impairment
but these are much more limited <strong>and</strong> the freedom the freedom to travel at no cost,
nationwide, is denied to them. These groups also make a cogent case for widening the
range of people entitled to concessionary travel to on grounds of mental health difficulties.
89 Cm 7176, para 10.34
90 Ev 102–112
91 Ev 145–149

98. We continue to believe that local enhancements to the national concessionary travel
scheme can offer important benefits. We agree with the Passenger Transport Executive
Group <strong>and</strong> others that these enhancements are best determined locally. Extending
concessionary travel to rail services would be costly <strong>and</strong> it is doubtful if rail services
currently have adequate capacity. There may be scope <strong>and</strong> a good value-for-money case
for extending the national concession to include lightly-used rail services, such as
community rail partnerships, as in Wales. The Government should also consider in
greater depth than it has so far the costs <strong>and</strong> implications of providing greater support
for community transport, particularly in areas where bus services are sparse. Where
local authorities are currently profiting from concessionary travel funding, perhaps as a
result of a sparse local bus network, they should be encouraged to enhance local
concessionary travel arrangements.
99. <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel schemes have been linked with major ticketing changes. In
Scotl<strong>and</strong>, where free national concessionary bus travel was introduced in 2003, the
concessionary travel pass forms part of the Citizen smartcard (an ITSO-compliant card)
which has other potential applications. In Engl<strong>and</strong>, the Government has stipulated that the
new travel passes (issued by the local travel concession authorities) must be ITSO
smartcards. If <strong>and</strong> when buses are equipped to read the concessionary fare smartcards that
have been issued, the operators should be able to h<strong>and</strong>le local enhancements more easily.
The current situation whereby 11 million concessionary travel smartcards have been
issued but most buses are not equipped to read them is daft. The Government needs to
agree a programme with bus operators for installation of ITSO smartcard equipment
on buses.
100. There is a good case to be made for concessionary travel to be extended to other
groups. Many young people <strong>and</strong> those on low incomes find bus fares expensive. In 2002,
the Commission for Integrated Transport advised that greater benefits would be achieved
at lower cost by extending half-fares to young people <strong>and</strong> those on low incomes, rather
than free travel for those over 60. 92 It is unclear why the Government ignored this advice.
Local authorities have a well-being power. 93 If the Local Transport Bill is enacted as
proposed, the well-being power will be extended to passenger transport executives.
Amongst other things, this permits these authorities to provide travel concessions for other
groups of people. Implementation, however, depends very much on local priorities <strong>and</strong> the
availability of local funding, which is unlikely if they are struggling to pay for existing
concessionary travel schemes. If the Government is minded at any stage to extend the
English national concessionary travel scheme, young people <strong>and</strong> others identified by
the Commission for Integrated Transport should receive priority consideration for
concessionary travel.
92 Commission for Integrated Transport, Public Subsidy for the bus industry, 25 February 2002
93 Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 provides local authorities with a discretionary power (the well-being
power) to undertake any action to promote or improve the social, economic <strong>and</strong> environmental well-being of their
area.
29

30
List of recommendations
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Ten years after it expressed its commitment to promoting integrated bus ticketing,
the Government has achieved too little of practical value. It is a nonsense that the
everyday act of changing buses is still made unnecessarily inconvenient <strong>and</strong>
expensive by poor ticketing arrangements. The Government needs to pay more
attention to resolving these basic problems which penalise passengers <strong>and</strong> deter
others from using buses at all. (Paragraph 13)
2. We recommend that the Traffic Commissioners be given powers, in response to a
reference by either party, to arbitrate where bus companies <strong>and</strong> local transport
authorities are unable to agree terms for multi-operator tickets. (Paragraph 15)
3. Coaches are used by millions of passengers every year <strong>and</strong> they often serve locations
<strong>and</strong> routes that are not easily accessible by rail. The Government seems to have a
blind spot regarding integrating coaches with other modes, despite the potential to
improve linkages with rail <strong>and</strong> bus services. The Government should give coaches
greater consideration in future statements of public transport policy. (Paragraph 18)
4. As the rail industry promotes online ticket sales <strong>and</strong> other methods that reduce ticket
retailing costs, it is imperative that the full range of tickets, including multi-modal
options, be available at all main outlets. We recommend that the Government
explores this issue with the Association of Train Operating Companies <strong>and</strong> includes
requirements for ticket availability in future passenger licence conditions if
necessary. If not, the Government’s commitment to fare structure simplification in
its Rail White Paper will be meaningless. (Paragraph 23)
Smartcard technologies
5. It is reasonable to charge a modest differential to encourage uptake of smartcards
<strong>and</strong> to reflect any additional costs of issuing paper tickets, but those passengers who
cannot or choose not to opt for smartcards should not be heavily or unfairly
penalised. The Government must ensure suitable guidelines on differential pricing
are included in decisions on rail fares, rail franchises <strong>and</strong> other fare regulations.
(Paragraph 40)
6. Oyster is a proven large-scale system, used <strong>and</strong> trusted by millions of passengers.
ITSO-compliant smartcards have shown themselves workable in smaller schemes
but have yet to be tested on a large scale. The Government must not force ITSO onto
the London Oyster system. It is imperative that any introduction of ITSO on the
Oyster system be rigorously piloted to prevent any loss of operational efficiency or
customer confidence in smartcards. Testing must include arrangements for
supporting customers using ITSO products out-of-area. Given the uncertain level of
dem<strong>and</strong> for ITSO in London, the costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of the investment should also be
robustly assessed. This must have regard to the need to avoid financially penalising
TfL for having been at the vanguard of smartcard ticketing in the UK. (Paragraph 49)

7. The Government’s strategy of using ITSO as a way to promote integrated ticketing is
a step in the right direction, but not enough. It is fine in theory but not producing
results in practice. ITSO may be a useful technical specification but it is designed to
facilitate integrated ticketing, rather than to make it happen. The Government needs
also to articulate a clearer strategy for the development of integrated ticketing in
general <strong>and</strong> smartcards in particular. The current laissez-faire approach is
inadequate. The Government must listen carefully to the transport operators <strong>and</strong> the
technology industry. The criticisms of ITSO need to be addressed <strong>and</strong> the
Government must ensure it has adequate technical capacity to provide leadership in
this area. (Paragraph 50)
Revenue protection <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors
8. Revenue protection does not get the attention that it warrants: a bigger <strong>and</strong> more
sophisticated effort is needed. The extent of the problem is poorly understood. It
ranges from passengers willing but unable to pay their fares through to deliberate
fare evasion. Fare-dodging is often associated with other antisocial behaviour <strong>and</strong>
efforts to curb one are likely to impact positively on the other. More regular <strong>and</strong>
coordinated research <strong>and</strong> monitoring of the problem are required. Leaving it to
individual companies who are likely to be averse to sharing or publishing
information means that no one has a clear picture <strong>and</strong> revenue protection measures
are likely to be inadequate. (Paragraph 55)
9. There are moves to install ticket gates at more rail stations. Yet ticket gates are not a
panacea. They cannot be used by all passengers <strong>and</strong> staff are still required to be
present. Gates introduce new drawbacks including delays <strong>and</strong> obstructions for
passengers; they are not in keeping with historic stations; <strong>and</strong> they are not always the
best method of protecting rail revenue. The Government, in consultation with the
rail industry <strong>and</strong> passenger groups, needs to review this one-track approach <strong>and</strong>
develop a more holistic policy. (Paragraph 60)
10. An integrated ticketing system should be backed by an integrated revenue protection
system. Whilst the current regulations for rail are generally satisfactory, those for
buses are not. The powers of bus revenue protection staff should be strengthened. In
the longer term, the Government should move towards a unified system of public
transport revenue protection. The implications of new ticket types <strong>and</strong> technologies
will also need to be considered. (Paragraph 66)
11. The current appeals procedures for bus <strong>and</strong> rail are not sufficiently independent. The
consequences of being accused of fare dodging can be serious <strong>and</strong> it is important that
the procedures are just <strong>and</strong> rigorous. The current principal rail appeal panel is
associated with the rail industry <strong>and</strong> this undermines its credibility as a truly
independent arbiter, sitting equidistant from the passenger <strong>and</strong> the train operating
company. The bus industry appeals body has no regulatory backing. The
Government should consult on new arrangements. For rail this might involve giving
responsibilities to the Office of Rail Regulation or Passenger Focus; for bus it might
be the Traffic Commissioner or the proposed Passenger Transport User Committee.
(Paragraph 71)
31

32
<strong>Concessionary</strong> travel
12. The ability to travel for free across the country by bus is a great boon for those who
enjoy it <strong>and</strong> we welcome it. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch <strong>and</strong> such
funds—over £1 billion per annum—must give value for money. The Department for
Transport should commission an evaluation of the benefits of the national scheme
for free local bus travel. (Paragraph 77)
13. The costs of concessionary travel are set to grow in real terms as bus industry costs
<strong>and</strong> fares are increasing faster than inflation. Outside London, concessionary travel
support exceeds the amount spent on supporting non-commercial bus services. (The
Mayor of London provides a high level of revenue support for all bus services.) It is
important that national concessionary travel is properly funded. (Paragraph 81)
14. The anomalies within, <strong>and</strong> disputes over, the distribution of concessionary travel
grant to local authorities look set to continue, despite the ‘generous’ funding
provided by the Government <strong>and</strong> the new funding formula. We find it is unhelpful
that the transport authority <strong>and</strong> the travel concession authority are often not the
same body <strong>and</strong> may inadvertently work against each other. These problems could be
considerably reduced if the Government exercised its powers under section 9 of the
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Act 2007 to transfer the travel concession functions from
district councils to county councils. This would have the additional benefit of making
the transport authority the travel concession authority in these areas. We
recommend that the Government proceeds with this as soon as possible. (Paragraph
86)
15. The current “no better, no worse off” mechanism for reimbursing operators is
unsatisfactory. It is arcane, time consuming <strong>and</strong> a recipe for disputes. It does nothing
to promote good partnership working between travel concession authorities <strong>and</strong> bus
operators. It is also questionable whether it provides a viable long-term funding
model for the industry. A new, more transparent mechanism is required that
compensates operators <strong>and</strong> avoids the waste <strong>and</strong> rancour generated by the current
system. The Government should investigate this as part of its review of Bus Service
Operators Grant. Some people argue for a national reimbursement mechanism as in
Scotl<strong>and</strong>. Whilst this appears attractive we do not support it at this stage. Engl<strong>and</strong> is
much larger, with greater variation, <strong>and</strong> we fear this would simply increase costs as
the Government would be unlikely to scrutinise claims as closely as local
government. A rapid roll-out of ITSO equipment on buses would help improve the
accuracy of ridership data. Fewer travel concession authorities would also help.
(Paragraph 93)
16. We continue to believe that local enhancements to the national concessionary travel
scheme can offer important benefits. We agree with the Passenger Transport
Executive Group <strong>and</strong> others that these enhancements are best determined locally.
Extending concessionary travel to rail services would be costly <strong>and</strong> it is doubtful if
rail services currently have adequate capacity. There may be scope <strong>and</strong> a good valuefor-money
case for extending the national concession to include lightly-used rail
services, such as community rail partnerships, as in Wales. The Government should
also consider in greater depth than it has so far the costs <strong>and</strong> implications of

providing greater support for community transport, particularly in areas where bus
services are sparse. Where local authorities are currently profiting from
concessionary travel funding, perhaps as a result of a sparse local bus network, they
should be encouraged to enhance local concessionary travel arrangements.
(Paragraph 98)
17. The current situation whereby 11 million concessionary travel smartcards have been
issued but most buses are not equipped to read them is daft. The Government needs
to agree a programme with bus operators for installation of ITSO smartcard
equipment on buses. (Paragraph 99)
18. If the Government is minded at any stage to extend the English national
concessionary travel scheme, young people <strong>and</strong> others identified by the Commission
for Integrated Transport should receive priority consideration for concessionary
travel. (Paragraph 100)
33

34
Formal Minutes
Clive Efford
Mrs Louise Ellman
Mr Philip Hollobone
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Members present:
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair
Mr Eric Martlew
Mr Lee Scott
David Simpson
Draft Report (<strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport), proposed by the Chairman, brought up <strong>and</strong>
read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 100 read <strong>and</strong> agreed to.
Resolved, That the title of the report be changed to the following: <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong>
<strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> on Public Transport.—(The Chairman.)
Resolved, That the Report be the Fifth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of St<strong>and</strong>ing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 2 April at 2.30 pm.
_______________

Witnesses
Wednesday 14 November 2007 Page
Chris Austin, Director, Public Policy, David Mapp, Commercial Director,
Association of Train Operating Companies, Richard Malins, Managing Director,
Transport Investigations Ltd
Elaine Holt, Managing Director, First Capital Connect, Martin Dean, Business
Development Director, First Group, First Group plc, Les Warneford, Managing
Director, Stagecoach UK Bus, Ian Dobbs, Chief Executive, Stagecoach
Group Rail Division, Stagecoach Group plc
Keith Halstead, Chief Executive, Ewan Jones, Director of Operations & Deputy
Chief Executive, Community Transport Association UK
Wednesday 5 December 2007
Roy Wicks, Chair, pteg <strong>and</strong> Director General, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport
Executive, Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg), Neil Scales, Director
General, Merseytravel, David Cook, Chief Executive, Kettering Borough Council,
Adrian Jones, Director of Environment <strong>and</strong> Regeneration, Nottingham County
Council, Greg Yates, County Transport <strong>and</strong> Regeneration Officer, Cheshire County
Council, Local Government Association (LGA)
Shashi Verma, Director of Fares & <strong>Ticketing</strong>, Steve Burton, Deputy Director of
Transport Policing & Enforcement, Transport for London (TfL)
Manuel Cortes, Assistant General Secretary, Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
(TSSA), Fran Hill, Chair of Unison Bus Sector, Richard Sherratt, Member of
Unison Transport Service Group, Unison
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Stephen Joseph, Executive Director, Campaign for Better Transport, Anthony
Smith, Chief Executive, Passenger Focus, Rufus Barnes, Chief Executive, London
<strong>Travel</strong>Watch, Gordon Edwards, Company Secretary, <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest
Tom Harris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Bob
Linnard, Director, Rail Strategy & Stakeholder Relations, Department for Transport
Ev 1
Ev 9
Ev 16
Ev 20
Ev 30
Ev 38
Ev 42
Ev 51
35

36
List of written evidence
1 Dr Roger Sexton, Nottingham Trent University Ev 62
2 The ALCO Group Ltd Ev 65
3 Jonathan Horan Ev 65
4 Iosis Associates Ev 66
5 Tony Cornah <strong>and</strong> Polly Blacker Ev 71
6 Stagecoach Group plc Ev 72
7 Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority <strong>and</strong> Executive (GMPTAE) Ev 74
8 London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch Ev 79, 83
9 Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg) Ev 84
10 Simon Norton Ev 88
11 Transport Investigations Ltd (TIL) Ev 90, 94
12 Mr Kevin Chapman Ev 97
13 TransAction Resources Ltd Ev 100
14 <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest Ev 102
15 North-East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable (NECTAR) Ev 113
16 PA Consulting Group Ev 116
17 Trainline.com Ltd Ev 120, 122
18 Transaction Systems Limited (TranSys) Ev 123, 128
19 Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) Ev 131
20 Joint submission from Stockport College <strong>and</strong> Stockport Primary Care Trust Ev 135
21 Help the Aged Ev 137
22 FirstGroup plc Ev 141
23 Joint submission from The Joint Committee for the Mobility of Blind <strong>and</strong>
Partially Sighted People; The Joint Committee for the Mobility of Disabled
People; The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; RADAR; National Autistic
Society; Disabled Parents Network; Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB);
Arthritis Care; Mind; Restricted Growth Association; Parkinson’s Disease
Society; Community Transport Association <strong>and</strong> Spinal Injuries Association Ev 145
24 <strong>Travel</strong>Watch Northwest Ev 149
25 Dr John Disney, Nottingham Trent University Ev 151
26 Scheidt & Bachmann GmbH Ev 152
27 Merseytravel Ev 155
28 Transport for London Ev 159, 162
29 Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisation – Transport Resource
Unit (GMCVO) Ev 163
30 Transport 2000 (Herefordshire <strong>and</strong> Worcestershire local group) Ev 166
31 Journey Solutions Ev 167
32 Department for Transport Ev 171
33 Community Transport Association (CTA) UK Ev 178
34 Passenger Focus Ev 179
35 National Union of Rail, Maritime <strong>and</strong> Transport Workers (RMT) Ev 183
36 CTC Ev 185
37 Unison Ev 190

38 Cheshire County Council Ev 191
39 Eric Martlew MP Ev 196
40 Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) Ev 197
41 Merseytravel Ev 198
42 P G Rayner Ev 199
37

38
List of Reports from the Committee during
the current Parliament
Session 2007–08
First Report Galileo: Recent Developments HC 53
Second Report The London Underground <strong>and</strong> the Public-Private
Partnership Agreements
HC 45
Third Report Work of the Committee in 2007 HC 248
Fourth Report The future of BAA HC 119
Fifth Report <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> on Public
Transport
HC 460
First Special Report Galileo: Recent Developments: Government
Response to the Committee’s First Report of
Session 2007–08
HC 283
Second Special
Report
The London Underground <strong>and</strong> the Public–
Private Partnership Agreements: Government
Response to the Committee’s Second Report of
Session 2007–08
HC 461
Session 2006–07
First Report Work of the Committee in 2005–06 HC 226
Second Report The Ports Industry in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales HC 6I-I & 61-II
Third Report Transport for the London 2012 Olympic <strong>and</strong>
Paralympic Games: The Draft Transport Plan
HC 199
Fourth Report Department for Transport Annual Report 2006 HC 95
Fifth Report The Government’s Motorcycling Strategy HC 264
Sixth Report The new National Boatmasters’ Licence HC 320-I & 320-II
Seventh Report Novice Drivers HC 355-I & 355-II
Eighth Report Passengers’ Experiences of Air <strong>Travel</strong> HC 435-I & 435-II
Ninth Report The draft Local Transport Bill <strong>and</strong> the Transport
Innovation Fund
HC 692-I & 692-II
First Special Report Passenger Rail Franchising: Government
Response to the Committee’s Fourteenth Report
of Session 2005–06
HC 265
Second Special
Report
Roads Policing <strong>and</strong> Technology: Getting the
right balance: Government Response to the
Committee’s Tenth Report of Session 2005–06
Third Special Report Bus services across the UK: Government
Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of
Session 2005–06
Fourth Special
Report
Local Transport Planning <strong>and</strong> Funding:
Government Response to the Committee’s
HC 290
HC 298
HC 334

Twelfth Report of Session 2005–06
Fifth Special Report The work of the Civil Aviation Authority:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Thirteenth Report of Session 2005–06
Sixth Special Report Transport for the London 2012 Olympic <strong>and</strong>
Paralympic Games: The Draft Transport Plan:
Olympic Delivery Authority Response to the
Committee’s Third Report of Session 2006–07
Seventh Special
Report
Eighth Special
Report
Department for Transport Annual Report 2006:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Fourth Report of Session 2006–07
The Government’s Motorcycling Strategy:
Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth
Report of Session 2006–07
Ninth Special Report The Ports Industry in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Second Report of Session 2006–07
39
HC 371
HC 484
HC 485
HC 698
HC 954

Oral evidence
Taken before the Transport Committee
on Wednesday 14 November 2007
Members present
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair
Mr David Clell<strong>and</strong> Mr Eric Martlew
Clive EVord Mr Lee Scott
Mrs Louise Ellman David Simpson
Mr Philip Hollobone Graham Stringer
Mr John Leech
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Witnesses: Mr Chris Austin, Director, Public Policy, <strong>and</strong> Mr David Mapp, Commercial Director,
Association of Train Operating Companies; <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins, Managing Director, Transport
Investigations Ltd, gave evidence.
Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Firstly, we
do have a little bit of housekeeping of our own;
Members with an interest to declare?
Clive EVord: Member of Unite.
Mr Martlew: Member of Unite <strong>and</strong> GMB.
Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Member of Unite.
Graham Stringer: Member of Unite.
Chairman: There is a slight lack of imagination here!
Gwyneth Dunwoody, Aslef.
Mrs Ellman: Member of Unite.
Q1 Chairman: Can I ask you gentlemen firstly to
identify yourselves for the record, beginning on my
left.
Mr Mapp: I am David Mapp, the Commercial
Director for the Association of Train Operating
Companies.
Mr Austin: Chris Austin, Director of Public Policy
for the Association of Train Operating Companies.
Mr Malins: Richard Malins, I am a director of my
own business, Transport Investigations Ltd.
Q2 Chairman: Did Mr Malins or Mr Austin want to
say anything specific before we begin?
Mr Austin: No, Chairman.
Q3 Chairman: In which case you know how
concerned this Committee has been in the past about
ticketing. Can you tell us what you underst<strong>and</strong> as the
Government’s present strategy on integrated
ticketing?
Mr Austin: Yes, the strategy was set out in the
Government’s White Paper published in July <strong>and</strong>
covers around a seven-year period making provision
for smartcard <strong>and</strong> ITSO smartcard ticketing <strong>and</strong>
other forms of electronic ticketing.
Q4 Chairman: Mr Austin, can we spell out ITSO, I
do not think many people listening will have much
of an idea what it is.
Mr Austin: It is a bit of a mouthful. It is Integrated
Transport Smartcard Organisation.
Q5 Chairman: We will allow you ITSO from now on
since we have it on the record.
Mr Austin: It covers that <strong>and</strong> it covers other forms
of electronic ticketing, <strong>and</strong> other forms of ticketing
which are convenient to passengers, <strong>and</strong> proposes a
way of continuing to develop those over a sevenyear
period.
Q6 Chairman: Do you think the Government is
doing enough to encourage rail operators to develop
integrated ticketing arrangements, particularly in
relation to buses <strong>and</strong> coaches?
Mr Austin: I think it is. I think the important thing
is to set the framework <strong>and</strong> to allow the operators
then to work within that to develop policies to
produce the results that are required. In some cases
there may be help needed, <strong>and</strong> indeed there has been
Government funding for ITSO in the development
of proposals <strong>and</strong> some research work as well, but the
rest other less complex systems like PlusBus for
example have been introduced entirely by the
operators on their own initiative without the need
for Government support.
Q7 Chairman: The diYculty about that is when the
National Passenger Survey asked about ticketing
sales facilities at stations <strong>and</strong> by phone, one in five
passengers thought they were either “poor” or “very
poor”. Do you think that is an acceptable level of
customer satisfaction?
Mr Mapp: The National Passenger Survey does
indeed ask a question about ticket buying at
stations. The overall score from the last wave in the
spring of this year was that 67% of customers
interviewed were either “fairly” or “very” satisfied
with the ticket buying at the station which they
had used.
Q8 Chairman: How was the question phrased, in the
same way? Are we comparing like with like?

Ev 2 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
Mr Mapp: I cannot remember the exact wording but
eVectively it asks customers in the context of the
station which they have just bought their ticket from
to rate how satisfied they were with ticket buying at
that station.
Q9 Chairman: What are rail companies doing to
improve this?
Mr Mapp: There is a whole range—
Q10 Chairman: Even 67% is not what you would call
a raging success, is it really?
Mr Mapp: 67% is the average. There are some
elements of the market which are significantly more
satisfied. Longer distance travellers for instance
were 80% satisfied with ticket buying at stations. I
should also emphasise that the National Passenger
Survey question is specifically related to stations,
<strong>and</strong> stations now account for less than 60% of all
sales. Over 40% are through the Internet, through
call centres, through travel agents <strong>and</strong> other
channels, so the question itself only relates to a
proportion of overall ticket sales. We are not
complacent about the 60%, or indeed the 80%, <strong>and</strong>
there is a whole range of initiatives that we are
pursuing to improve our customers’ experience of
retailing across the network. In particular we have
invested significantly in the Internet to the extent
that Internet sales represent 14% of all sales in total
<strong>and</strong> nearer 30% for longer distance train operators.
There has been significant investment in the
ticketing on departure network which now covers
500 stations <strong>and</strong> through which about £500 million
worth of sales pass. There have been round about
900 new self-service ticket machines installed at
stations in the past three years. We are participating
fully in the development of smartcards, in particular
ITSO smartcards but also the Oyster scheme in
London as well. Looking further ahead there is
active development work underway looking at print
at home tickets <strong>and</strong> also barcode tickets on mobile
phones. We certainly are not complacent. There are
many things that we are doing which we hope will
improve retailing for customers in the future.
Q11 Clive EVord: The industry appears to be
reluctant to make a major investment in smartcards.
What do you think the Government can do to
encourage you to invest <strong>and</strong> make the business more
attractive?
Mr Austin: The investment required is quite high
<strong>and</strong> quite clear. There is a lot of ticketing equipment,
back oYce systems <strong>and</strong> software support required,
<strong>and</strong> so far the benefits coming from it have been less
tangible. There is some revenue generation but some
of the other advantages or some of the other
potential cost savings are more diYcult for us to
achieve than for example for Transport for London.
The increase in sales through smartcards <strong>and</strong> the
reduction in sales through ticket oYces will in the
long run allow savings to be made in the cost of
operating ticket oYces. Transport for London have
realised that at some of their ticket oYces. We are
precluded from doing that by regulation which
controls the hours of opening of ticket oYces, so that
is one area where the benefits are much more diYcult
for us to realise.
Q12 Clive EVord: The information we have is that
some organisations have been critical of ITSO.
There are new technologies coming in such as
contactless credit cards; Barclaycard do one for
Oyster for instance. Is that the way forward then
rather than investing in huge kit like ITSO?
Mr Mapp: I do not think the issue is ITSO—<strong>and</strong> I
should declare an interest here as a board director of
ITSO Ltd—which has developed a world st<strong>and</strong>ard
in smartcard technology. Whilst that has perhaps
taken longer than some people expected, in
comparative terms it has actually been developed
quite quickly. By comparison the magnetic stripe
bank cards took 25 years to develop. I do not think
ITSO is the issue; the central issue has been the lack
of a business case for commercial operators to invest
in the fairly expensive infrastructure you need to
support smartcard schemes. As far as the rail sector
is concerned, the current Government strategy of
specifying ITSO enablement in every new franchise
is a very eVective method of leveraging in private
sector investment to fill that gap, <strong>and</strong> I think that
strategy is likely to be fully eVective over time.
Q13 Clive EVord: How does the rollout of ITSO
compare with for instance Oyster across London?
What is the diVerence?
Mr Mapp: Oyster of course had a head start over
ITSO in the sense that the Mayor <strong>and</strong> Transport for
London decided to introduce the Oyster scheme
some years ago now. ITSO has taken longer to
develop partly for the reasons that I have already
articulated. It is now a franchise requirement in
several of the recently let franchises, most notably
South West Trains but also East Midl<strong>and</strong>s, West
Midl<strong>and</strong>s, Cross Country <strong>and</strong> East Coast as well. In
each of those franchise agreements there are
commitments to roll out ITSO over the next two to
three years, so I think whilst it had a slower start
than Oyster ITSO is likely to catch up progressively
over the near future.
Q14 Clive EVord: You have suggested that ATOC
could provide “the client” for a national integrated
ticketing system. What would this achieve?
Mr Mapp: I am not sure I underst<strong>and</strong> the question.
Mr Austin: I think I can help there. In our written
evidence we said that our subsidiary organisation
Rail Settlement Plan has the technology to provide
the back oYce support for these smartcard systems,
<strong>and</strong> so whether it was rail only or rail <strong>and</strong> bus we
have the ability to do that for a national system.
Q15 Clive EVord: And how would that benefit either
you or the travelling public?
Mr Austin: The advantage is it would end up being
a little quicker because it is a ready-made system
capable of adaptation, but of course there is a cost
attached to it.

14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
Q16 Clive EVord: Why are only 70 of the 330 stations
in Greater London capable of taking Oyster cards?
Mr Austin: That number has increased this week
with the introduction of the London overground
concession <strong>and</strong> a further almost 50 stations have
been added to the network, <strong>and</strong> there are a further
14 or 15 stations to be added in January, so it is
exp<strong>and</strong>ing. The main rollout for the entire network
within London comes in in 2009. That is the
timescale we are planning to.
Q17 Clive EVord: The situation for people in
London is not satisfactory, is it? We have two
systems that are not compatible <strong>and</strong> are never going
to be compatible. How are we going to resolve this
situation because it appears that in these 330 stations
across London we are going to have two separate
pieces of kit sitting side-by-side. How is that going to
be resolved in a way that is easy for the travelling
public?
Mr Mapp: I think strategically there is little doubt it
would have been better to have one national
smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard, <strong>and</strong> indeed it was always the
intention that ITSO would be that national
smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard. Nevertheless Oyster was
introduced earlier in London <strong>and</strong> it has been a
success <strong>and</strong> it is well-established. I think at the
moment the proposed approach by the Department
for Transport <strong>and</strong> the Government is the sensible,
pragmatic way of addressing that, which is that that
they are in discussion with DNT <strong>and</strong> they are in
discussion with Transport for London with a view to
ensuring that all Oyster equipment is retrofitted to
allow it to accept ITSO smartcards by 2010.
Q18 Clive EVord: That will mean that the travelling
public when they are confronted with a gate will
have one single pad, <strong>and</strong> whether it is an Oyster card
or an ITSO card, they will strike that same pad?
They will not have to have a pad that is half ITSO
<strong>and</strong> half Oyster where you are creating a huge
amount of confusion? There will be one simple
system for the public to underst<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Mapp: My underst<strong>and</strong>ing is that there will be
one yellow blob, yes.
Q19 Mrs Ellman: How could a passenger feel
confident that they are getting the best advice on
cheap fares?
Mr Mapp: The obligation to sell both impartially
<strong>and</strong> accurately is a regulatory obligation on train
companies through their franchise agreements <strong>and</strong>
specifically through the ticketing settlement
agreement, which is the main regulatory framework
in this area. That is an obligation which the train
companies take very seriously indeed. As part of the
regulatory framework we are obliged to undertake
an annual mystery shopping survey. The survey
currently includes just over 10,500 mystery shops
which include stations, Internet sites <strong>and</strong> call
centres. Across a range of representative retailing
scenarios through that survey, which is conducted
by an independent market research company, they
have found that in around 99% of transactions the
customer has been sold accurately the most
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 3
appropriate ticket for their journey, so for the vast
majority of customers we believe that they are sold
the correct ticket for their journey. We accept that
some are not. We accept that we make mistakes <strong>and</strong>
1% of one billion passenger journeys is a large
number; <strong>and</strong> we fully accept that.
Q20 Mrs Ellman: Could I ask you a little more about
this survey. You say 99% satisfaction—that sounds
extraordinary.
Mr Mapp: It is very high.
Q21 Chairman: Where did you undertake your
survey, Mr Mapp? You are stretching the
Committee’s credulous response.
Mr Mapp: I think what lies behind it is the fact that
the vast majority of ticket sales are actually fairly
straightforward repeat purchases. It is for the next
station down the line, it is a cheap day return or it is
a saver return to London <strong>and</strong> so on, <strong>and</strong> booking
clerks become very expert in issuing those tickets.
Where we tend to make mistakes are with products
which are much less frequently issued where the
booking clerk in some cases will not be aware of
some of the finer detail associated with the product.
It is those types of mistakes that tend to get
publicised quite widely in the media, but the
evidence suggests that for the vast majority of
customers they are sold the right ticket for their
journey.
Q22 Mrs Ellman: I find it very hard to believe this
99% figure. It just flies in the face of what I know to
be the case from numerous people who discuss this.
There have been numerous reports of people not
getting the correct information <strong>and</strong> having great
diYculty in trying to access information. Are you
being complacent when you talk about 99%?
Mr Mapp: Are we complacent? No, not in the least.
As I said, we fully accept we make mistakes <strong>and</strong> 1%
of one billion passenger journeys is still a large
number of customers that get sold the wrong ticket;
we fully accept that.
Q23 Chairman: We do not disagree, 1% is a lot of
journeys; we sort of suspect it might be a bigger
percentage than one.
Mr Mapp: As I say, the mystery shopping survey is
conducted independently by a market research
company. We share the results with the Department
for Transport.
Q24 Mr Leech: You use the phrase the “most
appropriate” ticket rather than “best value” ticket.
How do you make a distinction between what is the
most appropriate ticket, because some tickets are
open tickets <strong>and</strong> that might be considered to be the
most appropriate ticket when they are trying to sell
the ticket to somebody? How do you make the
distinction between that <strong>and</strong> ensuring that someone
gets oVered the cheapest ticket by telling them they
could go on a fixed time <strong>and</strong> pay less?
Mr Mapp: In simple terms it is the cheapest ticket for
that point in time at which the customer wishes to
travel. If the customer can obtain a cheaper ticket by

Ev 4 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
varying their travel time they will be made aware of
that, but in eVect it is the cheapest ticket for the time
at which the customer wishes to travel.
Q25 Mr Martlew: I can believe your figures because
if you are travelling daily in from Eltham you get the
st<strong>and</strong>ard ticket but I think the reality, if you are
looking at the amount of money people lose, it is
probably much greater than 1% of the total because
it will be on the long distance journeys that people
will get the wrong priced ticket. This is partly
because of the fact that the staV have a very
complicated system to work at <strong>and</strong> it is also partly
because some of the rail companies make it so
confusing, <strong>and</strong> deliberately confusing, that people
just do not know what is the correct price. You say
1% but what was the percentage lost to the customer
from this survey?
Mr Mapp: We do not measure it in revenue terms
but I think it would be a reasonable assumption to
assume that that 1% is spread reasonably equally
across all customers, in which case it would certainly
intimate a 1% revenue loss as well.
Q26 Mr Martlew: How can you say that because the
cost of a ticket from Carlisle would be £100-odd <strong>and</strong>
if you get it wrong by £25 that would be £25 but the
one from Eltham would be about £4 so if you get
that wrong it is going to be a lot less, is it not?
Mr Mapp: I think the simple answer to your point is
I do not know what the revenue eVect is.
Q27 Mr Martlew: Thank you.
Mr Mapp: However, I think it is a reasonable
assumption that it should be very similar to the
overall eVect in terms of the number of passengers
aVected by it. Perhaps I could just come back to the
point about complacency because I would really like
to emphasise the fact that we are not complacent
about this. We underst<strong>and</strong> that customers do get
sold the wrong ticket <strong>and</strong> we are doing a number of
things to improve our performance in that regard.
There are a number of things that we are doing over
the next 12 months which we hope will improve
matters for customers.
Q28 Chairman: Such as?
Mr Mapp: Most importantly, our proposals for fare
simplification, which were set out in the White
Paper, which we plan to introduce during the course
of 2008. That will introduce a simpler national fare
structure based on four ticket types <strong>and</strong> we hope by
doing that, in conjunction with the way in which
fares are presented on the Internet <strong>and</strong> other forms
of communication, customers will be able more
easily to make sure they underst<strong>and</strong> the fares on
oVer <strong>and</strong> obtain the most appropriate fare for the
journey which they are making. There are other
work streams that we also have, including having a
look at the way in which ticket fare choices are
presented on self-service ticket machines with a view
to improving those presentations. We are also
developing what we call the price promise,
something that was asked for by the Government in
its White Paper, where we will set out in clear <strong>and</strong>
simple terms the things that we will do <strong>and</strong> commit
to doing to make sure that customers obtain the best
priced fare for their journey.
Q29 Mrs Ellman: Are you planning to run down rail
ticket oYces?
Mr Austin: I touched on the point earlier. Run down
is not the right word.
Q30 Mrs Ellman: Reduce the availability of them?
Mr Austin: Clearly, as more people buy away from
the station, the need for ticket oYce staYng levels to
be maintained at their present level will reduce <strong>and</strong>
so the expectation is, yes, there would be in the long
run as people shift away to other forms of ticketing
a reduction in the cost of operating ticket oYces
through the reduction in staYng levels.
Q31 Mrs Ellman: You make it sound as if that is
driven by cost <strong>and</strong> not the needs of the public. Do
you not think that there are many members of the
public who wish to go to a ticket oYce rather than
use the other means, which might be very simple for
a lot of people but not for some people?
Mr Austin: Absolutely, <strong>and</strong> I am not suggesting in
any way that we will get to the point where there is
no facility at main stations to provide the service that
customers are looking. The fact is however that
more <strong>and</strong> more people, as Mr Mapp has indicated,
are choosing to book oV-line from the comfort of
their own homes, either via the Internet or via
telephone link or to use smartcard products like
Oyster which they can top up without ever going
near a station.
Q32 Mrs Ellman: Do the current regulations specify
a particular level of ticket oYce availability?
Mr Austin: Yes they do <strong>and</strong> that was my point. That
is set in aspic whereas the reality is that customer
dem<strong>and</strong> is changing. We cannot respond to that
because of the regulation.
Q33 Mr Scott: Do you think it is acceptable, if you
take for example London, you are penalised
financially if you use the old-fashioned commodity
called cash?
Mr Austin: Sorry to pause on that, I am not sure that
that is actually right. In what way did you have in
mind? I know there is diVerential pricing on the
Underground for Oyster but at the moment that
does not apply to national rail; the tickets are the
same price whatever method of payment is adopted.
Q34 Mr Scott: I was referring more to where you
would be adopting something such as that for rail?
Mr Austin: Inevitably as a joint product we will be
moving to the same sort of oVer that London
Transport has in areas where Oyster is accepted, yes.
Q35 Mr Scott: So people would pay a higher price if
they use cash?
Mr Mapp: At the moment we are not allowed to do
that within the regulatory framework.

14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
Q36 Mr Scott: You say, underst<strong>and</strong>ably, that the
Government’s concessionary fares policy only looks
at one mode of transport <strong>and</strong> does not consider rail
services, but that extending it to rail services would
need careful thought. Can you see a sensible national
extension of free concessionary fare schemes that
would include some rail journeys without incurring
high costs or overloading already busy trains?
Mr Austin: I think that is a very diYcult thing to do
because it is quite diYcult to distinguish between
short distance <strong>and</strong> long distance travel. They tend to
share the same trains, for example between Coventry
<strong>and</strong> Birmingham <strong>and</strong> Macclesfield <strong>and</strong> Manchester,
<strong>and</strong> you have shorter distance passengers using
longer distance trains. The worry would be for us
that whilst we would welcome the extra business,
providing it was properly paid for, the experience
with the bus industry is that it has led to considerable
overcrowding. We already have a lot of
overcrowding that we are tackling on the rail system
at the moment so if that were to be the case, <strong>and</strong> to
encourage a lot of additional oV-peak traYc, we
would need support to enable us to exp<strong>and</strong> the
capacity of the rail network to cope with it.
Q37 Mr Hollobone: To follow on from Mr Scott’s
point about the Oyster card <strong>and</strong> the diVerential
charging for cash <strong>and</strong> Oyster, in your answer, Mr
Mapp, you said under the current regulatory
framework you are not allowed to diVerentiate the
price. Will that be the case then when the ATOC
companies introduce the Oyster card in London?
Mr Mapp: At the moment I am not aware that the
DfT plans to make any specific change to the
regulatory framework to allow for that. I think it is
true to say that we have argued the case with the DfT
for there to be greater freedom with regard to pricing
<strong>and</strong> indeed for us to be given the ability to
diVerentially price, by which means we will be able
to do that. Whether in the context of Oyster
introduction we would choose to then introduce a
similar pricing regime to that introduced by
Transport for London, I think is a question that we
have not fully addressed.
Q38 Mr Hollobone: As it st<strong>and</strong>s at the moment there
would be a substantial diVerence between a
passenger in London on an overground train on one
of your companies where there would not be a
financial penalty incurred, as on the London
Underground at the moment, in buying a ticket for
cash?
Mr Mapp: That is correct.
Q39 Mr Hollobone: With regard to fare dodging, is
it right that you think that nationally the loss of
revenue from fare dodging amounts to some £400
million or about 8% of revenue?
Mr Austin: That is the figure that we put in our
paper. I would say that it is an informed guess, an
informed estimate. There is no consistent across-theboard
survey of this although individual train
companies do research it on a regular basis. It is our
best estimate of what it is likely to be.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 5
Q40 Mr Hollobone: Is that not an excessive amount
that could go into improving the public transport
system? Given that you are having to make a guess
of what that amount is, should data not be collected
far more comprehensively given the scale of the
problem?
Mr Austin: I think the answer is yes to both of those
questions. It is a lot <strong>and</strong> train operators are doing a
lot to address that, both through gating additional
stations <strong>and</strong> through providing higher levels of
ticket checks on-train, which overcomes the
shortcomings of the gates. In the process of doing
this, they are also building up a much better store of
information <strong>and</strong> time series data to demonstrate
much more accurately the level of losses being
incurred, so the two really go together.
Q41 Mr Hollobone: I think that Mr Malins is of the
view that there is an over-reliance in the rail industry
on introducing barriers to prevent fare dodging <strong>and</strong>
more sophisticated strategies are needed. Mr
Malins, would you elaborate on that?
Mr Malins: My point here that I put in the paper,
<strong>and</strong> I repeat for you now, is that, first of all, as Chris
has admitted, there is no sound or consistent method
of measurement by most TOCs on the extent to
which they have fare evasion or simply ticketless
travel, what I would describe as people who may not
pay their fares for the very reason the Committee
was alluding to earlier on, that it is actually quite
diYcult to buy a ticket in the first place. So we need
to distinguish between people who are deliberately
trying to avoid paying <strong>and</strong> those who find it diYcult
to pay because the facilities are not there. The sort
of numbers that Chris has been talking about would
embrace absolutely everything if the number were
correct—<strong>and</strong> I suspect it might be on the high side.
Q42 Mr Hollobone: Whilst you are on the subject of
whether people are genuinely dodging fares or
accidentally dodging fares, do you have any estimate
of the number of people who are willfully doing this?
Mr Malins: All I can say is that one can draw a little
pie chart which says if you look at the world at large
there are people out there who always want to pay
their fares <strong>and</strong> are committed to doing it. That could
be 80% of the population but it will vary <strong>and</strong> I would
not like to say that is an absolutely correct figure.
Then there are people who if it is made diYcult to
pay they will not bother. Then there are people who
are determined fare evaders. Quite what number
they represent is something that is very diYcult to
get at. I would say that the number Chris quoted is
probably an outside number for fares not paid for all
sort of reasons, some of them in fact not the
customers’ fault. I do not think there is any
consistent measurement within that to know
precisely what the number is <strong>and</strong> therefore what the
reasons are <strong>and</strong> how best to tackle them. The point
I was making to the Committee is I think it is a kneejerk
reaction by train operating companies to revert
to closing stations, which is the system we had years
ago, which meant people were st<strong>and</strong>ing around
getting bored so that we can check people at the
beginning of the journey. The sort of gates that are

Ev 6 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
used are those designed for the Underground. I
think they are eVective where you have got high
volumes of short-distance business where it is
diYcult to check by other means <strong>and</strong> also when
people are not encumbered by bags <strong>and</strong> are familiar
with the system. What alarms me—<strong>and</strong> I would like
the Committee to think about this—the spreading of
this to inter-city business where I think it is a)
unnecessary <strong>and</strong> b) wholly inappropriate in terms of
customer service. I do not think it is necessary
because once people are on your system for longer,
the on-train check is far the most eVective, <strong>and</strong> that
is what people should concentrate on. Ticket gates
where you have got a serious short-distance
problem, yes, but on long-distance business the train
is much the best place to do it.
Q43 Mr Hollobone: I underst<strong>and</strong> the legal
framework for ticket inspection on railways is
diVerent to that which operates on buses. Would
there be support for making that legal framework
the same? And then to Mr Mapp: I believe in your
evidence you say that guidelines could be given on
both prosecution <strong>and</strong> on sentencing which better
reflect the serious nature of fare dodging.
Mr Malins: I said in my note that because in my
business we do this as an agency activity for a
number of rail operators—not all of them TOCs I
might say, one of them is Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light
Railway—we find that the legislation is fit for
purpose. It goes back a very long way to the 19th
Century <strong>and</strong> the Regulation of Railways Act. That
is the one we normally use <strong>and</strong> we do not want any
change in that, it is fine for railways. I really could
not speak for buses but clearly they could not use
that Act because it only applies to railways <strong>and</strong> is
authorised by Acts of Parliament or other similar
means.
Mr Austin: Maybe I could answer that one. The
other piece of legislation is the Penalty Fares Act <strong>and</strong>
the Penalty Fares Rules which apply to certain areas
of certain train operating companies, principally in
the London area but not entirely; it operates in
Leeds <strong>and</strong> Birmingham for example. Again the rules
there are written around the requirements of the
railway rather than a bus where the driver is
inspecting every ticket as you get on the bus. We put
the bit in our evidence about sentencing because
there was (admittedly anecdotal) evidence from
train operating companies around the country that
sentencing of oVenders who have deliberately set out
to travel without a ticket is pretty patchy, <strong>and</strong> some
seem to consider it a more serious oVence than
others <strong>and</strong> sometimes that sends the wrong messages
generally to people who are thinking about trying
it on.
Q44 David Simpson: Given the links between fare
dodging <strong>and</strong> anti-social behaviour, do you think
that enough is being done by the train operators to
protect the honest passengers that are travelling <strong>and</strong>
using their facilities?
Mr Austin: I think you are right to raise that. It is a
very serious issue <strong>and</strong> it is one of the reasons that
makes on-train ticket inspection in urban areas at
certain times of day more expensive because you
cannot do that with a single person or even two
people, it has to be a team of people, very often
supported by a rail enforcement oYcer or the British
Transport Police. That is part of a wider societal
problem, it is not just limited to the railways, <strong>and</strong>
that is a problem. We do try, I think assiduously, to
protect passengers who do try to pay their fares. I
know there are a number of anecdotal experiences
where, as we discussed earlier this afternoon, people
have found it diYcult to buy tickets, <strong>and</strong> I think
smartcard ticketing <strong>and</strong> Oyster will help that
because of the amount of prepay that will be going
on. We try to do that with an increased number of
ticket machines around the system. Mr Mapp has
already mentioned over the last three years 900
additional machines have gone in across the
network. Then there is an appeals procedure for
people who feel they have not been treated fairly.
Q45 Clive EVord: Can I just follow up that point
about safety. Is it not a fact though that you can
eradicate the problem by stopping people who are
obviously intent on causing problems from getting
on trains in the first place, <strong>and</strong> then does it not
become a problem because you do not have stations
manned particularly in oV-peak periods?
Mr Austin: Up to a point in the sense that there is
evidence that gating of stations has helped in
keeping the railway for people who are passengers
not who are just using it as an area to congregate, but
it is not always the complete answer.
Q46 Clive EVord: In this age where people have got a
heightened sense of security on our public transport
system, is having any stations unmanned on the
network a sensible way forward?
Mr Austin: I think it is inevitable. There is a large
number of quite small stations with relatively light
usage all around the country, principally in rural
areas but also in some suburban areas as well, where
the costs <strong>and</strong> the benefits of having staV on the
station are just miles apart.
Mr Malins: Could I add to that Chairman, I
mentioned earlier on that I do some work for the
Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway <strong>and</strong> I think many of the
Committee will know that is basically an unstaVed
railway as far as stations are concerned. We would
say that in fact they do not have the problem that
you are describing to any great extent, although they
do to a small extent but it is kept under control.
Partly of course that was a system designed to be like
that from the outset, so you can design out some of
the problems by building the thing correctly in the
first place <strong>and</strong> that is more diYcult on an the
established rail network. I would say, yes, you can
have an unstaVed railway that is safe <strong>and</strong> the
Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway proves it.
Q47 Chairman: Is not a lot of that because it was
specifically built <strong>and</strong> tailored in a particular way?
Does it not have automatic coverage by security
cameras, it is a very restricted railway anyway <strong>and</strong> it
tends, if I may say so without sounding pejorative,

14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
to be in places where there is going to be quite a big
movement all the time on the stations, these are not
isolated stations.
Mr Malins: No, but they will be similar to suburban
stations elsewhere.
Q48 Chairman: Is that actually true? The DLR tends
to cover areas where almost by definition they will
have larger numbers moving around than, say, some
of the smaller urban areas even in London?
Mr Malins: To some extent you are right, but I think
it does demonstrate that you can have an unstaVed
model that works; that is all I am saying.
Q49 Clive EVord: Can I pick up something Mr
Malins said earlier on about checking tickets on
trains. He said if you have people on a train for a
length of time it is sensible to have checks on the
train. What is a long period of time? Are you talking
about commuters?
Mr Malins: Exactly where you draw the boundary
perhaps is something we can debate, but let us say
notionally that on journeys of an hour or longer it
should be quite practicable. For what I would call
the intercity network you should be able to do it all
properly on-train.
Q50 Clive EVord: Presumably you are not talking
about packed commuter trains because that would
not be possible?
Mr Malins: No.
Q51 Mr Martlew: Mr Malins, you talked about
mainline stations but can I ask Mr Austin, are you
thinking of gating stations like Euston for example
where people are going through with lots of luggage
<strong>and</strong> will be travelling perhaps three, four or five
hours? Is that what you are thinking about? It seems
to me that you may be.
Mr Austin: Yes there are proposals to gate. I am not
quite sure of the timescale, I do not have that in my
head, but Waterloo, which is one of the larger
stations that is not gated at the moment, <strong>and</strong> King’s
Cross, <strong>and</strong> Richard’s example, Paddington is
already gated partially. I think the important thing
there is to make sure that the level of customer
service surrounding that is high enough to assist
people who have tickets that will not go through the
gates or who have luggage. I know as a regular user
of Paddington that the staYng levels at the barriers
are quite high for that purpose.
Q52 Chairman: If you use Victoria, Mr Austin,
which I am sure you do in coming back from the
airport, you will discover that you are enormously
dependent on whoever happens to be at the gate at
the time. I think they do make an eVort but if they
empty one train at the same time, which is the
pattern coming from the airport particularly, there
are frequently occasions when it is extraordinarily
diYcult to get through if you have an awkward-sized
piece of luggage or a child in a pram.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 7
Mr Austin: Yes, I underst<strong>and</strong> that.
Q53 Chairman: Which does not auger well for the
sort of numbers that you are talking about at
Waterloo.
Mr Austin: No but I mean they will have the
advantage of the experience at the other stations to
build on in the design for that, but you are quite
right—
Q54 Chairman: You mean having done it wrong
once we can always pray we will not do it wrong
again?
Mr Austin: More than pray, I hope—actually get it
better.
Q55 Chairman: So you are assuring us that all will
be well?
Mr Austin: I think it is certainly in our members’
interests to make it work well because we do not
want to be deterring passengers by having a diYcult
struggle through the gates to get on the train in the
first place.
Q56 Mrs Ellman: Have you got any evidence of
passengers with free concessionary passes
transferring from rail to bus?
Mr Austin: Yes, we have a little. There has been a
little bit of work done on local services which
indicates no big swing as a result of the introduction
of concessionary fares in Engl<strong>and</strong> but a slight
dropping oV in the rate of growth, because local
services have been growing quite strongly over the
last ten years <strong>and</strong> there is some evidence over the last
year that that may have started to tail oV. In Wales
there is definitely evidence on the Conwy Valley line
of quite a significant reduction in patronage once the
bus concession was introduced <strong>and</strong> then the
opposite when the concession was extended to rail
<strong>and</strong> indeed, on the Heart of Wales line they have had
to double the length of the trains from one car to two
cars to carry the extra people who are travelling.
Q57 Mrs Ellman: Would you welcome the extension
of the concessionary schemes in Engl<strong>and</strong> to rail?
Mr Austin: As I mentioned earlier, I think that
would be quite diYcult unless it were accompanied
by the funding to increase the capacity of the service
as well because it would, as we have seen in a small
way on the Heart of Wales line, increase the dem<strong>and</strong>
on a railway that has already got strong growing
dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> some overcrowding problems—
Q58 Chairman: And nothing frightens rail
companies like the thought of having too many
passengers does it, Mr Austin?
Mr Austin: We welcome that but what we do not
want to do is to have it in an unplanned way that we
cannot provide for with additional trains <strong>and</strong> longer
trains, <strong>and</strong> in some cases additional platforms.
Mr Mapp: I think it is also worth mentioning that we
do already oVer a range of railcards targeted at parts
of the market which are likely to be aVected by the
sort of concessionary scheme that you are
highlighting. We oVer a railcard aimed at the senior

Ev 8 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
retired market, the young persons’ market <strong>and</strong> the
family market, <strong>and</strong> those railcards have been
remarkably successful, <strong>and</strong> they continue to be
remarkably successful to the extent that there are
now 2.2 million people in the country who have
railcards that can take advantage of the discounts
which they oVer.
Q59 Mrs Ellman: Would you be opposed to a
proposal to extend the concessionary bus schemes
to rail?
Mr Mapp: It is a matter for government. It is really
a matter of public policy. If the Government believes
that that is a policy objective which they wish to
pursue then, as Mr Austin has made clear, providing
the necessary financial arrangements are put in place
then of course in principle we would not oppose that,
but there are practical issues in terms of
overcrowding that would need to be addressed <strong>and</strong>
I think the implications of those issues should not be
under-estimated.
Q60 Mr Hollobone: A number of your members
allow police oYcers oV duty to travel free of charge
on rail services on the underst<strong>and</strong>ing that if there is
trouble on the train they can assist the ticket
inspector or the other rail staV to deal with that. To
what extent do your members oVer that service?
Mr Mapp: Are you referring to the agreement that
we have with the Metropolitan <strong>and</strong> City of London
Police Forces in the London area?
Mr Hollobone: I represent a constituency in
Northamptonshire <strong>and</strong> I underst<strong>and</strong> that the rail
operator there allows oV-duty police oYcers to
travel free of charge.
Q61 Chairman: I think Mr Hollobone is referring to
a custom <strong>and</strong> practice which has always been in most
transport systems. Nobody specifies it but I think it
is accepted, it is one of those nod-<strong>and</strong>-a-wink jobs.
Mr Mapp: Right, okay. Well, in the schemes that I
am aware of there is certainly an agreement with
police forces in Greater London <strong>and</strong> there are also
some schemes around the country that I am aware of
where police oYcers receive free travel. In the case of
London there is a financial arrangement in place. In
other areas it is on the basis that the police oYcers
provide support <strong>and</strong> assistance.
Chairman: We are getting a bit tight for time now so
Mr Simpson.
Q62 David Simpson: I think, Mr Austin, you
mentioned earlier on that customers had the right of
appeal <strong>and</strong> I underst<strong>and</strong> also that train operators
appoint their own appeals panels. How can
customers be sure that they are getting a fair deal?
Mr Austin: There are two companies that oVer an
appeals service, one of which is owned by one of our
members <strong>and</strong> the other of which is independent.
Independence is guaranteed by the fact that they do
not exercise a personal discretion in that they are
administering a code of practice set by the
Department for Transport, which audit them, so
that is the guarantee of independence. The other is
perhaps the financial point, that the funding is on the
basis that it is paid for by the train operators who
participate in the scheme but on the basis of a flat
payment for each appeal, regardless of whether it is
accepted or not, so there is no financial incentive one
way or the other; it is a straight payment.
Q63 Chairman: Can I ask you very briefly now,
gentlemen, is it true that revenue protection staV
have got too much power <strong>and</strong> occasionally are a bit
heavy-h<strong>and</strong>ed?
Mr Austin: I do not think they have too much power.
I think they have the powers they need to implement
their responsibilities <strong>and</strong> duties. In the event of any
of them being, or appearing to be, heavy-h<strong>and</strong>ed
there is an appeals procedure.
Q64 Chairman: This appeals procedure Mr Simpson
mentioned, you are quite convinced it is suYciently
transparent <strong>and</strong> people will be quite reassured
because they will know that it is separate from the
people who have appointed those to run the system?
Mr Austin: I think so, Chairman, <strong>and</strong> they are set up
to be independent.
Q65 Chairman: Yes I underst<strong>and</strong> that but does the
passenger underst<strong>and</strong> that they are totally separate?
Mr Austin: They are audited by the Department for
Transport <strong>and</strong> Passenger Focus is also involved, <strong>and</strong>
I think if there were any concerns over the way the
code was being applied there is a right of appeal to
Passenger Focus as well.
Q66 Chairman: So you think the passenger can be
assured that this is a satisfactory appeals procedure?
Mr Austin: Yes I do.
Q67 Chairman: You have not talked about PlusBus
in relation to buses.
Mr Mapp: PlusBus is a scheme that eight 1 train
operating companies have supported since its
inception. It is a scheme that has been developed
entirely by private sector bus <strong>and</strong> train operators
without any central government funding. Over the
course of the past three or four years it has grown to
the extent that there are now 227 PlusBus schemes
across the country with more planned, including
Crewe to be added during the course of 2008. Whilst
initially numbers were small they have grown
significantly, over the last year in particular, in
response to the first national promotional campaign
for PlusBus, <strong>and</strong> this year we are expecting there to
be over 100,000 issues of PlusBus tickets. I think it
demonstrates the ability of the private sector to work
co-operatively together. There is, we believe, further
potential <strong>and</strong> further opportunity in PlusBus <strong>and</strong> the
PlusBus product lends itself very well to delivery
through smartcards.
Q68 Chairman: You have spoken quite a lot about
Internet sales <strong>and</strong> how the trend is upwards, but it is
not possible if you have a cycle, to book the right of
passage, is it, on the Internet? PlusBus is not
available on the Internet, cycle carriage bookings are
1 Note by witness: Remove the word “eight”

14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
not available over the Internet. The point you were
being asked very specifically earlier, on which I think
is enormously relevant, is if you are moving towards
more <strong>and</strong> more technology do you underst<strong>and</strong> how
some of this can exclude whole groups of
passengers? I must tell you unless it is a threewheeled
cycle I cannot see myself fighting my way on
to a train with a bicycle, but supposing I went mad
<strong>and</strong> decided to put a bicycle on at Euston to get to
Crewe, how could I book that if I cannot use the
Internet (although you tell me that Internet booking
is the way to do it)?
Mr Mapp: The vast majority of rail products are
available on the Internet.
Q69 Chairman: But this particular one is not <strong>and</strong> it
is not alone, is it? All I am saying to you is why is it
that you have a system that you are telling us you are
going to use more <strong>and</strong> more, that you are telling us
is very helpful, that you are telling us provides the
passenger with the right sort of information, <strong>and</strong>
then you are not able to say why certain groups of
passengers are excluded from using the system?
Mr Mapp: I think the development of the Internet
has focused on the major products that the vast
majority of customers wish to buy. I would accept
that there are omissions from the product range at
the moment that need to be addressed <strong>and</strong> PlusBus
is one <strong>and</strong> cycling is a second, <strong>and</strong> I think that is
something as an industry we do need to address.
Q70 Chairman: What about frequent <strong>and</strong> uncoordinated
bus timetable changes; is that going to
undermine PlusBus?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 9
Witnesses: Mrs Elaine Holt, Managing Director, First Capital Connect, <strong>and</strong> Mr Martin Dean, Business
Development Director First Group, First Group plc; <strong>and</strong> Mr Les Warneford, Managing Director,
Stagecoach UK Bus, <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs, Chief Executive, Stagecoach Group Rail Division, Stagecoach
Group plc, gave evidence.
Q72 Chairman: Good afternoon to you, gentlemen
<strong>and</strong> madam, you are most warmly welcome. Could
I ask you to identify yourselves for the record please.
Mr Warneford: I am Les Warneford, I am the
Managing Director of Stagecoach UK Bus.
Mr Dobbs: I am Ian Dobbs, I am Chief Executive of
Stagecoach Rail Division.
Mr Dean: I am Martin Dean, Business Development
Director, UK Bus Division for First Group.
Mrs Holt: I am Elaine Holt, I am Managing
Director of First Capital Connect.
Q73 Chairman: Thank you. Did any of you have
anything you wanted to say before we begin?
Nothing at all. You know about the Government’s
strategy on integrated ticketing. What do you think
they ought to do to encourage rail <strong>and</strong> bus operators
to develop integrated ticketing arrangements?
Mr Warneford: I think they could probably help a
lot by putting some money with us into promoting
the schemes that we are already developing.
2 Note by witness: Insert “Edmonson”
Mr Austin: That was something we referred to in our
paper <strong>and</strong> I guess that is a concern. The suggestion
was that, if possible, there should be a move with
connecting rail/bus links to make the changes at
around the same time as the train time tables twice
a year, which are themselves governed by European
requirements, so that there would be some coordination.
Q71 Chairman: Integration is going to be enormous
<strong>and</strong> we have been talking about concessionary fares,
we have been talking about special simplified
systems, are you quite confident that if as an industry
you are required to move forward the companies will
not only be responsive to the complications that will
come with the new technology but they are in talks
with government about the implications of the
diVerence between the Oyster system <strong>and</strong> the ITSO
system?
Mr Austin: Yes, I think it is very interesting to look
at the historical perspective of this because the 2 card
ticket lasted for 150 years, the magnetic stripe ticket
for 30 years <strong>and</strong> now we are already talking about
changes to the Oyster system. It is going to change
more frequently <strong>and</strong> more dramatically over the
next few years then we have ever seen before so we
are going to have to be pretty light on our feet, <strong>and</strong>
we want to be doing that.
Chairman: I am sure we associate your Association
with lightness of approach <strong>and</strong> the ability to dance
round all the problems! Thank you very much,
gentlemen, I am very grateful to you.
Q74 Chairman: Such as?
Mr Warneford: PlusBus in particular which I think
for its simplicity has a lot of potential to grow
enormously.
Q75 Chairman: Do you agree with that?
Mr Dean: I think that is right <strong>and</strong> that is a good
point, but one of the things to say in terms of what
the Government has done is the block exemption on
ticketing to the Competition Act which has been
very, very useful in terms of allowing us to have
ticketing agreements between operators <strong>and</strong> not fall
foul of the Competition Act, <strong>and</strong> that is very, very
important <strong>and</strong> that has led to the development of a
lot of schemes, <strong>and</strong> PlusBus is a very positive one.
Q76 Chairman: Since both of you have got major
bus <strong>and</strong> rail operations—Stagecoach for example
have got nearly half of the shareholding in Virgin
Rail Group—why is it that there are not more
integrated ticketing schemes across all these diVerent
modes? Mr Warneford, why can I not go from one
to another on a Stagecoach?

Ev 10 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
Mr Warneford: As far as I know, Chairman, where
we know that there is some dem<strong>and</strong> we are very
happy to provide that.
Q77 Chairman: Where you know—?
Mr Warneford: —There is a dem<strong>and</strong> for it then we
are happy to provide through ticketing. I am not
conscious that there is a huge gap there.
Q78 Chairman: You are not conscious, so we are not
looking for customers, we are going wait for them to
come to us, are we?
Mr Warneford: No, we have already promoted
schemes, we have joint ticketing.
Q79 Chairman: Mr Dean, are you happy with
everything you are doing?
Mr Dean: Yes, Chairman, if you look at a lot of
locations throughout the United Kingdom where we
operate in an area <strong>and</strong> another operator runs in that
area as well, then there are examples of joint
ticketing schemes <strong>and</strong> we have implemented quite a
few, as Mr Warneford said, where there is the
dem<strong>and</strong> to do that.
Mrs Holt: I think when you are looking at customer
requirements <strong>and</strong> particularly the environment
focus going forward, there is an increasing dem<strong>and</strong>
for integrated transport, whether it be cycling or bus
integration, <strong>and</strong> I think as train operators we are
doing quite a lot of work in this area to see how we
can better respond to customer needs. I think
customer focus is changing particularly around the
environment <strong>and</strong> access to rail stations is becoming
more important to them, so I think that there is more
that we can do, <strong>and</strong> certainly First Group rail
operators are working very closely with the local bus
companies <strong>and</strong> indeed cycle groups <strong>and</strong> other bodies
to make sure that we do respond to customer
dem<strong>and</strong>.
Q80 Chairman: Can you give me oV-the-cuV—<strong>and</strong> I
am not going to hold you to it—two or three things
you think your company does.
Mrs Holt: If we take First Capital Connect we are
doing a lot with cycling. It is a particular issue for us
because we serve Cambridge <strong>and</strong> Brighton <strong>and</strong>
places like that, so we have invested quite a lot in
cycle facilities, parking, security, <strong>and</strong> that kind of
thing to promote diVerent travel to stations because
car parking is an issue at stations.
Q81 Chairman: I underst<strong>and</strong> that but before we get
on to that, how do I get my bicycle on a train in
Cambridge or to Cambridge? Do I have to book
specifically by going to the station; can I use the
Internet; how do I get my cycle on?
Mrs Holt: If you are travelling from Cambridge you
can leave your bike at the station. There are plenty
of facilities there. Peak trains are very, very crowded
so we do not allow bikes on the train in the peak but
oV peak you can travel with your bike. You are not
required on our services to book in advance, but the
point was made earlier about booking with bicycles
not being available on the Internet, <strong>and</strong> that is
something we should all look at.
Q82 Mrs Ellman: What is the industry doing to make
sure that passengers get accurate information on the
best deals at all times?
Mr Dobbs: I did not quite catch the question.
Q83 Mrs Ellman: What are you all doing to improve
the situation for passengers to make sure they get the
cheapest prices <strong>and</strong> best deals at all times?
Mr Dobbs: I think the previous witnesses actually
summarised very well some of the general schemes
that are going on <strong>and</strong> the actual scale of the problem
as well. One of the areas where I think we are making
some major strides is in making better the customerfriendly
nature of the ticket vending machines that
we have got. That is one area where I think the first
generation were not particularly friendly in that
regard.
Q84 Chairman: Vending machines?
Mr Dobbs: Yes, the ticket vending machines, <strong>and</strong>
really with experience <strong>and</strong> feedback from our
customers we are now looking at ways with software
where we can make those far more interactive <strong>and</strong>
simpler to use as well. We are actually seeing quite a
distinct movement to ticket vending machines. They
are becoming increasingly popular <strong>and</strong> I think that
is something we see in other industries as well. In
some of our stations for instance we are getting up
to 70% of ticket sales through the ticket vending
machines. Waterloo is nearly 50% now, which is
quite remarkable.
Q85 Mrs Ellman: Does anyone else have anything to
add to that?
Mr Warneford: I think the question, Chairman,
probably does not much apply to the buses where we
have got very simple fare structures <strong>and</strong> scales that
are posted on the vehicle. I am not conscious that
there is a problem of awareness or information
about them.
Mr Dobbs: Could I possibly comment on your
earlier question about the appropriateness of the
Government’s approach on integrated ticketing. I
think one of the things that we would very much
applaud is the leadership the Government has taken
with regard to defining ITSO as the common
platform across all operators. It is an area where it is
very diYcult to develop smartcard technology but it
is certainly one that has enormous potential. I know
between the rail <strong>and</strong> the bus divisions in our
company we are looking very much at smartcards as
the future. We have had PlusBus <strong>and</strong> other schemes
in the past but I think we have been scratching the
surface. We have to produce a product that
customers, the people out there in the street, are very
comfortable with, something that is very easy to use.
I think a common smartcard platform is the way
to go.
Q86 Mrs Ellman: Is the PlusBus scheme undermined
by frequent changes to bus timetables?
Mr Dobbs: My personal experience is that is not
necessarily the case. I think first of all although it is
promoted it is not widely known about. That is
number one. I think secondly in a lot of the stations

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 11
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
we serve, certainly in the south east of Engl<strong>and</strong>, that
the preferred mode of travel to the station is the car
anyway. People have already got a car at home <strong>and</strong>
what we have been trying to do is encourage them to
leave it at the station <strong>and</strong> go forward from there, so
we have been increasing car parking spaces. Maybe
bus has been a little bit further down the priority in
the Home Counties, but I think it is an area we have
to look at in the future, <strong>and</strong> again we have to make
it visible.
Q87 Mrs Ellman: Are there any plans to improve the
PlusBus scheme?
Mrs Holt: Yes there are. More stations are being
added all the time <strong>and</strong> I think there is a lot of work
going on to make sure that bus timetables <strong>and</strong> train
timetables are linked.
Q88 Chairman: There is an original idea!
Mrs Holt: Yes, startling, is it not! So I think we are
seeing that. We have been running the franchise for
18 months <strong>and</strong> we have seen a 58% growth year-onyear
on PlusBus sales because we are working a lot
more closely with other bus companies, so I think
where there is a will there is a way, <strong>and</strong> I think it is
important that train companies do build
relationships. It does work when it is there <strong>and</strong>
advertised in the station. I think advertising <strong>and</strong>
better liaison on timetables is something that is
taking place <strong>and</strong> something that will improve.
Q89 Mrs Ellman: Is fare dodging a problem?
Mrs Holt: The previous witnesses talked a lot about
the level of ticketless travel. I think we should
remember that 95% of our customers do pay for
their tickets. In First Capital Connect’s case it is
about 5% of people that are fraudulent so, yes, it is
a problem <strong>and</strong> we are making big investments into
gate lines, additional staV, <strong>and</strong> a variety of other
measures. The majority of people are honest <strong>and</strong>
they pay their fare <strong>and</strong> it is the small percentage that
we have to deal with.
Q90 Mrs Ellman: Do you need any new powers to
make fare dodging more diYcult?
Mrs Holt: No, we do not believe we do on the rail
side.
Mr Dean: On the bus side outside London there is
not the ability to levy a penalty fare. I think that is
something that we would welcome the enabling
power to do.
Mr Dobbs: I think from our side I would agree with
Mrs Holt that the issue is being far more
professionally managed now than it was a few years
ago. I think there has been a major tightening up on
revenue protection. It is still a problem, of course it
is a problem, <strong>and</strong> while there are people there not
paying <strong>and</strong> can be seen by others not to pay, it is a
major problem. It is, in the context of the overall
picture, a very small minority of people <strong>and</strong> the
actual number of people within that 5% that was
quoted there, whatever the number is, the hard core
of people who are deliberately dodging is very,
very small.
Q91 Mr Scott: The industry has been reluctant to
make major investment in smartcards. Is the
government putting the long term structure <strong>and</strong>
incentives in place to make the business case more
attractive?
Mr Dean: The principle of ITSO is a good one
because obviously if you create a common platform
what it does mean is that you have the same
st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> you can buy products en masse which
has to be a good thing.
Mr Dobbs: Within the rail industry, the
government—I think as has already been
mentioned—is going through a process of specifying
smartcard technology to be implemented on all new
rail franchises to either a large or to a small extent,
depending on which franchises they are. We were
certainly with South West Trains the first company
to go through the process where we had to introduce
a smartcard scheme across the entire train operating
company. That is a huge challenge but I think it is
moving in the right direction. We think there is a
positive business case for it in our part of the home
counties, probably because of the sheer volumes of
people involved <strong>and</strong> it will allow us far more flexible
ticketing in the future as well, particularly with the
commuting market. In other parts of the country the
business case is far weaker. Clearly in rural areas,
where the volumes of people are much lower <strong>and</strong> the
numbers of footfalls through each of the stations are
very light in some cases, the business case is very,
very diYcult to prove.
Q92 Mr Scott: Oyster is to be extended to all rail
stations in London by 2008. Do you think that is
sensible, investing further in Oyster when it is not
going to be compatible with ITSO? What is your
view on this?
Mr Dobbs: We are very happy to embrace Oyster
technology on mainl<strong>and</strong> rail as long as we obviously
get the commercial arrangements around it robust. I
think it is sensible because extending Oyster across
the mainl<strong>and</strong> rail system gives the consumer more
choice.
Q93 Chairman: I think we have to be clear about this
because what Mr Scott was asking is, since there is a
gap between the two systems, are you assuming that
you will be able to move or are you saying no, you
drop the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> you go for the Oyster
st<strong>and</strong>ards? I think there is a specific gap <strong>and</strong> a
specific disagreement, is there not?
Mr Dobbs: No, I do not believe there is a gap. We are
cooperating with Transport for London to put
Oyster pay as you go onto all of our stations. We
have had some very fruitful discussions with them
which we hope will lead to a resolution of that in the
next few weeks. In the meantime, we are both within
London <strong>and</strong> outside of London implementing the
ITSO smartcard as well so we are putting two
systems in. I do not believe that is a problem.
Q94 Chairman: Why?
Mr Dobbs: As has already been mentioned, they are
going to be interoperable. As far as the customer is
concerned, they will be able to use ITSO smartcard

Ev 12 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
products in London that have Transport for
London fares on them <strong>and</strong> of course they will be able
to use Oyster cards on mainl<strong>and</strong> rail stations with
the Greater London area as well.
Q95 Mr Scott: You do not think it would be better
just to go with one system <strong>and</strong>, as Oyster obviously
is around at the moment, to use that <strong>and</strong> not ITSO?
Mr Dobbs: The Mayor has decided that Oyster is the
right thing for London, bearing in mind that it came
along earlier than ITSO as well, so it would have
been silly waiting for ITSO. As the system evolves in
the future <strong>and</strong> the technology evolves, I think the
systems will technically probably come close
together. As far as the passenger is concerned, it will
not make a lot of diVerence. You will have a card
that you touch on a reader which is either valid or
not valid, just the same as a normal ticket.
Q96 Mr Hollobone: Stagecoach basically runs the
public transport system in Kettering because you are
in charge of most of the buses <strong>and</strong> now the trains.
What plans do you have for somebody for example
in Burton Latimer in the Kettering constituency to
buy an integrated ticket to take him from Burton
Latimer to the station <strong>and</strong> then to London?
Mr Warneford: Kettering is one of the Plusbus
stations so you can buy a rail ticket which has the bus
add-on. If you are asking will you be able to buy the
rail ticket on the bus, that technically is a much
huger problem <strong>and</strong> that will be the same problem
anywhere in the country, to put the whole rail
ticketing system onto the bus driver’s machine.
Mr Dobbs: Our contracted obligation is to install an
ITSO smartcard system at Kettering Station along
with the other mainline stations on that line <strong>and</strong> also
at selected stations in the East Midl<strong>and</strong>s commuter
area, let us call it, around Derby <strong>and</strong> Nottingham.
Our key priority is to get that technology in place
first. Once we get things rolling, we will then be
looking at how we can spread out greater integration
but at the moment, as I think Mr Warneford has
said, we have the Plusbus product <strong>and</strong> we will look
to develop that further <strong>and</strong> see whether it can be
integrated with smartcard but I think that is some
years away. Our first priority is to get the rail
product working properly. When we have done that,
then we will look at developing it.
Q97 Mr Hollobone: We will come back to the rail
product, with your permission Madam Chairman,
in a minute. Pensioners in Kettering are looking
forward to their free concessionary bus travel from
next April. The local borough council is looking to
extend that free concession into the peak period
which the borough council will subsidise. Will your
smartcard technology be able to cope with that?
Mr Warneford: Do you mean purely on the bus?
Q98 Mr Hollobone: Yes.
Mr Warneford: The situation with the national bus
concession scheme next April has a problem <strong>and</strong> you
have crystallised it in your own question. Although
there will be one national smartcard scheme from
the government, from the Department for Transport
for all the elderly <strong>and</strong> the disabled, with a st<strong>and</strong>ard,
core time of day at which it can be used, each district
can then apply diVerent times of day to it. I just
cannot underst<strong>and</strong> how the bus drivers are going to
know what is going to be valid from one area to
another. Purely within your own area, within
Kettering, our drivers will recognise a Kettering pass
will be available in the morning peak period. That
will not be a problem but they might not know what
the rules are for Northampton or for Corby or for
South Northamptonshire. I can see a real problem
there.
Q99 Mr Hollobone: With regard to the rail service in
Kettering, I am very glad that you are here, Mr
Dobbs, because there is huge concern in Kettering at
the moment that ticket prices are going to be going
up quite sharply under your new franchise
arrangement. You are proposing to cut the number
of trains from London to Kettering by a fifth, the
number of evening peak trains from London to
Kettering by a third <strong>and</strong> halve the number of trains
from Kettering going northwards throughout the
day, eVectively downgrading Kettering from an
intercity station to an outer suburban station. Could
I invite you, Mr Dobbs, to visit with me Kettering
railway station in this, its 150 th year, so that you can
talk with local passengers about the link between
ticketing <strong>and</strong> the extra prices that local people are
going to have to pay with a severely downgraded
service?
Mr Dobbs: Yes.
Q100 Mr Martlew: Surely a lot of the problems are
with Victorian stations <strong>and</strong> integrated ticketing
because you cannot physically get the bus near the
station. Plusbus or whatever will not work if the
forecourts of the stations are full of cars so local
government perhaps needs to clear the forecourts of
the stations to get the buses there. Is that correct?
Would that be helpful?
Mr Warneford: By <strong>and</strong> large I would say that where
the bus can get to the station sensibly as part of its
route, we probably can arrange with whatever the
train company is to make sure that there is space for
the bus. In your own area, Penrith for example, there
is a bus/rail link <strong>and</strong> we have a place where we can
stop at Penrith. The bigger problem—<strong>and</strong> I do not
have an answer to it—is the first part of your
question. A lot of stations are nowhere near
convenient bus routes. You have to run dedicated
services <strong>and</strong> they are expensive to provide.
Q101 Mr Martlew: That is the problem you cannot
see the solution to?
Mr Warneford: Not without some extra funds to
whoever provides that service.
Q102 Mr Martlew: There are two problems. One,
you are saying there is no bus route that goes by.
Mr Warneford: In some places.
Q103 Mr Martlew: The other one is, even if there is,
you cannot get near the stations anyway because the
forecourts are full of cars parked.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 13
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
Mr Warneford: Where we can easily access the
station, we can probably overcome the parking
problem because we can get space for a bus stop or
two.
Mr Dobbs: It is down to us. We have to get those
issues sorted out. They are not rocket science issues.
Sometimes we have not been good at doing those
things in the past. TraYc management at the fronts
of stations is one of those things. We get a lot of
illegal parking around the fronts of stations as well
<strong>and</strong> we sometimes do not do a lot about it. We need
to work with local authorities as well. It is fair to say
that there are many places around the country where
local authorities have been very generous in the help
they have given us in solving some of those traYc
management problems. Some counties, some cities,
are more generous than others of course, but it is up
to us to go <strong>and</strong> seek funds <strong>and</strong> sort things out <strong>and</strong>
make sure that I can get the buses in the front,
whether they belong to Stagecoach or First Group.
We do not discriminate in that sense because we
know it is good for both our companies.
Chairman: We would all like buses <strong>and</strong> trains to have
some kind of coordination <strong>and</strong> we would like you to
think of trying to get your passengers to the railway
stations. That would be very revolutionary.
Q104 Mr Martlew: Mr Dean, do you see major
problems when the national concessionary fare
scheme starts?
Mr Dean: When the national scheme starts, I think
a lot of the issues are already out in the open from
when the scheme became a free scheme in 2006/7.
The biggest issue with the national scheme is going
to be whether there might be some tourist hotspots
which might become overwhelmed with older people
using their ability to use their pass. For example, a
London pensioner could go to Weymouth <strong>and</strong> use
his pass on a bus service in Weymouth <strong>and</strong>, if they all
decide to do that at the same time, then clearly there
could be some capacity issues. That is something we
will have to monitor very carefully.
Q105 Chairman: Is Weymouth Council aware of this
impending invasion of London pensioners?
Mr Dean: I am sure they would welcome it.
Q106 Clive EVord: Extending concessionary fares to
rail needs some careful thought. Have you any
thoughts on how we can extend the concessionary
fare scheme to include some rail journeys without
incurring high costs or overloading already busy
trains?
Mr Dobbs: It is diYcult for me to add much to what
has already been said. As railway companies, we
want to encourage passenger growth. Of course we
do. We do need to have robust financial
arrangements in place to make sure that it does not
in any way work against us of course. Those are the
kinds of arrangements that government decides as
policy, as to whether it is prepared to support that
kind of travel. Capacity is an issue, as has already
been mentioned. It is a critical issue in some areas. It
is less critical in others. Applying national st<strong>and</strong>ards
to the system in this regard is very diYcult. There is
clearly more capacity available oVpeak than there is
in peak, but I think as has already been alluded to on
the buses, the diYculty is once you start to apply
diVerent rules in diVerent places it becomes very
complicated.
Q107 Clive EVord: That is the second time that has
been referred to. I take it what you would be
advocating is a single st<strong>and</strong>ard for concessionary
fares so that it can operate nationally.
Mr Dobbs: I am not advocating that. I am just
pointing out that I think there are many
complications, both practical <strong>and</strong> financial. If
government wishes to move ahead with it as policy,
I think fine. We will address that <strong>and</strong> we will see if
we can work something out. At the moment I do not
believe that it is being put forward as a suggestion by
government.
Q108 Clive EVord: When you say that there are
problems, practical <strong>and</strong> financial, do you mean in
administering it because it can be complex if it
applies in diVerent ways in diVerent paths that
people use?
Mr Dobbs: It is more about the volumes of people.
Mrs Holt: I do not think the rail industry has
thought enough about it <strong>and</strong> that is what we need
to do.
Q109 Clive EVord: Is there any experience of these
schemes in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales that you could bring
to light that may assist people in trying to organise
for extending concessionary fares to rail?
Mrs Holt: There is going to be some learning from
the Scottish scheme which is just getting up <strong>and</strong>
running. Once that has been up <strong>and</strong> running, there
will be lessons we can learn from that. That is a
significant network <strong>and</strong> there are very diVerent
services across the patch, so I think there will be
some learning points from that.
Q110 Clive EVord: Given that there could be
diVerent schemes operating in diVerent areas,
diVerent cards coming from diVerent areas, do you
see the problems that we have seen in terms of the
disputes between operators <strong>and</strong> concessionary travel
authorities getting worse, continuing or being
resolved by the use of a national scheme?
Mr Warneford: They are not getting any better.
They are a big problem.
Q111 Clive EVord: Would you like to elaborate on
that?
Mr Warneford: Yes. In Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales we have
a uniform payment scheme funded through the
Scottish Executive <strong>and</strong> the Welsh Assembly. The
operators know where they st<strong>and</strong>. The authorities
know where they st<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> there are no disputes. I
think the result in both countries has been passenger
growth <strong>and</strong> investment. In Engl<strong>and</strong>, the government
or the DfT—I know not which—chose to distribute
the payments to the operators through all the district
<strong>and</strong> unitary councils without any st<strong>and</strong>ard payment
mechanism for the operators. Some local authorities
were not given enough. Some were given the right

Ev 14 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
amount. Some were given too much. Some of those
who were given the right amount chose not to pay
that amount to the operators. The operators have an
appeal mechanism to go through which is very time
consuming <strong>and</strong> convoluted. The end result from the
operators’ point of view is we now have a postcode
lottery on what we receive for carrying the elderly
<strong>and</strong> the disabled according to which district it might
be in <strong>and</strong> it can be variable between over 70% of the
average adult fare to around about 40% of the
average adult fare. Where it is exceptionally low, we
are now virtually at breaking point. We cannot run
a bus full of elderly at 40% of the adult fare without
losing money. Unless we can resolve this, we will end
up reducing services. It is not where we want to be
<strong>and</strong> we have persevered for 18 months now trying to
get a solution.
Q112 Clive EVord: How does that work? If you have
a cost that you will incur in running a bus, regardless
of whether there is one passenger on it or whether it
is full of passengers, <strong>and</strong> those buses are already
running, presumably they have a turnover because
you are running them. The buses are now full of
passengers with concessionary fares. Does that
mean that they are pushing oV fare paying
passengers <strong>and</strong> costing you money or you are just
running a full bus?
Mr Warneford: Anecdotally, we believe that in some
cases adult passengers are now being deterred from
trying to board the bus. They are finding other
means to travel. I do not think that is an enormous
amount, but some.
Q113 Clive EVord: Why is that? Is it because these
pensioners are a bit rowdy, like schoolchildren?
Mr Warneford: They are not at all rowdy. They are
very well behaved <strong>and</strong> it is a great scheme for them,
but they fill the bus. At 9.30 in the morning every bus
stop has a queue of pensioners. The bigger problem
is where the numbers of pensioners have grown so
much that we have to provide even more buses. I
have some extreme examples, particularly on the
south coast, where we are not receiving any payment
at all <strong>and</strong> we have to pay the drivers, the engineers,
the fuel <strong>and</strong> all the rest of it. In one particular
authority it is costing us about 1.5 million a year for
the extra capacity.
Clive EVord: You are running buses <strong>and</strong> you are not
running them on a franchise, so you are running
them commercially.
Chairman: I think this is a very interesting aspect of
philanthropy I have never connected with
Stagecoach. I am absolutely thrilled. I think you
should get more publicity for this.
Q114 Clive EVord: They are full of non-paying fare
passengers who are all on the concessionary fare
scheme <strong>and</strong> the other passengers have all
disappeared?
Mr Warneford: No, the others have not all
disappeared. I am not suggesting that.
Q115 Chairman: Why do you not name this wicked
authority? If they are costing you all this money I
think the least we can do is to give them some
publicity.
Mr Warneford: There is more than one.
Q116 Chairman: Tell us which ones.
Mr Warneford: The most extreme examples are in
Hampshire, Sussex <strong>and</strong> Gloucestershire.
Q117 Chairman: Are they local district councils?
Mr Warneford: Ultimately it is the district councils
who have to pay, even though some combine into
bigger schemes.
Q118 Chairman: When you say it has taken you 18
months, who are you negotiating with that has taken
18 months?
Mr Warneford: The particular authorities I referred
to use a third party agent who are not helping
matters.
Q119 Chairman: Let us give them some publicity.
Who is this third party agent?
Mr Warneford: MCL.
Q120 Chairman: Which st<strong>and</strong>s for what?
Mr Warneford: I have no idea.
Q121 Clive EVord: Is it not the case that bus
companies have increased the price of single fares
disproportionately because the concessionary fares
reimbursements are largely based on single fares?
Mr Warneford: No, we have not increased fares
disproportionately, but the whole bus industry is
still subject to average annual cost increases which
are well above the RPI index. Our annual industry
cost increases are around 6 to 7% per annum <strong>and</strong> we
have to cover them.
Q122 Clive EVord: What is driving that?
Mr Warneford: Labour, fuel, insurance, most
recently fuel again. We thought it had stabilised a
year ago <strong>and</strong> now it has rocketed again.
Q123 Clive EVord: Is that the same for First Group?
Mr Dean: To support Mr Warneford, we would also
support the move towards a national concessionary
fare scheme as there is in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales <strong>and</strong>,
yes, we have the same sorts of cost pressures.
Q124 Clive EVord: London has a more extensive
concessionary fare scheme than elsewhere in
Engl<strong>and</strong>. Does this give rise to any particular issues
for operators or the public?
Mr Dean: Obviously in London it is slightly diVerent
in that the revenue risk is taken by Transport for
London. It is a well established scheme <strong>and</strong> I am not
aware of it causing any particular problems. One of
the things that will be interesting, to use my example
of a few questions ago, will be that London
pensioners from April 2008 will now be able to flash
their London freedom pass in Scarborough, Whitby
<strong>and</strong> all over the place.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 15
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
Chairman: We are going to have long day trips. I am
getting very concerned about these. Are you also
providing resuscitation?
Q125 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: If there were no concessionary
fares, is it not the case that bus operators would need
to—<strong>and</strong> indeed would—themselves introduce
concessionary fares in order to attract passengers
onto their buses at oVpeak times?
Mr Warneford: I have heard that suggestion over a
lot of years but I go back a lot of years in the industry
<strong>and</strong> there never were commercial concessionary
fares oVered. I think the answer would probably be
in some cases there would be <strong>and</strong> in others there
would not <strong>and</strong> it would have to be a commercial
decision as to the viability, the level of service, the
type of demography. You could not say a plain yes
or no answer to it.
Q126 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Certainly on the railways that is
something which has been introduced over many
years. Given the fact that we now have commercial
bus companies as opposed to public bus companies
that we used to have, I am quite sure that some sort
of concession would have been introduced in order
to attract more people onto the buses. Otherwise it
would not have been viable to run buses in oVpeak
periods if there was nobody riding on them. In that
case, why is it that the bus companies insist on the
concessionary fares being based on the prices of
single fares—I think there is some evidence that they
have been increased disproportionately—<strong>and</strong> make
no contribution whatsoever to the increased
ridership they are getting as a result of the
concessionary fare system?
Mr Warneford: To go back to the first part of what
you were saying, all the conventional price elasticity
formulae suggest that we would be better oV if we
charged the full fare for the elderly <strong>and</strong> carried fewer
of them—i.e., discounting never generates more
money; it generates more passengers.
Q127 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: You have evidence for that?
Mr Warneford: That is all the conventional wisdom
from the academics.
Q128 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Do you have some evidence for
that?
Mr Warneford: The Department for Transport rely
upon it in the concessionary fares.
Q129 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: On the conventional wisdom or
the evidence?
Mr Warneford: On the evidence.
Q130 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Can you produce this evidence
for us?
Mr Warneford: It is produced by academics. There
are published papers. Would we provide commercial
concessions? Possibly. You asked about the single
fares. We do not insist that the calculation is based
on the adult single fare. We are happy for it to be on
the adult single fare, the return fare where there is
one <strong>and</strong> the day tickets. Where we do have some
disagreement is about how much the elderly would
otherwise use season tickets because they are casual
travellers, so we do have a disagreement about that
going into the melting pot. The debate is not really
about the level of fare at all. I know it has devolved
into that because of the way the DfT has chosen to
produce what is called its toolkit, but the issue is
really about what it costs to run the bus. If you
cannot aVord to run the bus, then the elderly
cannot travel.
Chairman: Do you underst<strong>and</strong> this commercial
argument, Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: No.
Q131 Mr Martlew: You have both said that you
would prefer a national scheme as in Wales <strong>and</strong>
Scotl<strong>and</strong>. Is that because you think you would make
more money out of it or it would be easier to
administer <strong>and</strong> you would not have the bureaucracy
<strong>and</strong> the diYculties that some councils get too much
<strong>and</strong> some get too little? Can we exclude London?
Mr Dean: Yes. We think from the point of view of
the operators <strong>and</strong> the local authorities it would be
much better if we could focus our minds on customer
service <strong>and</strong> running the buses rather than
negotiating on a number of schemes. Just to back up
Mr Warneford’s view, if you look at some
companies, if they straddle a lot of administrative
areas, they have to negotiate with about seven or
eight concessionary fare authorities. This is very,
very time consuming for the local authority <strong>and</strong> the
bus company.
Q132 Chairman: They are not exactly expecting to
come out of it with no benefit, are they?
Mr Dean: No.
Q133 Chairman: You are not negotiating in an
abstract; you are negotiating for hard cash which
belongs to rate payers.
Mr Dean: I underst<strong>and</strong> that, but it would be better
for everybody if we could get on with the more
positive aspects of managing the business. If there
was a nationally administered concessionary
scheme, it means the amount of time that the local
authorities <strong>and</strong> bus operators were spending on
negotiating the correct level of reimbursement
would be considerably reduced.
Q134 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: I agree with what you are saying
on the national scheme. I wish we did have a
nationally administered scheme rather than the one
we have. You have suggested certain regional <strong>and</strong>
county concessionary travel authority groupings. Is
that happening or is it still as fragmented as ever?
Mr Dean: At the moment there are some county
wide schemes so the money flows from the district
council but, for example, in the Essex area there is a
number of district councils but there is a lead travel
concession authority which is the county council.
That does make things a little easier, but it is not
always the case. It depends upon the area <strong>and</strong>
whether they decide to have a county administered
scheme or not. If there was a move towards some

Ev 16 Transport Committee: Evidence
14 November 2007 Mrs Elaine Holt, Mr Martin Dean, Mr Les Warneford <strong>and</strong> Mr Ian Dobbs
sort of a regional administered scheme, that would
be better than the situation that there is at the
moment.
Q135 Mr Leech: I want to come back very briefly to
through ticketing. When I took a ticket from
Manchester to London I can get a train ticket with
the tube added on but I cannot have the Metrolink
before the train journey. Why is that? Given that
Stagecoach now runs Metrolink in Manchester, is it
going to change?
Mr Dobbs: That is back to me because Metrolink
comes under the rail division. I hope in the future it
will change. <strong>Ticketing</strong> in Manchester is entirely the
responsibility of the Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Executive. It is not ours. We eVectively
run the managing contract on Metrolink in
Manchester. I am already talking to the PTE about
ways that we can improve integrated ticketing with
the light rail system in Manchester <strong>and</strong> the heavy rail
system, partly due to the fact that we are obviously
doing a lot of the development work on smartcards
in the UK at the moment because we will be the first
company that has them on the ground. I think we
have the expertise to help the likes of our colleagues
in Manchester towards that end. We will look for
similar developments in other parts of the country as
well. As was mentioned earlier by Mr Hollobone, we
have just taken over the East Midl<strong>and</strong>s rail franchise
in the last four days <strong>and</strong> we have the SheYeld Super
Tram at the north end of that so we have exactly the
same issue. We want to work with those PTEs. The
good thing is of course that the common platform is
going to be an ITSO platform. The PTEs are
developing smartcard systems that are compatible
with ours. It is the same platform <strong>and</strong> again the
travelcard add-on in London will be possible on our
smartcards, so if you get a smartcard ticket from
SheYeld <strong>and</strong> you want to travel to Victoria—
Q136 Chairman: Mr Dobbs, I should tell you that
this is not the view of Oyster. This Committee was
told very specifically that that would not be the case.
Witnesses: Mr Keith Halstead, Chief Executive, <strong>and</strong> Mr Ewan Jones, Director of Operations <strong>and</strong> Deputy
Chief Executive, Community Transport Association UK, gave evidence.
Q139 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Would you be kind enough to tell us who you are?
Mr Halstead: Keith Halstead, chief executive of the
Community Transport Association.
Mr Jones: My name is Ewan Jones. I am deputy
chief executive of the Community Transport
Association.
Q140 Chairman: Thank you both for coming. It is
extremely helpful for us to have you here. Mr
Halstead, did you want to say something before we
begin?
Mr Dobbs: With respect, the Department for
Transport is in the process of developing with
Transport for London what is called IOP, ITSO On
Prestige, which has the dual reading ability for ITSO
smartcards <strong>and</strong> Oyster to work on the same readers.
You will be able to buy a travelcard—
Chairman: I will take your word for it.
Q137 Mr Leech: We do not need smartcards to be
able to add on the Metrolink before a train journey
<strong>and</strong> we also do not need smartcards to add on a
Stagecoach bus journey into Manchester <strong>and</strong> then a
train journey. When are we likely to get some change
<strong>and</strong> some movement so that these can be added,
because clearly that has a significant impact on the
number of car journeys into railway stations <strong>and</strong>
persuading people to use public transport?
Mr Dobbs: I, like you, would like to see it happen
sooner rather than later. I am not responsible for
either ticketing or fares on Metrolink. That is a
GMPTE responsibility. I am working with them to
develop that but at the moment the technology on
the tickets that are sold there by the PTE is not
compatible with London for instance or the
mainl<strong>and</strong> rail system. It is a diVerent kind of ticket.
Mr Leech: If you buy a ticket in advance you could
add something that does not need to go through any
smartcard system or Oyster system or anything like
that; it just needs to be shown. Surely it just needs
someone to knock a few heads together between the
companies <strong>and</strong> the PTE to make sure that it
happens.
Q138 Chairman: Mr Dobbs, go out <strong>and</strong> knock a few
heads together.
Mr Dobbs: I am sure my customers would be
delighted to hear that they were going to have their
heads knocked together. We will certainly work with
the PTEs, all of them, to see what we can do in
practical terms. I think smartcards will beat all of the
rest of the systems in practical terms because we are
not far away.
Chairman: Gentlemen <strong>and</strong> Madam, you have quite
encouraged us. I have completely revised my view of
at least one major company <strong>and</strong> I am so delighted to
hear of these pacific, philanthropic <strong>and</strong> tolerant
companies that I did not know existed. Thank you
very much for coming this afternoon.
Mr Halstead: Yes. I wonder whether we could make
a brief opening statement. The CTA very much
welcomes the government’s concessionary fare
scheme as it provides increased opportunities for
elderly <strong>and</strong> disabled people to travel <strong>and</strong> will
obviously bring many people improved
independence, mobility <strong>and</strong> choice. However, when
you look across Engl<strong>and</strong>, a much more mixed
picture emerges <strong>and</strong> many older <strong>and</strong> disabled people
will not be able to make use of their concessionary
bus travel pass to which they are entitled because
either they cannot physically access a local bus
service or the may be geographically remote from

14 November 2007 Mr Keith Halstead <strong>and</strong> Mr Ewan Jones
such services as to render them redundant. In these
cases, such passengers will have to pay for their
transport. Therefore, it is the CTA’s view that the
current concessionary fares strategy is not equitable.
Q141 Chairman: That is helpful. I do not know
whether you heard some of the evidence that was
given beforeh<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Halstead: Just the last few moments.
Q142 Mrs Ellman: If the concessionary fare scheme
was extended as you ask, could community
transport h<strong>and</strong>le the dem<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Halstead: Yes, we believe it could. By its very
nature, community transport is dem<strong>and</strong> responsive
<strong>and</strong> services are by <strong>and</strong> large resource restrained,
limited by capital <strong>and</strong> revenue grant <strong>and</strong> other
funding constraints. Therefore, I think we feel that if
it was extended to embrace community transport
our members could better respond to the dem<strong>and</strong>
from community transport users. Also currently a
number of older people <strong>and</strong> people with disabilities
are using community transport to get to other
transport provision to use their pass, so it is not as
though it would be a completely new raft of users.
Q143 Mrs Ellman: Have you done any feasibility
studies to establish just what the dem<strong>and</strong> would be?
Mr Halstead: We did undertake some research last
year where we found that of the 295 travel
concession authorities, which embraced obviously
rural district councils, unitaries <strong>and</strong> PTEs, the
majority did not reimburse community transport
<strong>and</strong> even where they did the rate of reimbursement
was less than 50%.
Q144 Mrs Ellman: What would the extra number of
passengers be likely to be? Have you done any work
on that?
Mr Halstead: We have not done any specific work on
what the extra number of passengers would be.
Mr Jones: Not specifically. Our information is
largely anecdotal on that but we are aware that a lot
of our members <strong>and</strong> community transport providers
round the country are responding to dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong>
needs. They are delivering transport to passengers
who are not able to travel on existing bus services
because they are inaccessible or because there are no
such services available where those people live. By its
very nature community transport does have a high
proportion of passengers who are older people or
disabled people. A lot of them are using community
transport already <strong>and</strong> they are paying for that. The
point is, when they come under the national
concession, they will have an entitlement to travel on
registered bus services but they will not be able to use
that because they do not have access. Therefore, they
are paying to go on community transport <strong>and</strong> we feel
that, if they cannot access their concession, the travel
concession authorities should deliver the concession
using a diVerent tool, be it community transport or
something else.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 17
Q145 Mrs Ellman: What would the cost be of adding
community transport to the concession?
Mr Halstead: The government has stated a figure of
£25 million to extend it to cover all community
transport operations <strong>and</strong> we would very much like to
know how the department has arrived at that figure.
That is not something that has been shared with us.
Even if it was that amount, that is less than 5% of the
current total spend on concessionary bus travel, 550
million, <strong>and</strong> less than a mile of motorway at 30
million. If the government is committed to social
justice—<strong>and</strong> the Department for Transport’s own
over-arching objective was recently extended to
embrace access to jobs, services <strong>and</strong> social networks,
including for the most disadvantaged—then the
current policy seems to go against the grain rather
than with it in terms of social justice.
Q146 Mrs Ellman: Have you made any assessment
of the costs?
Mr Halstead: No. We have not been able to do that.
Currently, we are undertaking a mapping exercise to
map more eVectively community transport
provision across Engl<strong>and</strong>, but one of our diYculties
is that often there are small, voluntary car schemes
<strong>and</strong> a whole variety of diVerent types of community
transport that we would need to capture. That is why
we have embarked on this mapping programme.
Q147 Mr Martlew: Can I congratulate you for the
work that you do? Would a national scheme be
better for you because you say that some authorities
do not give you any money; some of them give you
a bit? As long as you are included in a national
scheme, do you think it would be a better system?
Mr Halstead: It would be a better system, yes. At the
moment at best it is a postcode lottery, just
depending on which travel concession authority you
live in. You either get some return or not as a
community transport operator for running eligible
services. If all community transport organisations
were able to be included in the scheme, that would
be a much better position.
Q148 Mr Martlew: The situation is that even
community transport will not be able to help some
of these people because they do not have the facilities
in that particular area. Surely in that case the best
solution would be for some payment to be made to
taxis or private hire companies? There is a network
out there. That would seem a very simple solution.
Mr Halstead: Yes. We want to look at the public
transport network in the round to meet those gaps.
If there is no community transport scheme there, by
all means. Taxis are part of the local link to the
transport networks too.
Q149 Mr Martlew: The way that that could possibly
be done because of the cost factor would be that an
individual would be given a credit, so much a year,
£200 or £300 a year credit on a system which they
could use on taxis or community transport.

Ev 18 Transport Committee: Evidence
Mr Halstead: We can certainly go down that route,
yes.
14 November 2007 Mr Keith Halstead <strong>and</strong> Mr Ewan Jones
Q150 Chairman: Disabled people who cannot use
mainstream transport are entitled at the moment to
concessions from the DWP, are they not, in terms
of benefit?
Mr Halstead: Yes.
Q151 Chairman: Are these adequate? Do you think
this is the way round it? Is that what you are telling
Mr Martlew?
Mr Jones: Our key point here is that if there is a
concession which is available to certain people in
certain categories <strong>and</strong> the national policy is that
disabled people over 60 are entitled to free transport
on registered buses, then there will be a group of
people who cannot access that concession due to the
nature of the services <strong>and</strong>/or the vehicles. In those
cases in order for a national policy to be delivered
across the board locally, diVerent tools need to be
used. Yes, the registered bus service obviously is the
first choice but we are arguing that community
transport, taxis <strong>and</strong> other mechanisms should all be
there in the toolbox because this is an issue of
discrimination potentially otherwise because certain
people cannot travel. It is not about community
transport wanting funding. Community transport
should be reimbursed for providing free travel <strong>and</strong>
underst<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> accepts that it should be no better
or no worse oV as a result of doing that because this
is about the concessionary travel for the individual,
not about the Community Transport Group looking
for a funding stream.
Q152 Mr Martlew: I accept what the Chairman says.
It is called a mobility allowance, is it not? Would you
accept that it would have to be a cash sum? It would
not be paid in cash. You could not give an open
ended commitment to some lady who lives at the top
of a mountain to be able to travel in to do her
shopping every day, could you? It would have to be
cash limited to some extent. Would you accept that
or not?
Mr Jones: Practically any scheme would have to be
cash limited. The current scheme is cash limited.
Q153 Mr Martlew: The pensioner can travel every
day where there is a bus. It does not matter how
many times he travels; he or she does it free. If you
were using taxis for example that would not be
possible, would it? There would have to be a
financial cap so that you could spend more over the
year, I suspect in rural community transport as well.
Mr Jones: Yes. It is a question of agreeing where the
balance point is, is it not? There is certainly an
argument that for instance the problem with living in
an area where there are not services is partly because
there are not services, but it is partly a lifestyle choice
as well for a lot of people. The point is we need to try
<strong>and</strong> find the balance.
Q154 Chairman: While we are talking about lifestyle
choices, what about smartcards? Have you done any
work on whether your members find smartcards
acceptable?
Mr Jones: Not specific work but I think it is our
general view that a lot of concessionary travel pass
schemes exist already. If you use a pass, if that pass
is replaced in some way or used in conjunction with
a smartcard, I feel that is likely to be relatively easy
for a lot of people to use. Particularly, given some of
what was being said towards the end of the last
contributor, it would improve the whole through
ticketing issue <strong>and</strong> access to diVerent services. Oyster
cards are great when you come to London for people
like me, who do not live here. It would be even better
if I could use that everywhere else on any form of
transport. Disabled people <strong>and</strong> older people are
using community transport or any other form of
transport <strong>and</strong> the same benefits could potentially
apply.
Q155 Chairman: Have you experiences from the
other countries of the United Kingdom that would
help you in assessing the eVects of the changes
towards, say, smartcards within Engl<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Jones: Yes. In particular we administered a
programme of grants, the Community Transport
<strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Initiative, £3 million over a
three year period in Wales, where that money went
to 15 projects in Wales to deliver free transport to
people who are entitled to concessions. The Welsh
Assembly Government are just in the process, I
believe, of appointing external evaluators for that
project which will be very interesting to see. Those
again were projects across Wales, north, south, east
<strong>and</strong> west, operating in diVerent ways, diVerent types
of projects, some using dedicated vehicles, others
linking in with existing taxi <strong>and</strong> community
transport networks, to provide the free transport
that concessionary passengers were entitled to. We
have yet to see the evaluation of that because we
administer the grant payment scheme on behalf of
WAG <strong>and</strong> we service the independent panel that
made recommendations to the Minister in Wales as
to who should receive the funding. Obviously we are
not involved in evaluating that ourselves.
Q156 Chairman: That independent assessment
meant that you did not lay down a specific template
to the various organisations dealing with it; you
simply said, “This is what you should be doing
overall”. Is that right?
Mr Jones: Yes. What we said to groups was not that
they had to use this kind of model or this kind of
service, but, “You have come to the assessment
panel. Tell us about your area, about the passengers
who are entitled.” The Welsh Assembly
Government was quite specific. It was not across the
board disabled people. The term they used was
“severely disabled people” so it was only a certain
subset. It was not even the whole entitled market, if
you like. “Come <strong>and</strong> tell us about your area, of your

definition of severe disability <strong>and</strong> why those people
do not have access <strong>and</strong> how you propose to . . . ”.
Q157 Chairman: Each individual project was
tailored to the needs of that particular area?
Mr Jones: Yes.
14 November 2007 Mr Keith Halstead <strong>and</strong> Mr Ewan Jones
Q158 Chairman: It would be very flexible. There
would be some common denominators but not a
series of templates that could be used across the
whole?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 19
Mr Jones: Exactly, yes. One project in Powys brings
together 20 plus diVerent organisations using
diVerent community transport <strong>and</strong> car schemes to
provide the delivery. Others link up with local taxi
firms <strong>and</strong> provide a token service in Pembrokeshire
so there are diVerent models for diVerent areas. The
word “pilot” is in there as well <strong>and</strong> that is another
reason. It is action research as well, if you like.
Chairman: Gentlemen, you have been very helpful
<strong>and</strong> we are very grateful to you for being such good
witnesses. Thank you.

Ev 20 Transport Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 5 December 2007
Members present
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair
Clive EVord Mr Eric Martlew
Mrs Louise Ellman David Simpson
Mr Philip Hollobone Mr David Wilshire
Witnesses: Mr Roy Wicks, Chair of pteg, <strong>and</strong> Director General, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport
Executive, Mr Neil Scales, Director General, Merseytravel, Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg);
Mr David Cook, Chief Executive, Kettering Borough Council, Mr Adrian Jones, Director of Environment
<strong>and</strong> Regeneration, Nottingham County Council, <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates, County Transport <strong>and</strong> Regeneration
OYcer, Cheshire County Council, Local Government Association (LGA), gave evidence.
Chairman: Good afternoon to you, gentlemen. You
are very welcome here this afternoon on the second
session of our ticketing inquiry. For those of you
who have been here before, you know the ground
rules. The microphone in front of you records but
does not project, so I am going to ask for a little
voice, <strong>and</strong> I am going to ask if you would be
indulgent for a moment because we have a little bit
of housekeeping to perform. Mr Martlew, any
interests to declare?
Mr Martlew: A Member of Unite <strong>and</strong> the GMB
Trade Union.
Clive EVord: A Member of Unite.
Chairman: A Member of ASLEF.
Mrs Ellman: A Member of Unite.
Mr Hollobone: One of our distinguished witnesses,
Chairman, is the Chief Executive of Kettering
Borough Council, of which I am very proud to be
a member.
Q159 Chairman: Gentlemen, beginning on my left
<strong>and</strong> your right, would you like to identify yourselves
for the record?
Mr Yates: Greg Yates, County Manager of
Transport <strong>and</strong> Regeneration, Cheshire County
Council.
Mr Jones: Adrian Jones. I am the Director of
Planning <strong>and</strong> Transport in Nottingham City
Council, which is a unitary authority.
Mr Cook: Good afternoon. David Cook, Chief
Executive of Kettering Borough Council <strong>and</strong>
Chairman of the District Chief Executive Network.
Mr Scales: Neil Scales, Director General of
Merseytravel <strong>and</strong> Chairman of ITSO, the Integrated
Transport Smartcard Organisation.
Mr Wicks: Roy Wicks, Director General of South
Yorkshire PTE <strong>and</strong> Chair of pteg.
Q160 Chairman: You are all coming at this from
slightly diVerent angles, but does anybody have
anything they want to say before we begin? Mr
Yates, are you taking a breath there?
Mr Yates: Chairman, I will pass over to Mr Cook.
Mr Cook: I think from looking at the terms of
reference of the Committee it is clear that you are
looking at a number of issues. One of the things I
think we are keen to do is answer the Committee’s
questions, of course, but the issue of funding would
go to the heart of the success of this <strong>and</strong> I think there
are three points we have to make constructively
about things which have been done which are very
helpful on funding <strong>and</strong> three things which perhaps
are not quite so helpful, which might be of
information to the Committee.
Q161 Chairman: And they are?
Mr Cook: The three things which are very helpful are
that there is funding for smartcards so that local
authorities can bring smartcards in, there is a specific
grant to pay for the costs of the concessionary travel,
<strong>and</strong> the things which are likely to be problematical
are whether or not that specific grant is suYcient,
whether the distribution of it will be accurate <strong>and</strong>
whether or not there are arrangements in place to
review the suYciency of it swiftly, which we think
would be necessary.
Q162 Chairman: Are you suggesting the
Government does not have a policy on integrated
ticketing?
Mr Cook: No, Chairman, I am not suggesting the
Government does not have a policy on integrated
ticketing. I am talking specifically about the funding
of concessionary travel.
Q163 Chairman: Yes, we will come to that, Mr
Cook, but what do you think is the Government’s
policy on integrated ticketing?
Mr Cook: Chairman, if I may, my colleagues have
probably got more lineage <strong>and</strong> credibility in those
areas than myself.
Mr Jones: I think, Chairman, outside London there
is not a very credible or eVective policy on integrated
ticketing <strong>and</strong> it is a fairly major problem for a city
like Nottingham.
Q164 Chairman: Whose fault is that?
Mr Jones: I think it lies in the legislation which
underpins the whole structure of the bus industry at
the present time.
Q165 Chairman: Mr Yates, is that your view?
Mr Yates: It is my view as well, Chairman.
Q166 Chairman: Is there anything else you wanted
to add to that?

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 21
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Mr Yates: I think the achievements we have made in
Cheshire have been done with the assistance from
the Department, but we have only gone partly along
the road of being able to get a fully integrated
ticketing system in Cheshire <strong>and</strong> it is almost as if it
has been a very uphill struggle, despite the assistance
we had from the Department.
Q167 Chairman: You do not think the Government
is doing enough to help you develop an integrated
system, is that what you mean?
Mr Yates: Yes, I do. We have had some help, but it
has not gone far enough in terms of getting the
system spread across the whole totality of the bus
provision within Cheshire. We have got about 60%
of the way <strong>and</strong> I gather we are well ahead of other
areas in the country.
Q168 Chairman: Is there a national scheme for
integrated ticketing? I am not talking about the
st<strong>and</strong>ards for ITSO, but is there actually an
integrated scheme throughout the whole of the
United Kingdom?
Mr Wicks: No, Chairman. I think, as my colleagues
have said, the issue for us really, particularly in the
larger cities, is that even if you can achieve some
degree of integration within one bus company, the
problem we have is that we have buses <strong>and</strong> trams <strong>and</strong>
we are trying to operate a simple single ticket for
people. We do that <strong>and</strong> all of the PTEs oVer such a
ticket. The diYculty we have is that because it has to
be commercially negotiated the pricing of that ticket
has to be a suYcient distance in practical terms from
the operator’s own tickets. So in relation to oVering
an integrated product—which you can get in most of
our cities which allows you to travel anywhere by
bus, tram or train, or in my colleague Mr Scales’s
case even by ferry, I suspect—it is actually can you
price that ticket suYciently attractive for people to
take it up?
Q169 Mrs Ellman: How important are smartcards?
Could not improvements be made by improving the
existing paper systems?
Mr Wicks: Certainly—if I could start on that <strong>and</strong>
ask Mr Scales to come in—we think smartcards are
very important. You only have to see the success of
the Oyster card in London in encouraging people to
make more trips by diVerent modes of transport.
The Government is funding a pilot of smartcard
ticketing in SheYeld, which will get underway in
March, but I would not want to underestimate the
diYculties there are, compared with London, in
actually introducing such a scheme. In London, TfL
can take the revenue risk in eVect <strong>and</strong> the
consequences of that. We have had to negotiate with
all the bus <strong>and</strong> train operators to make sure they are
comfortable with the processes that you put in place
behind it. So, yes, smartcard is an important way of
getting people a good ticketing oVer, but there are a
lot of practical implications behind that to do with
the commercial deregulated market outside
London.
Mr Scales: Yes, they are easy to use. They are very
convenient for passengers because they are
contactless so you do not have to push them into a
slot on a vehicle or on a platform. Therefore, you get
reduced fraud; you get better data sets for planning
public transport going forward. As my colleague Mr
Wicks said, there is another pilot on the way now
<strong>and</strong> our colleagues in Scotl<strong>and</strong> are already rolling
out more than a million ITSO-compliant
smartcards. ITSO itself provides a framework,
which is Crown copyright, so it is open to everybody,
<strong>and</strong> that will allow diVerent manufacturers to bid for
smartcard projects. I think the English national
concessionary travel scheme with potentially 11
million cards in Engl<strong>and</strong> being introduced on 1 April
provides a good base for the smartcards, a suYcient
volume for other applications to get noticed, things
like banking applications, as is happening here with
Oyster, but you can extend them into local authority
uses such as library cards, access to schools. There
are lots of applications, so we think smartcards are
definitely a step in the right direction <strong>and</strong> ITSO
provides an interoperable framework which will
help that.
Q170 Mrs Ellman: Would that apply equally to the
non-metropolitan areas?
Mr Scales: Yes, indeed. There are 291 issuing
authorities in Engl<strong>and</strong>, all of which have the
operability to go for a smartcard-type solution,
maybe not now but in the future, <strong>and</strong> with support
from Government <strong>and</strong> our colleagues in the
Department for Transport we have set up ITSO
Services Limited, which will capture all the data on
the non-smart operations <strong>and</strong> when they go smart
then they get all the data sets back. So we have taken
adequate <strong>and</strong> suYcient precautions to protect the
data until they go into a smartcard solution.
Mr Jones: In Nottingham we have actually got the
highest take-up of smartcards outside London per
head, but we have got a problem in that there are
three separate smartcard systems which are not
compatible.
Q171 Chairman: Is that because they are not part
of ITSO?
Mr Jones: That is correct.
Mr Scales: They are Legacy systems, Chairman.
Mr Jones: Yes, so actually getting the operators to
agree to a common smartcard is really fundamental
to moving forward with integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong>
that is extremely hard to do, sometimes for
commercial reasons <strong>and</strong> sometimes because it is a
way of actually preventing the requirement for
integration if you have not got a smartcard system.
There are integrated tickets at the moment in
Nottingham which is quite successful—it is actually
a paper scratch card—even though we have got a
very high number of people with smartcards.
Q172 Mrs Ellman: Mr Wicks, in your evidence you
say that some of the commercial operators have
questioned the commercial benefits of smartcards,
some of the private operators. Why would that be?

Ev 22 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Mr Wicks: It has been an interesting experience
because we have been on that project for four or five
years <strong>and</strong> certainly at the beginning the operators
were concerned for two principal reasons. They
needed to be convinced, first of all, that it would
actually give them productivity benefits in terms of
speeding up the buses. They actually thought some
of the processes might take longer in fare collection.
I think we can demonstrate that is not the case. The
second real issue for them, which is the diVerence
between London <strong>and</strong> outside London, is how the
revenue is allocated because at the moment a bus
operator collects all his money, if you like, on the
day in cash <strong>and</strong> knows he has got it. If you have a
smartcard system you actually have to put in place a
back oYce which allocates the money between
operators, <strong>and</strong> operators were concerned that might
represent a threat to their revenue –
Q173 Chairman: Why would it represent a threat
unless they are not giving you accurate figures now?
Mr Wicks: I think it is probably a threat because
basically they would not get their money straight
away, they would get it through some h<strong>and</strong>ling
system, <strong>and</strong> secondly there might have to be
commission paid to agents who sold the tickets. So
if you went to top up your smartcard somewhere
else, at a pay point or somewhere like that, that
company might charge a commission. What we have
said <strong>and</strong> what we want the pilot to prove is that
whilst there may be risks, they are more than
outweighed by the benefits to the customer <strong>and</strong> the
passenger, <strong>and</strong> it should actually give you two
critical things. The first one is a growth in patronage,
which should be good for the bus operators’
business, <strong>and</strong> secondly they should get a lot more
information about their customers, which is
certainly helpful for them in being able to target
oVers to those customers <strong>and</strong> other things. What I
said at the beginning was that yes, the operators were
sceptical. Recently, it has been quite interesting to
see the sea change <strong>and</strong> now certainly companies like
Stagecoach are very keen to see the products
implemented, as they have seen the Government
encourage, particularly through rail franchises, the
take-up of smartcards <strong>and</strong> as Oyster cards become
more successful. It did take some persuasion to
translate the London lessons outside London, but I
think now they can actually see those benefits for
themselves <strong>and</strong> I think they believe they can capture
the productivity benefits.
Q174 Mrs Ellman: So you think there is a change
now?
Mr Wicks: I think there is a definite change, <strong>and</strong> that
is why I am optimistic about the pilot when it starts
in SheYeld next March.
Q175 Mrs Ellman: You also mentioned problems of
smartcards in a deregulated environment. What
diVerence will the Local Transport Bill make?
Mr Wicks: It will oVer local authorities the option of
moving to a more regulated market, which would
clearly enable two things to happen. First of all,
apart from all the other benefits that might flow from
that, you could have a single operator eVectively
because you will have franchised the services. You
can simplify the fares structures <strong>and</strong> you can
integrate better with the other modes without having
to worry about the issue of preferential pricing for
any one operator. Also, it would have benefits in
terms of the concessionary fares issues my colleagues
were referring to earlier because you would not be
into this complex round of negotiations with
operators about what they might claim for
concessionary fare reimbursement costs, you would
be dealing with the actual costs themselves. So
certainly the Local Transport Bill through the
quality contract route oVers the most eVective way
of achieving both integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> good
concessionary fare reimbursement.
Mr Scales: The wellbeing powers contained in the
Act will also allow us to oVer concessionary travel to
other market segments such as asylum seekers,
maybe, or diVerent groups of children that are not
captured by the concessionary travel regulations
now, so that would be another benefit we would get
from the Act.
Q176 Mrs Ellman: Are you satisfied the provisions
in the Bill will be adequate to deal with these issues?
Mr Wicks: Provided the quality contract process is
deliverable within the timescales of the political
aspirations of the authorities which want to do it.
Provided we have a speedy process for implementing
the franchising <strong>and</strong> it does not become a drawn-out
bureaucratic process, then I think all of the
provisions in the Bill are very helpful.
Mrs Ellman: Thank you.
Q177 Mr Martlew: Can I concentrate, gentlemen, on
the concessionary fares scheme which is about to
come within the spread. Mr Cook, I think you
initially said there were reservations about this. Can
you exp<strong>and</strong> a little on that?
Mr Cook: I think the issues are in respect of
reimbursement of the costs, so if the scheme goes to
a national scheme there will be additional costs. We
start with the proposition that neither the bus
operators nor the local authorities should be out of
pocket or in pocket as a result of these changes. One
of the very good things is that a specific amount has
been set aside for local government, £212 million, to
ensure that local authorities get reimbursed for
reimbursing the operators for the cost of travel. As
colleagues have said, the smartcard would allow us
to be more accurate about which people are getting
on buses <strong>and</strong> what the price of journeys are, but that
aside I think the first concern might be is £212
million the right amount of money? That question
might be raised because experience in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
Wales has shown that take-up is quite high.
Anecdotal evidence we have from local authorities is
that people have persistently <strong>and</strong> consistently joined
concession travel schemes such as, for example, the
local one which came in in 2006. So take-up does not
step up <strong>and</strong> then plateau, take-up continues to rise,
so £212 million may or may not be the right amount
of money. Secondly, we have a distributional
problem in that the £212 million may not go where

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 23
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
it is needed <strong>and</strong> there are four options being
consulted on by Government in terms of how one
distributes the money. Just as a little colloquial
example—
Q178 Mr Martlew: It seems to me—<strong>and</strong> I live in an
area where it is two tiered <strong>and</strong> the local district
councils are like ferrets in the sack at the moment
about who is going to get the money. Surely it makes
logical sense for the Government to give it to the
transport authority, which in our case is the county
council? I realise you are a district council
representative, but surely there is a logic in that?
There is no logic in giving it to the district council?
Mr Cook: Chairman, the logic is that it is the
districts that are reimbursing the operators <strong>and</strong>
therefore the districts which need to be reimbursed,
even if it went through some sort of collective
agreement, <strong>and</strong> the capacity exists at the moment for
authorities to get together in clusters to manage this
in a certain way if they want. So we could get
together in clusters, but that would not deal with the
fundamental issues of (a) is it the right amount of
money, <strong>and</strong> (b) is it being distributed correctly,
because even if it was county-wide <strong>and</strong> you have a
county agreement, it still does not take account of
the fact that distortions occur depending upon
whether or not one is a destination for journeys, or
not, <strong>and</strong> there is too wide a spread in the
consultation options at the moment.
Q179 Mr Martlew: Can I ask Mr Yates, who I
underst<strong>and</strong> is from a county council?
Mr Yates: Yes. We broker a county scheme on
behalf of six districts <strong>and</strong> two unitaries. I broadly
support Mr Cook’s point that we have both a
funding <strong>and</strong> distribution problem. It would be
diVerent if the funding went to county councils
because our main diYculty is the inequities between
the individual districts because they have all got very
diVerent settlements so far, <strong>and</strong> are likely to get
again, which brings out certain authorities which
have got a 5% shortfall on their overall expenditure
<strong>and</strong> others are in surplus.
Q180 Mr Martlew: That is the failure of the
present system?
Mr Yates: It is the failure of the present system, <strong>and</strong>
that was based on a district scheme, which was
meant to just provide local travel, but obviously we
recognise that local district travel is of limited use to
lots of people who live in a rural-ish county like
Cheshire with a lot of boundaries. So we strove early
on to make sure the county-wide facility was there,
even though it was above the basic scheme. The
diVerence is now that the new scheme is going to be
a country-wide scheme, so there is even less
argument for targeting the pockets of money into
small district-based things which are bound to pick
out little inequities by virtue of doing that.
Q181 Mr Martlew: So you would support it going to
the county, would you?
Mr Yates: I think I would support something that
either provided an open-ended—well, I cannot say
open-ended, but a more responsive method of
funding so that the settlement responded to the
actual amount of travel or that there was an
aggregation of the authorities that dealt with it,
because at the moment there is a massive amount of
what I call non-Gershon eYcient energy that has
gone into all these separate little negotiations.
Q182 Chairman: Sorry, Mr Yates, what was that
lovely phrase?
Mr Yates: Non-Gershon-like, you know, the –
Mr Martlew: We remember it, yes.
Chairman: Yes, we remember it only too well. I
thought we had made another new name. Sorry, go
on.
Q183 Mr Martlew: Does anybody else want to
comment about the way the money is distributed?
Mr Jones: I am sort of neutral, being for a unitary,
but there are lots of inequities in the way the money
is distributed under all of the formulae <strong>and</strong> I think
the key thing is that we have got to readdress this
because it is going to happen in April <strong>and</strong> I think it
is really important that quickly the Government
comes back <strong>and</strong> learns from what happens in the first
six months rather than just leaves us to solve the
problem.
Q184 Mr Martlew: What you are saying is that you
think it will not go right <strong>and</strong> we need to look at it
very quickly?
Mr Jones: That would summarise my view, yes.
Q185 Mr Martlew: The two gentlemen at the end are
very quiet!
Mr Scales: We are very happy because the grant is
going to the passenger transport authority in a direct
grant, rather than going through our district council
colleagues.
Q186 Chairman: I do not want to spend too long on
this. What you are really saying is that if the unit is
big enough you get economies of scale <strong>and</strong>
everybody will come back if the units are too small?
Mr Scales: Yes.
Q187 Chairman: It is not a new theory. Yes, Mr
Cook?
Mr Cook: I think there is also an issue about
reviewing the quantum, whether the amount of
money is right. The Government has indicated a
2.5% increase in the £212 million for the next two
years. Our concern is that as the number of people
eligible for the scheme rises significantly—
Chairman: Yes, I think you made that point actually.
Q188 Mr Hollobone: Mr Cook, you cited examples
from Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>, where take-up has been
rather higher than was initially expected, <strong>and</strong>
therefore the same could happen in Engl<strong>and</strong>. What
is the LGA’s view of the potential under-funding of
that £212 million? What is your best estimate of what
that £212 million ought to be?

Ev 24 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Mr Cook: If we ran the assumption it was right now,
which we cannot really validate because we do not
know how many people will take it up <strong>and</strong> how
many genuines we have, but even if we ran that
assumption now it is probably going to be something
like 10% out in a year or two.
Q189 Mr Hollobone: A number of authorities of the
291 are issuing smartcards <strong>and</strong> some are not. What is
your underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the percentage of the issuing
authorities which have got smartcards?
Mr Cook: I would not know that, but perhaps one
of my colleagues would.
Q190 Chairman: Mr Scales, do you want to have a
go at guessing? We will not hold you to it.
Mr Scales: No, but what I will do, Chairman, is I will
provide the Committee with a note. I will go back
into ITSO <strong>and</strong> ITSO services <strong>and</strong> get a very accurate
response for you.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Q191 Mr Hollobone: My underst<strong>and</strong>ing is that
authorities are not required to have the cards until
2009, <strong>and</strong> please correct me if I am wrong. Is not the
danger that local authorities are issuing the
smartcards but the actual bus operators are not
incentivised to actually incorporate that smartcard
facility into their own operations because the bus
companies are going to get paid on the basis of the
average single fare. Therefore, if there are a lot of
pensioners who are taking short journeys that is to
the benefit of the bus operators <strong>and</strong> it is to their
benefit that nobody knows about that?
Mr Cook: There is certainly some rough justice in
terms of what gets paid <strong>and</strong> if we had smart buses as
well as smartcards then, for the reasons colleagues
mentioned earlier, we are actually able to say we
know where someone got on a bus <strong>and</strong> where they
got oV the bus <strong>and</strong> what the precise fare is as
opposed to the sort of averaging, which has some
elements of rough justice in it. For the integration
reasons colleagues have talked about, the sooner we
get a smart system which is both smart for the
customer <strong>and</strong> is smart for the operator then the
better that will be all round.
Mr Jones: I think there is an issue, in that because we
have not got an eVective smartcard scheme across
the board we are having to go into a position now of
very expensive survey work, much more expensive
than we have previously had to do, which is really a
complete waste of public money.
Q192 Chairman: So that you can make sure you
know where everybody is <strong>and</strong> what they are using, is
that what you are saying?
Mr Jones: Yes, that is right. We have got to do
manual surveys in order to validate the agreements
of what we charge the bus companies.
Q193 Mr Hollobone: I wonder if members of our
panel could just run us through the problem that
tourist areas have with regard to concessionary
fares, because my underst<strong>and</strong>ing is that say, for
example, somebody wanted to go for a day out in
Scarborough <strong>and</strong> they were leaving from another
district authority area, the authority from where
they live would pay for the journey to Scarborough
but it would be the local authority in Scarborough
that would have to pay for the return journey.
Therefore, presumably attractive parts of our
country which attract a lot of tourists are going to
find themselves with a rather large bill to pay, but my
underst<strong>and</strong>ing is that this £212 million is not
allocated on the basis of tourist areas, it is allocated
on the basis of resident population?
Mr Jones: If I could answer part of that, the issue is
not just about tourist areas. Wherever there is any
big shopping centre, Nottingham, York, somewhere
like that, there is a big problem because people come
in from the suburbs, which are outside the
boundary, <strong>and</strong> then the city centre authority has to
pay for them to go home, so that is a big problem for
us. My underst<strong>and</strong>ing—my colleagues may correct
me—is that the formula being consulted on does to
some extent take this issue into account. It is a
question of whether they take it into account
enough.
Chairman: I think we have made that point. I think
some of these questions will be arguments between
you <strong>and</strong> whichever authority is giving you the cash
when it comes down to it.
Q194 Mr Hollobone: It is essentially about the fact
that if you are introducing any new system you are
meant to reimburse the local authorities for the cost.
When you have put these issues to Her Majesty’s
Government what has been the response?
Mr Wicks: If I could give a brief answer, in the
example you are looking at, which is how is the
money distributed, we went to the Government <strong>and</strong>
said, “We think it would be much better if you
actually did a specific grant to authorities,” <strong>and</strong> the
Government has listened to that <strong>and</strong> has come back
with four proposals. It has consulted on four
diVerent methods of distribution <strong>and</strong> we will know
tomorrow what the outcome of that distribution is.
So to that extent they have listened. I think on some
of the other issues about the 2.5% for next year we
have made those points quite strongly to
Government. As yet, they have not changed their
minds, but then they have not said they will not
change their minds either. I think the Government is
as keen as we are in making sure the policy
actually works.
Q195 Chairman: You mean they do not want it to
collapse. Mr Cook?
Mr Cook: I think the important thing is that
currently some local authorities are disincentivised
from encouraging this scheme because of the
damage it does to the bottom line, which would be a
shame because it is an otherwise wonderful scheme.
The key issue would be if the funding was reviewed
after six months of practical operation, that would
allow us to have the evidence <strong>and</strong> the experience of
how it is actually working <strong>and</strong> to flex it, but we
would not want that to be impossible because a
figure had been determined <strong>and</strong> no matter what, that
is the figure—

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 25
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Q196 Chairman: Although, to be fair, Mr Cook, in
local government you spend all your life doing this,
do you not? There is no central government that is
going to say to you, “This is the figure <strong>and</strong> if we do
not like it we might come back to you in six months’
time <strong>and</strong> ask you whether you are doing the right
thing.” If it is, then I can only say all the local
authorities I deal with have been missing out.
Mr Cook: I think my point, Chairman, is that—
Q197 Chairman: I underst<strong>and</strong> your point, Mr Cook,
but it does not happen in anything else in local
government, does it? You are saying, “This is a new
scheme. If it doesn’t work, we want the chance to go
back to us saying, ‘Yes, fine’”. But that would make
it fairly unique in local government.
Mr Cook: There are things where local authorities
are funded on their expenditure.
Chairman: Yes, I do underst<strong>and</strong> that.
Q198 Clive EVord: Mr Cook, you answered a
question from Mr Martlew earlier on when you said
things are likely to go wrong with the concessionary
fares scheme in April. Who is it going to go wrong
for? Is it for the local authorities or is it for the
passenger?
Mr Cook: If I did say that, then I have misled the
Committee.
Mr Martlew: No, I think I said that.
Q199 Clive EVord: I did not hear you disagree.
Mr Cook: Local government has got a good record
of delivering things at relatively short notice <strong>and</strong>
making them work, <strong>and</strong> I am sure this scheme will
work. The question for local government is whether
the funding mechanisms are more likely to make it
harder to make it work <strong>and</strong> harder to make people
take it up <strong>and</strong> reach the hard to reach people we
want to reach.
Q200 Clive EVord: Right. Can I just pursue that
point for a minute? Local authorities are getting £4
per ticket they issue to assist with setting it up <strong>and</strong>
that is part of the money that is being distributed, is
that right?
Mr Scales: Yes.
Mr Wicks: Yes.
Clive EVord: Presumably people choose to get a
concessionary card or not <strong>and</strong> then use it or not, so
where is the problem in that for the passenger?
Q201 Chairman: Mr Yates?
Mr Yates: Chairman, I did not want to interrupt this
strain of thought. I have got another point.
Q202 Chairman: All right. Mr Wicks, do not
interrupt your strain of thought!
Mr Wicks: What certainly most of the PTEs have
done is we have written to everybody who currently
has a pass. We have been in contact with them
probably for the last two to three months with
massive marketing campaigns to make sure that
people are aware that they need a new pass. We have
to issue a new pass to everybody because the new
smartcard enabled pass is a diVerent pass <strong>and</strong> it has
to have the national logo on so that the operator can
tell two things: first of all, that this person is entitled
to the national concession <strong>and</strong> then, for example, in
the case of South Yorkshire where you can also
travel on the tram or the train <strong>and</strong> before 9.30 as a
local concession. So you will get those cards out. The
challenge, I think, is getting the cards out to people,
but most of us are well on the way with contacting
people. The Government has put in place a central
contract for us to draw down the cards from, so
providing the manufacturer is able to meet the
dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> local authorities are able to process the
dem<strong>and</strong> in the right size—in other words, if
everybody waits until March to do it, then the
system will collapse, but those authorities that are
getting on with it now, that part of it should work.
So if that helps on the card issue side, then that
should minimise the risk to the bus operator of the
bus driver recognising the card because the bus
driver should only be presented with the national
card. There is some leeway in the system for people
to continue to use their existing cards for a short
period afterwards, as I underst<strong>and</strong> it, <strong>and</strong> that is the
risk area for fraud <strong>and</strong> those sorts of things, but the
intention is that everybody should have a new card
by 1 April.
Q203 Clive EVord: And the equipment to recognise
the card?
Mr Wicks: No bus companies, other than those
which have existing smartcards projects, will be able
to recognise the card. The card will be visually
recognised. It will in eVect be a dummy smartcard. It
will be a smartcard which has the capacity to act as
a smartcard, but there are very few systems around
the country which can read it, <strong>and</strong> that is really what
the push is for <strong>and</strong> what your colleague was referring
to. We want to see the smartcard system rolled out.
In our own case we have the pilot starting <strong>and</strong> I am
sure the DfT is watching carefully how the pilot
works. That will finish in October. We will be
advocating there is a strong business case, which
comes to your earlier point. There is both the
commercial interest for the bus operator <strong>and</strong> a
public interest case in terms of getting better value
for money on surveys <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing the
market, which should come together <strong>and</strong> say, “Just
get the buses fitted with the equipment,” because at
the moment if you take south <strong>and</strong> west Yorkshire,
rolling out smartcards across those two authorities
will cost in the region of about £30 million. That is
for ticketing equipment on the buses, establishing a
back oYce <strong>and</strong> for the other equipment you will
need to do it with.
Q204 Chairman: What size of movement are we
talking about?
Mr Wicks: That is a population of about 3.5 million
across the two authorities.
Q205 Clive EVord: That equipment will be in place
for how long? How long before it is obsolete? Do you
have any idea?

Ev 26 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Mr Scales: Probably seven to ten years is a good
average for the on-bus or on-vehicle equipment.
With smartcards it depends on the use really, but
because there will be so many in the field the price
will come down.
Q206 Clive EVord: Mr Jones, what sort of
complaints do you receive from passengers in your
area because you have got three incompatible
systems?
Mr Jones: We get quite a lot of complaints because
people find it is a barrier to movement. It makes
ticketing very expensive because you have to buy
two tickets if you are making two journeys across the
city, <strong>and</strong> all the buses in Nottingham terminate in
the city centre, or nearly all of them, so we do get
quite a lot of complaints, which is why we have
developed the non-smartcard, the integrated ticket,
<strong>and</strong> that sells quite well.
Q207 Clive EVord: Do you get a sense from the
operators in your area that they see the smartcard as
a solution to that problem?
Mr Jones: They see smartcard as the solution to their
own problems about how they can improve their
data <strong>and</strong> how they can reduce costs, et cetera. I do
not believe they see it as a solution to an integrated
system because I do not believe they want to see that.
Q208 Clive EVord: You described people coming
from outside Nottingham, travelling in <strong>and</strong> having
to pay the return fare. If a smartcard registered
where that person started his journey <strong>and</strong> that could
be recorded as where the cost should be borne,
would that assist local authorities <strong>and</strong> transport
operators?
Mr Jones: It would allow us a diVerent system where
the costs were attributed to the resident authority
rather than where you start your journey, but that
would require a complete smartcard system in place
for the whole country.
Q209 Clive EVord: So if we have a complete
smartcard system across the whole country, should
the card be identified wherever it is used, for instance
if someone came from Nottingham <strong>and</strong> started using
their card in London, travelling around the tourist
spots of London? Should it be possible to identify
that smartcard as being a Nottingham one <strong>and</strong> be
charged back to Nottingham?
Mr Jones: I am sure that would be technically
possible, yes.
Q210 Chairman: Can I ask you a child’s guide
question, because I am not sure I have got it quite
right. Did you say it was going to be a visual
recognition, or is there going to be a machine? If it
was a true smartcard, then you simply have a reader,
<strong>and</strong> I do not know how long that is going to take to
get into the buses. Another 50 years!
Mr Wicks: In the pilot we are doing in SheYeld we
will be equipping a number of buses on a couple of
routes with readers, ticket machines <strong>and</strong> the
equipment, but anywhere else in South Yorkshire,
or indeed anywhere else where there is not a live
smartcard system it will act as the present
concessionary fare pass, which you will show to the
driver <strong>and</strong> he will visually inspect it <strong>and</strong> then allow
you to carry on your journey.
Q211 Clive EVord: Mr Scales, how smart is a
smartcard then? Just exactly what will we be able to
learn from them in the future in terms of where
people bought their smartcard, where they started
their journey?
Mr Scales: The answer is, it depends, because we
have gone from a straight flash pass with some very
basic data on all the way to microprocessor-type
cards which have got lots of what we call
“functionality” on them, so they can do lots of
diVerent things. Again, if it will assist the
Committee, Chairman, I can give you just a straight
guide on what all the issues are from a basic card all
the way to a microprocessor card <strong>and</strong> the
explanation?
Chairman: I think it would, because I am slightly
confused.
Q212 Clive EVord: So am I, but I just wonder if ITSO
is setting a minimum st<strong>and</strong>ard that it wants to
achieve, identifying these sorts of problems of
reciprocity <strong>and</strong> being able to compensate the right
authority? Smartcards could the solution to that if
we plan it now?
Mr Scales: Exactly, <strong>and</strong> what ITSO does is to give
you an open specification that is Crown copyright.
Certainly there are over ten smartcards that needed
st<strong>and</strong>ards. There is a number of on-station machines
<strong>and</strong> there are at least two back-oYce systems that
are all ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard, so they have got full
interoperability. So we are avoiding the VHS/
Betamax video recorder argument, where Betamax
was much the better product but VHS got more into
the field <strong>and</strong> then took over. So it is very much to
create an environment that is open <strong>and</strong> is
interoperable, so that many diVerent manufacturers
can bid into it, so that you are not locked into a
single manufacturer or two manufacturers that
might use mutually exclusive technology. It is all
about that.
Q213 Chairman: I want to ask you about ITSO.
How eVective are you?
Mr Scales: I think we are very eVective, Chairman,
after four <strong>and</strong> a half years of trench warfare to get
the specification out! Yes, it has taken a long time.
Q214 Chairman: You are good at trench warfare,
Mr Scales. I am not worried about you!
Mr Scales: I think we are pretty good. We have got
all of the key players around the table. We have got
the bus operators, the rail operators, the
manufacturers, the local authorities, the Passenger
Transport Executive group—Transport for London
have yet to take their place, but they have got a place
there—<strong>and</strong> the Department for Transport, so
everybody is there.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 27
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Q2155 Chairman: So we were given wrong
information when we were told that you were
failing?
Mr Scales: I think I am nearly there, Chairman. I am
nearly there. The specification is out there. It is now
version 1.2. Version 1.3 will be issued soon. We have
great resources supplied from the Government, the
Department for Transport, <strong>and</strong> I think the big
impetus is the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong>
<strong>Travel</strong> Scheme, which will get potentially 11 million
cards into the field. If you get that volume of cards
into the field, then the banking sector gets interested.
Q216 Chairman: So would you accept the idea that
the technology has moved on so fast that some of the
authorities are ready to leapfrog it, so move on?
Mr Scales: It is all just the st<strong>and</strong>ard, Chairman. All
we do is provide the framework. As long as you are
operating within that framework it means that if you
have bought cards <strong>and</strong> other ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard of cards
<strong>and</strong> the future ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard they are compatible
forwards <strong>and</strong> backwards. I think that is the key
thing, so that other manufacturers can bid into it,
<strong>and</strong> that is what it is all about.
Q217 Mr Hollobone: What incentive is there for bus
companies to get smart with their smartcards?
Mr Scales: EVectively they get better data sets, so
know where people get on <strong>and</strong> get oV, so they will be
able to plan their services better. They have got
better security; ITSO is to banking st<strong>and</strong>ard
security. It means that they can do other things as
well, so they can oVer, say, ten journeys <strong>and</strong> you get
your eleventh one free. You can do that within the
smartcards as well. You would be able to go in the
non-bus or non-transport applications <strong>and</strong> therefore
spread the commercial activity. So there is a lot of
incentive to do that. You see the beginnings of that
with Oyster in London, where they have got Oyster
banking cards now so that you have got small value
transactions as well as the data sets. The key for me
is that it is easier to attract car users into steel wheels
than rubber tyres <strong>and</strong> this is one way to help do it,
because it is a way to take the payment uncertainty
away if you have got a smartcard. So what we are
doing, <strong>and</strong> actually all my colleagues are doing, are
two things on technology. One is moving down the
smartcard route, <strong>and</strong> the second issue is real-time
information, so you know when the vehicle is
actually going to appear, so you are taking the
uncertainty out. It is a way of attracting <strong>and</strong>
retaining people to the network <strong>and</strong> that is what
really we see the bus operators being interested in.
Q218 Mr Hollobone: But there is no specific
incentive to get smart with concessionary travel
scheme smartcards?
Mr Scales: No.
Q219 Mr Martlew: I think on two occasions you
have mentioned it is the English concessionary fares?
Mr Scales: Yes.
Q220 Mr Martlew: I represent a constituency which
is nine miles from the Scottish border <strong>and</strong> the reality
of this concessionary fare scheme at the moment is
that I think will all be able to travel north?
Mr Scales: Yes.
Q221 Mr Martlew: But is the technology that is
going to be used compatible so that they will be able
to travel there, or even into Wales, or catch the ferry
to Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Scales: Scotl<strong>and</strong> is part of ITSO <strong>and</strong> the Scottish
system is ITSO-compliant. Wales is part of ITSO
<strong>and</strong> their system when it is introduced will be ITSOcompliant,
so you should be able to join it all up. We
have not gone across the water yet, but I am sure we
can do.
Q222 Clive EVord: ITSO is slower than the Oyster
card system. Is that a problem for it in the future? Is
it already becoming slightly obsolete?
Mr Scales: I think that is a myth now, because I
think what that was about—<strong>and</strong> we had a lot of
technical discussion about it—was the speed at
which it captured the data at the gates on the
Underground station. Again, I can provide the
Committee with a non-technical explanation of
what it means, but the problem is not there, Mr
EVord. It is not a problem now.
Q223 Chairman: I have only got a few minutes,
gentlemen, <strong>and</strong> I want to ask you one or two things.
How eVective is Transport Direct?
Mr Wicks: I think in terms of integrated ticketing
the diYculty at the moment is that Transport Direct
cannot provide bus fare information. It can provide
rail far information because the rail industry is
organised for that. The software, as I underst<strong>and</strong> it,
on Transport Direct will allow the inclusion of bus
fares but the problem you have—<strong>and</strong> it goes back to
the first point—is that there is often more than one
bus fare between two points if you have got more
than one operator <strong>and</strong> reconciling how they provide
that data I think is a really big issue.
Q224 Chairman: There are two information systems
when there ought to be one, ought there not? How
quickly are we going to move to that? You have got
<strong>Travel</strong> Direct <strong>and</strong> <strong>Travel</strong>ine.
Mr Jones: I think yes is the answer to your question.
We ought to be moving towards one system <strong>and</strong> I
think it is confusing to the public to have two.
Q225 Chairman: Yes. We do not quite know when
that is going to happen. If ITSO-compliant systems
are working so well, why is TfL so worried about it?
Mr Scales: I do not think they are worried. I think
we are married without a dowry! There is a road map
that we spent a lot of money on—not me personally,
but the Department for Transport. It is published on
the Department’s website <strong>and</strong> I think it is a matter
of changing out of their existing contract <strong>and</strong> who
pays for it. So the analogy is that we are married <strong>and</strong>
we are just arguing about how much the dowry is.

Ev 28 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Q226 Chairman: I know we have talked a bit about
new technology, but they did specifically say to us—
<strong>and</strong> you can underst<strong>and</strong> it because you must have
the same problem in Liverpool -because of the
numbers they are h<strong>and</strong>ling <strong>and</strong> the speed at which
the reader can cope with that, they are very
concerned that Oyster cards can be read in 200
milliseconds, which is actually an item of time which
means nothing in my life at all but which I am sure
is very important, whereas ITSO cards take 700
milliseconds, or whatever it is it is rather more than
the 200. You yourself know from the numbers
h<strong>and</strong>led by the Underground system here that we are
talking big numbers <strong>and</strong> the diVerence in time, even
if it was a couple of second for each traveller—
Mr Scales: I will not trouble the Committee,
Chairman, with the intricacies of fast frequency shift
keying, but I will provide you with a note which will
make it underst<strong>and</strong>able in non-technical terms.
Chairman: If you ever want to appear here again, Mr
Scales, you will write that in big letters <strong>and</strong> put it
over your desk! Thank you very much indeed.
Q227 Mr Hollobone: Kettering Borough Council is
going to extend this concessionary fare scheme to
peak times as well. Mr Cook, could you just run
through the thinking of the council as to why it is
prepared to do that <strong>and</strong> what are the implications for
other authorities if diVerent authorities are taking a
diVerent approach to peak <strong>and</strong> oV-peak?
Mr Cook: I think the thinking of the council was that
parts of the area are rural <strong>and</strong> the access to bus
services after 9.30 might be non-existent or might be
extraordinarily patchy. We talked about tourist
destinations earlier. Kettering is a hospital
destination, so if people want to come into the
hospital, or whatever, they might need transport <strong>and</strong>
we have quite a number of villages which are poorly
served by bus networks <strong>and</strong> the council felt they
could diVerentiate in that way <strong>and</strong> they wanted to
see bus travel encouraged, full stop, <strong>and</strong> they wanted
to make sure that those hard to reach groups who
might have diYculties were also able to have the
benefits of this. That was one of the reasons. I think
if someone undertakes a journey from an authority
which has exercised that discretion into an authority
which has not exercised that discretion, then if they
want to make another onward journey before 9.30
they might find that they are having to pay for that
journey, but in most cases if they were going, say, for
employment somewhere then they would be coming
out, back home again, as it were, in oV-peak time
<strong>and</strong> so would not therefore pay. Our thinking <strong>and</strong>
the members’ thinking was to make it fair <strong>and</strong>
accessible <strong>and</strong> to reach all aspects of the community.
Q228 Mr Hollobone: Would you have any feeling at
all for the number of authorities which might be
looking to extend the scheme in this way?
Mr Cook: I have not any feeling for that now, but I
am sure we could find that out with colleagues in the
LGA <strong>and</strong> provide a note, if that would help.
Q229 Chairman: This is a rather sensitive subject.
How secure is all this personal information that you
are going to obtain? One reason why I am, frankly,
not very keen on the system in London is that I see
no particular reason why my dear friend Ken should
know when I get on a train <strong>and</strong> when I get oV it. I
did not tell my husb<strong>and</strong>, so I am certainly not telling
the Mayor!
Mr Cook: If I might start the answer on that, I think
the local authority holds a massive amount of
sensitive data about individuals—
Q230 Chairman: Mr Cook, I am not arguing with
what they have got now. What I am saying is, you
are going to add a whole lot more <strong>and</strong> Mr Scales has
made it very clear this is the only way they are going
to make their economics actually make sense,
because they need to know how many people, where
they get on <strong>and</strong> where they get oV. You are holding
a lot of secure personal information, particularly if
they are concessionary travel cards. We need to
know really. What is the level of uptake, for
example, you are experiencing?
Mr Cook: As far as security is concerned—<strong>and</strong> this
is the issue that runs with any smart system—any
smart system depends on data, so that goes with
smart systems. The uptake we have had is that—
Q231 Chairman: Mr Cook, I think you are making
us more unhappy. I think you should move on. Mr
Jones, do you know how secure it is?
Mr Jones: I think we are reasonably happy with the
security. I think it has passed all the relevant
compliances <strong>and</strong> there is a massive amount of data
out there in private h<strong>and</strong>s about what you do which
you might be more worried about than it being held
by local authorities. You question about the uptake
comes back to a point which I do not think was
answered earlier, which is about how we actually
incentivise uptake eVectively. I think that was the
point Mr Cook was making, that we have got a
perverse situation at the moment. It is actually in our
interests not to incentivise—
Q232 Chairman: Yes, I underst<strong>and</strong> that.
Mr Jones: But it is really important that we do. In
our particular case, we have managed to get to 93%,
which is very, very high. That is a direct result of
targeting hard to reach groups like elderly Asian
women, which is a group with a particularly low
uptake <strong>and</strong> we have managed to dramatically
increase it by targeting it. It is actually against my
interest.
Q233 Chairman: Yes, but what I am saying is that
that is actually a policy decision by your authority to
give you this broad set of remits <strong>and</strong> say, “Get on
with it”?
Mr Jones: Yes, but surely it is underpinning what the
Government wants the concessionary scheme—

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 29
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
Q234 Chairman: I am not saying it is a good thing,
Mr Jones, I am just trying to find out what is going
on. So you are consciously targeting hard to reach
groups. Are there very obvious variations between
one section <strong>and</strong> the population of the borough?
Mr Jones: Yes. In our experience—<strong>and</strong> it may not be
typical—certainly Asian groups were very hard to
reach, new immigrant groups particularly. In our
particular case because of the structure of fares
inner-city residents tended to use buses less because
they were relatively not cost-eYcient compared with
outer-city residents.
Q235 Chairman: I am getting a nod from Mr Wicks.
Mr Yates, you have got a slightly diVerent situation.
Is that true of your area?
Mr Yates: We have got a very high take-up now
compared with what there was with the half fare
scheme.
Q236 Chairman: So what are you talking about in
figures?
Mr Yates: It has gone up to about 90%, probably. A
massive increase in Cheshire from two years ago,
hence, as my colleagues have said, the split interest
in incentivising any further take-up. In our case the
district council do the local work <strong>and</strong>, for example,
in your own constituency there might be some
special eVorts taken to target—
Q237 Chairman: Everything happens in my
constituency, Mr Yates, it is special, starting with
the Member of Parliament <strong>and</strong> working downwards,
or, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, as some people say, working
upwards. What is the level of fare-dodging in your
areas?
Mr Wicks: That is commercial information, so we
do not actually know.
Q238 Chairman: Oh, Mr Wicks, you are giving
money to men <strong>and</strong> you do not know an answer to
something like that?
Mr Wicks: We are not giving money, no, because it
is the bus operator’s fares <strong>and</strong> so it is their revenue
which is being lost.
Q239 Chairman: Has nobody been indiscrete
enough to give you an indication?
Mr Wicks: No, certainly not in our area.
Q240 Chairman: Gosh, that is interesting!
Mr Wicks: They would argue it is non-existent, I
suspect, if they were here.
Chairman: I am sure they would argue something to
the eVect.
Q241 Clive EVord: It is about the security of the
information, because what we have been told is that
the new concessionary cards will contain the
information on the non-secure section of the card
about the personal details of individuals. Do you
want to comment on that? Why is that <strong>and</strong> why is
that necessary, <strong>and</strong> should the information not be
more secure than it appears to be?
Mr Scales: I would not like to guess, Mr EVord, at
this point. I will provide you with a note that gives
you a full answer to that.
Q242 Chairman: You are going to be writing us the
Encyclopaedia Britannica of buses, Mr Scales. Are
your bosses aware of this?
Mr Scales: I think, Chairman, I will be writing you
a good paper on smartcards <strong>and</strong> bringing the
Committee’s knowledge up as far as I can take it,
hopefully.
Clive EVord: Well, I will wait until I get a piece of
paper.
Q8243 Chairman: I want to ask pteg about the
written evidence you gave us, because you talked
about unintended consequences.
Mr Wicks: I think the unintended consequences,
particularly on concessionary fares, are where
authorities are put in the position, such as the
example I cited earlier, where we have to consider
whether we can continue to oVer a concession on rail
or –
Q244 Chairman: That is exactly what I think we
want to know about. Have you cut back on any
other concessionary schemes?
Mr Wicks: We have not had to yet, but then we do
not know what the funding will be for next year. We
are in the position now of trying to set our budget for
2008-9 <strong>and</strong> we have two problems: we do not know
what funding we will get from central government
for the existing scheme <strong>and</strong> the operators are able to
appeal against the reimbursement that they had both
for this year <strong>and</strong> for next year, both of which could
be budget challenges. My own authority is very keen
to make sure that when it introduces this extension
to concessions it is just that, it is not a replacement
for something else. But clearly there is a set of
circumstances which could mean that even if we kept
those sets of policies going we might have to reduce
the amount of money we spend on tendered services
for something like that.
Q245 Chairman: What you are really saying is that
you cannot estimate that at the moment because it is
very dependent upon monies.
Mr Wicks: Also, just to assist the Committee, there
is the whole process, which I think my colleagues
have referred to, whereby the operators can appeal
against their reimbursement <strong>and</strong> there is no
disincentive to appeal because there are no costs
involved in appealing. So we have this constant
uncertainty.
Q246 Chairman: They do not pay any costs?
Mr Wicks: Only the costs they incur in actually
putting it together, but they are not at any risk in
challenging our assumptions all the time.
Q247 Chairman: Is that continuing?
Mr Wicks: That is continuing. We certainly have
appeals against us for the current year, even though

Ev 30 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Roy Wicks, Mr Neil Scales, Mr David Cook, Mr Adrian Jones <strong>and</strong> Mr Greg Yates
we implemented the arbitrator’s findings. One
operator is still pursuing us for 2007/8.
Q248 Chairman: You made that very clear to the
Department?
Mr Wicks: Yes.
Q249 Chairman: Is there any actual evidence of
metropolitan councils not passing concessionary
travel money to PTEs?
Mr Wicks: I think certainly all the evidence we have
is that all the money the Government is putting into
concessionary fares is being passed through.
Certainly with my own authority it is passed through
as a transparent amount.
Witnesses: Mr Shashi Verma, Director of Fares & <strong>Ticketing</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton, Deputy Director of
Transport Policing & Enforcement, Transport for London, gave evidence.
Q250 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Would you be kind enough to identify yourselves for
the record?
Mr Verma: I am Shashi Verma. I am Director of
Fares & <strong>Ticketing</strong> for Transport for London.
Mr Burton: I am Steve Burton, Deputy Director of
Transport Policing & Enforcement for TfL.
Q251 Chairman: Thank you. Have you got anything
you wanted to say to us? You have submitted written
evidence.
Mr Verma: Just that I am not entitled to be called a
doctor. I think you have got to finish your PhD to do
that, <strong>and</strong> I did not finish mine.
Q252 Chairman: It might be a bit embarrassing if
somebody has a coronary! If you were in Germany
you would automatically be a doctor. How reliable
is the Oyster card system?
Mr Verma: Very. We process ten million
transactions a day. Not one of them goes wrong. It
is a very reliable system. The transactions are always
secure <strong>and</strong> reliable. The cards themselves have a
failure rate that is incredibly small. We have 0.03%
of cards failing in any given month, which is a record
that is even better than the banking industry has
right now.
Q253 Chairman: If a customer thinks they have done
the right thing <strong>and</strong> “touched in <strong>and</strong> out” correctly
with their card but finds they have been charged
wrongly, can they get compensation?
Mr Verma: Yes. We have a process of correcting
customers’ journeys where they think they have
done the right thing but they may not have done the
right thing, or something may have happened with
the system. They can get a refund from any ticket
oYce on the London Underground or by phoning
the help line. Where there has been a major incident,
such as we have had with floods in July or the snow
incident in February when people were unable to
“touch in <strong>and</strong> out” because of excess crowding at
stations, we have processed a direct refund to all
customers of our own accord.
Mr Yates: Just one other unintended thing, or
possibly intended, is that there appears to have been
a general strengthening to the bus network in our
shire county since this came to pass. Obviously 60%
more passengers are doing it good, but the
reimbursement may be helping the buses more than
it was perhaps intended to do. But it has got a
positive eVect in the sense that the county council
pays for the bus support, so on the one h<strong>and</strong> it is
benefiting whilst the cost to the district councils are
rising <strong>and</strong> maybe not adequately met. So that is
another argument for balancing the whole bus
financing equation under one roof, possibly, to bring
it all together.
Chairman: I think that has all been extraordinarily
helpful, gentlemen. Thank you very much indeed.
Q254 Mrs Ellman: London has got the most
advanced smartcard scheme. Do you think you have
a duty to cooperate with other operators introducing
other smartcards?
Mr Verma: Yes, <strong>and</strong> we do. We do cooperate with a
number of people both in the UK <strong>and</strong> outside <strong>and</strong>
we are cooperating with the Department for
Transport on the introduction of ITSO in London.
Q255 Chairman: Are there any problems with ITSO
as far as you are concerned?
Mr Verma: I think there is a number of issues with
ITSO. I would not necessarily call them problems,
but there is a number of issues with ITSO which need
to be thought through <strong>and</strong> thought through quite
carefully. We have the advantage of saying this with
the experience of running a very large smartcard
scheme, indeed the largest smartcard scheme in the
world right now. Smartcard ticketing is inherently
very, very diVerent from paper ticketing. It is an
invisible medium where people are unable to see the
content of what lies inside their smartcards <strong>and</strong> it
raises its own customer service challenge. The
biggest customer service challenge around
smartcards is that the customer needs to have
absolute confidence that they will always be charged
the right fare <strong>and</strong> that money is not going to
disappear from their cards. One way of dealing with
that is to deal with the security of the system, which
is very important, of course, but irrespective of how
secure the system is there are always customer
queries, customer complaints which come up <strong>and</strong>
there has to be a very clear <strong>and</strong> clearly articulated
means of addressing those customer queries. The
concern we have with ITSO is that the customer
service model behind ITSO is not articulated at this
present moment.
Q256 Chairman: Simply because it is older
technology than the one you are using, or because
the remit is diVerent? What is the basic diVerence?
Mr Verma: There is a lot of work which has been
done in coming up with the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard <strong>and</strong> the
specification for ITSO, which is a technical st<strong>and</strong>ard

about how the data on the smartcard itself is going
to be configured, which is very important in <strong>and</strong> of
itself. There is an ambition to see the ITSO
smartcard be interoperable, but the question we
have in our minds is, if you take the example of a
customer who has got an ITSO smartcard, maybe
from a library in one of the cities somewhere in the
UK, <strong>and</strong> who then goes <strong>and</strong> buys a ticket from a
ticket retailer <strong>and</strong> takes the national rail train down
to London <strong>and</strong> then arrives at our gate <strong>and</strong> the ticket
does not work, what is that customer supposed to
do? With Oyster it is very clear. We deal with the
customer queries. Irrespective of where the customer
came from, the query goes back to Transport for
London. In that model is it the issuer of the card or
the seller of the ticket, who could be anyone, or the
person who brought that person down to London,
which could be GNER or Virgin, or us? Who is
going to deal with that? These are questions which
are actually quite important when you start thinking
about the way we deal with smartcards because
people are not able to see what ticket they have.
Q257 Mrs Ellman: What stage are you at in trying to
deal with that? Are there any discussions going on?
Mr Verma: There is a number of discussions going
on right now about making the Transport for
London network capable of accepting ITSO
smartcards in a technical sense, but the Department
for Transport <strong>and</strong> the ITSO organisation have left
commercial arrangements between operators to the
operators themselves. We have not been approached
by any operator who wants to run an ITSO
smartcard-based scheme in London yet.
Q258 Chairman: Forgive me, but that is a slightly
disingenuous reply, Mr Verma. Nobody is actually
going to come to you <strong>and</strong> say, “We are running one
system <strong>and</strong> we are making a reasonable profit on it
<strong>and</strong> we would like actually to move to another one,”
unless you say to them, “The basic advantage will be
X, Y, Z,” <strong>and</strong> presumably that is not what you
have done?
Mr Verma: What we have been able to tell people is
the advantage of using a smartcard that we have
realised.
Q259 Chairman: That does not surprise me
altogether. I think that is probably quite an eYcient
thing to do, “Look, I do mine better than him.
Mr Verma: Well, it is not a question of me doing
mine better than him. There is a very specific
rationale for introducing Oyster in London, leaving
aside the technology. The challenge we faced ten
years ago was a three point challenge. The number
of tickets being sold in the system was very, very
large. We have, through the introduction of Oyster
<strong>and</strong> through the introduction of Oyster pay as you
go particularly we have cut down the number of
tickets being sold in our system by 60%. Where we
used to sell 1.8 million tickets per day we are selling
800,000 tickets per day right now. So a million times
a day someone is not walking up to a ticket machine
to buy a ticket, which is a huge advantage both to us
as an operator <strong>and</strong> to customers. As an operator,
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 31
that is a step we would rather not cater to. We do not
want to build ticket machines if people do not need
to buy the tickets. The second very important factor
in the introduction of Oyster was gate throughput,
throughput through the gate, throughput through
the bus network, <strong>and</strong> this is where very fast read
speeds becomes very important. There are 25
stations on the Underground network where in the
morning, every weekday morning between 8.00 <strong>and</strong>
9.00 we put more than 25 people per minute through
the gate line, so just over two seconds through the
gate line. This is not just the time it takes to read the
Oyster card, this is the time it takes for a customer to
present themselves at the gate, tap the Oyster card,
walk through the gate <strong>and</strong> clear the gate for the next
customer to go through. If that transaction time
starts to decline, so if you start to put fewer than 25
people through the gate line, that will mean that we
need to increase the size of our gate lines, put more
gates through, <strong>and</strong> with the kind of Victorian
network we have got in many instances that is a very
expensive proposition, often costing tens of millions
of pounds, because there is not the space to put more
gates even if we wanted to. Those are both very
important things. The third factor was that the very
limited logic that was available on paper tickets
meant there was a number of ways in which people
were able to travel through the system at a fare which
was lower than the fare they should have paid. An
example of this would be if you bought a zone 6 only
paper ticket from Heathrow a few years ago you
could travel all the way to Upminster in East
London, which is also a zone 6 station. The fare
should have been a zone 1 to zone 6 fare. You would
have paid only a zone 6 fare. You cannot do that any
more with Oyster <strong>and</strong> as a result of the improvement
<strong>and</strong> logic of that kind the lost revenue through—I
would not necessarily call it fraud because it is not
intentional as fraud, but the lost revenue from the
system has declined quite markedly, so we are saving
a large amount of money on that count as well.
Those are the benefits we have realised. Many of
those benefits may be replicable in other parts of the
country as well. Some may not, but some others
may be.
Chairman: I think you have started some hares
running there!
Q260 Clive EVord: I have always been obviously
labouring under the misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing that the
problem with our Victorian London Underground
was that there were too many people down there,
getting down there too fast, not that we could not get
them down there quick enough. I am frequently
coming through Victoria Station, where I am forced
to st<strong>and</strong> on the concourse because you cannot get
any more people down on the trackside.
Mr Verma: Victoria has a very special <strong>and</strong> very
specific problem in that the station was built with
one entrance when it should have been built with
two. That is something we are correcting at very
large expense over the next few years. As a result of
that there is a lot of crowding on the southern end.

Ev 32 Transport Committee: Evidence
Q261 Clive EVord: It is not just Victoria, is it? There
is a lot of stations. The Committee has actually been
to visit the London Underground <strong>and</strong> we have had
the health <strong>and</strong> safety processes described to us where
they have to count the number of people passing
through the ticket barriers to ensure they do not get
too many people going down.
Mr Verma: Chairman, I would not like to pretend
here that the only congestion we face on our network
is at the barriers. There is congestion at the barriers,
there is congestion on the platform, <strong>and</strong> there is
congestion on the trains, so there is congestion in a
number of diVerent places.
Q262 Clive EVord: So the argument about the speed
of ITSO is a bit overblown, is it not?
Mr Verma: I would not say that at all because there
is a number of places where the problem is entirely
at the barriers. There is no problem at the platforms.
Mr Burton: If we slow down the number of people
going through the barriers, that potentially just
transfers the problem to the front of the barriers. I go
through Victoria as well <strong>and</strong>, as you will have seen, a
lot of the congestion actually occurs—it does occur
on the platform as well, but it also occurs in the
ticket halls with people trying to get through the
barriers.
Q263 Clive EVord: Particularly when you stop them
going through.
Mr Burton: Yes, indeed, but there are moments
when getting people through would provide an
optimum crowd flow rather than stopping people at
the gate. So it gives us the flexibility to manage it,
which I think is quite important. Potentially, if we
slow down the throughput of people through the
gates then we would focus the problem on one side
of the gates. That is the issue.
Q264 Chairman: Only if you could not get them oV
the platforms. I think the trouble the Committee
face is that we are struggling a bit to underst<strong>and</strong> your
problems. We do sympathise, but if you are actually
going to use this as an argument then I think you
have to come up with something a little bit more
concrete.
Mr Verma: One very concrete example of this is we
sat in this room, the same committee room, for the
Crossrail Bill hearings where we heard the example
of Liverpool Street, where with the introduction of
Crossrail the congestion at Liverpool Street was all
concentrated on the London Underground ticket
halls <strong>and</strong> at the instruction of the Committee an
additional provision was introduced into the
Crossrail Bill to deal with that at a cost of £40
million. That is specifically a ticket gate line
problem. That has nothing to do with the London
Underground platforms. That is a very concrete
example a place where £40 million is having to be
spent because of congestion behind the gate lines.
Q265 Clive EVord: Oyster was introduced in 2002
<strong>and</strong> it is on all buses <strong>and</strong> London Underground, <strong>and</strong>
now some mainline railway stations?
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Mr Verma: Yes, <strong>and</strong> the Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway.
Q266 Clive EVord: Who paid for the kit?
Mr Verma: The kit was procured through a PFI
contract. Eventually Transport for London ended
up paying for the kit through the PFI contract, but
it was financed by the PFI contractors.
Q267 Clive EVord: So the purchase of the equipment
on buses <strong>and</strong> its installation was all TfL on the
operators’ buses?
Mr Verma: All TfL, yes.
Q268 Clive EVord: So it is TfL’s equipment which is
on their buses. What degree of fare dodging is there
in London?
Mr Burton: On the figures we have, the average for
buses at the moment is 3.5% <strong>and</strong> the average for
London Underground/DLR is 3%.
Q269 Clive EVord: How do you monitor that?
Mr Burton: We do quarterly surveys.
Q270 Clive EVord: That is people out there with
clipboards, presumably?
Mr Burton: Yes.
Q271 Clive EVord: If I have got an Oyster card in my
pocket <strong>and</strong> I get on a bendy bus <strong>and</strong> I do not swipe
it, how do you know that I have got a valid ticket to
be on that bus?
Mr Burton: We have our revenue protection oYcers
who carry Oyster readers which will tell them how
the card has been used.
Q272 Clive EVord: And that is what happens? When
revenue protection oYcers go onto the buses they
will ask people for their Oyster card <strong>and</strong> swipe it to
see if it was swiped to get on that particular bus?
Mr Burton: Yes.
Q273 Chairman: How many revenue inspectors do
you have?
Mr Burton: There are 290 on the bus network, just
over 200 on the Underground network.
Q274 Chairman: Do they all work 24 hour shifts?
Mr Burton: They focus on day shifts because that is
when there is a lot of people travelling, but we do do
night shifts. We have a night shift which goes on
night buses.
Q275 Chairman: What spread of population would
you expect to cover?
Mr Burton: We check approximately 16 million
people on the buses every year.
Q276 Clive EVord: There has been a lot of publicity
recently around antisocial behaviour associated
with moving around on buses. Are TfL doing
enough to protect the public in terms of how public
transport is used to facilitate antisocial behaviour?
Mr Burton: We think we are. Obviously we are not
complacent about this <strong>and</strong> it is an issue which is
raised by our passengers. We are doing a number of

things around it. We have got over 2,000 oYcers
policing the network from the police agencies. We
have got the revenue oYcers. We do a lot of
marketing around behavioural issues <strong>and</strong> we will
carry on doing that in the New Year. We are looking
at ways of improving the ticketing product, using
Oyster to make it more secure. For example, in the
early part of next year we will introduce a photo
Oyster card for 11 to 16 year olds, which we hope will
improve the ability for drivers to check tickets on the
front end of buses. We have got CCTV on all buses
in London. There is a whole raft of things we are
doing for this. We actually do think that that is
impacting on the levels of crime <strong>and</strong> antisocial
behaviour on the bus system in particular. We look
at the crime statistics very carefully. In the first six
months of this year crime on <strong>and</strong> around the bus
network has gone down 11% <strong>and</strong> the number of
crimes per million passenger journeys on both the
Underground <strong>and</strong> the bus network is approximately
15 per million passenger journeys.
Q277 Clive EVord: You say that crime has gone
down on buses. Are you confident that that is not
just because people are not bothering to report
them?
Mr Burton: I am pretty confident of that. Actually,
a lot of the crime on the buses we record is criminal
damage <strong>and</strong> pick-pocketing, both of which people
tend to report, particularly criminal damage. If
anything, over the last few years we have increased
the rate of reporting, I think, because we have
encouraged bus operators in particular to report
graYti <strong>and</strong> etching because we want to deal with that
criminal damage, <strong>and</strong> we have through CCTV. Our
experience is the more visible policing we have on the
network, the more people are willing to report crime
because they see we are taking an interest <strong>and</strong> taking
care of our customers.
Q278 Clive EVord: You say you have got 291
revenue enforcement oYcers?
Mr Burton: Yes, 290 plus.
Q279 Clive EVord: That is less than ten per borough?
Mr Burton: That is right.
Q280 Clive EVord: Is that suYcient?
Mr Burton: We keep that under continual review. At
the moment, as I say, we check 16 million passengers
a year. We are looking at how we can improve
targeting the revenue oYcers. We are doing a lot
more analysis of the statistics <strong>and</strong> the travel patterns
of people <strong>and</strong> we are starting to target revenue
oYcers, we think, in a more eVective way. We are
doing a lot of marketing. It is arguable whether
checking tickets or changing people’s behaviour is
the most eVective way to deal with this issue. One of
our big drives is to convince people that fare-evading
is actually an antisocial behaviour in many ways. It
aVects our ability to invest in the network. So we are
doing a whole portfolio of things to do this. We keep
the number of oYcers under review. We increased
them by 40 last year <strong>and</strong> if we see it as an issue again,
we will look at that again.
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 33
Chairman: Mr Burton, if you can instil moral values
by posters, I think you will have an enormous
audience amongst all sorts of other institutions!
Q281 Clive EVord: TfL say—<strong>and</strong> this is a quote—
that it “has yet to reach the levels of performance in
this area,” that is revenue protection, “to which it
aspires”. You have more control over transport
services than any other local passenger transport
authority in Engl<strong>and</strong>, so is this because you have just
taken your eye oV the ball?
Mr Burton: No. I would say we are doing a good job
on this. I think there is a couple of issues that we have
identified going forward. One is, as I have said,
targeting where we put the resources. We can always
do that better <strong>and</strong> that is where travel information
<strong>and</strong> passenger movements come into play. The
second issue for us is that there is a small powers
issue in the fact that our oYcers have no right to find
out people’s names <strong>and</strong> addresses when they find
them travelling without a ticket. There is no legal
power. We have got something in the current TfL
Bill which is going through Parliament which will
give them that power, because obviously one of the
issues is if you are not travelling with a ticket <strong>and</strong> you
are not willing to give your name <strong>and</strong> address then
the only recourse to our oYcers at the moment is to
call the police in. We would prefer to have the legal
right to know someone’s name <strong>and</strong> address. We have
got something going through Parliament at the
moment <strong>and</strong> I think that would improve our
eYciency dramatically.
Q282 Clive EVord: Are there any other powers that
you think might be needed?
Mr Burton: Again, we certainly keep it under review
<strong>and</strong> one of the issues we have been looking at is
whether accreditation as PCSOs would be an option.
It is an option open to us under the new police
powers which came in through various policing
Acts. At the moment there is not a clear case for us
to do it, but again we will be looking at the over the
next year or so.
Q283 Clive EVord: Is it a safe job?
Mr Burton: It is, I think. We train our people in how
to deal with potentially confrontational situations.
We train them very well in how to speak to people,
how to manage their safety on the network, <strong>and</strong> we
get a relatively low level of assaults.
Q284 Chairman: Are you asking for extra powers,
for example, to detain people or talk to people?
Mr Burton: Not at this moment.
Q285 Chairman: Not at this moment. You mean you
are contemplating it?
Mr Burton: We are not contemplating that. That
would be one of the things which might come with
accreditation as a PCSO. It is not part of our
programme at the moment.
Q286 Chairman: It is not just a question of your
money, is it, Mr Burton? It raises all sorts of
questions about the roles of PCSOs.

Ev 34 Transport Committee: Evidence
Mr Burton: Indeed, which is one reason why we are
not considering in detail accreditation at the
moment. The power we are looking for is the name
<strong>and</strong> address power because we see that as a small
step which may well make our oYcers much more
eYcient.
Q287 Mrs Ellman: Is there any future for people who
do not like electronic systems <strong>and</strong> just want to pay
to travel?
Mr Burton: That is an interesting question.
Q288 Chairman: All our questions are interesting!
Mr Verma: You are asking a crystal-gazing question
here. From the work we have been doing around the
future of technology around ticketing it does appear
that closer integration with the financial payment
system <strong>and</strong> closer integration with mobile phone
systems are things which are likely to happen very
quickly in the near future. Having said that, at this
moment we cannot see a way of eliminating
magnetic stripe ticketing. There will always be a
market for some infrequent users of the system who
do not have the right currency, whether that is an
Oyster card, a credit card or a mobile phone, <strong>and</strong> as
a public organisation we have the obligation to carry
everyone who shows up. In many ways the easiest
way to cater for people of that kind is to cater for
them through magnetic stripe ticketing, which is a
technology that already exists, it is tried <strong>and</strong> tested
<strong>and</strong> it works relatively flawlessly provided it is in
small numbers. If it was in very large numbers it
would be a real problem for us, but in small numbers
it is something which I think is going to be available
for a long time to come.
Q289 Mrs Ellman: What are these numbers? You
make it sound as if in the world of the future
somebody who wants to pay cash for a ticket <strong>and</strong> go
on a journey is going to be seen as some kind of
freak.
Mr Verma: 2% of people on buses <strong>and</strong> 3.7% on the
Underground still buy cash tickets, cash single
tickets. One day travelcards are also available on
paper tickets, which comprise another 9% of
journeys on the Underground.
Q290 Mrs Ellman: What about the impact of the
National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Scheme, which is due to
take eVect next year?
Mr Verma: I think in London, given that we have the
Freedom Pass, which allows pensioners to travel
across all of London, not just within their own local
authority areas, we have had a mini scheme running
for many years. When the English National
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Scheme comes into force there will be
some people from outside London who would want
to travel on our transport services, <strong>and</strong> indeed there
will be pensioners from London who will want to
travel in other parts of the country. We do not think
it is a major problem. There will be some increase in
traYc along that road, but it is not something which
is not manageable.
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Q291 Mrs Ellman: Have you made any assessments?
Mr Verma: We have made assessments of the traYc
that we would expect coming from the concession
scheme.
Q292 Mrs Ellman: What have you concluded?
Mr Verma: I cannot recite the numbers oVh<strong>and</strong>, but
I can provide you with the numbers if you are
interested. The numbers are not numbers that we
would get particularly worried about carrying. It
also is important to note that the concession scheme,
whether it is the Freedom Pass or the English
national concession, has a watershed hour, nine
o’clock or half past nine, depending upon the
scheme. The real capacity constraints that we face on
our system are all before half past nine in the
morning, typically between 8.00 <strong>and</strong> 9.00 in the
morning, so we do not expect that this should
provide any capacity problems on the network. They
will result in higher operating costs, there will be
more buses running around in the middle of the day,
but we do not expect this to cause further capacity
problems over what we have got today.
Q293 Clive EVord: How is the cost of the
concessionary travel scheme in London covered?
Mr Verma: It is covered by the London councils
under the London boroughs.
Q294 Clive EVord: So you pass the cost on to local
authorities?
Mr Verma: Absolutely.
Q295 Clive EVord: Is that not why you are a bit
ambivalent about the cost at the moment?
Mr Verma: I did not comment on the cost. I was only
commenting on the fact that carrying these people is
not going to be a problem for us. There is a cost to
it, undoubtedly. As I said, there is an operating cost
of carrying these people <strong>and</strong> we would seek to
recover that. The point I was making was that
people sometimes get exercised about the fact that
this is going to cause capacity problems on the
network, but we do not foresee that happening.
Q296 Clive EVord: So if we have lots of people
travelling to London <strong>and</strong> using their national
concessionary card in the tourist centres of London,
for instance—<strong>and</strong> my local authority, Greenwich, is
one of the biggest tourist destinations outside central
London—will you be calculating where those cards
are used within London <strong>and</strong> then charging those
local authorities, or will that cost be spread across
London?
Mr Verma: We provide information. We have a
common deal with the London councils based on all
the London boroughs. We provide information to
London councils which enables them to apportion
the cost between the London boroughs <strong>and</strong> we will
continue to do that.
Q297 Clive EVord: Based on what?
Mr Verma: Until a few years ago it was based
entirely on surveys. We now combine the
information from surveys with the information

which comes out of the usage of the Oyster card. One
of the things to keep in mind about relying upon the
Oyster card data is that it is not m<strong>and</strong>atory to tap in
<strong>and</strong> out on National Rail <strong>and</strong> that is part of the cost
that comes through of the users of the Freedom Pass.
So there is a number of ways in which we cannot rely
entirely upon the Oyster data for travelcards,
Freedom Passes, or concessionary passes.
Q298 Clive EVord: I am still not clear. How in the
future are you going to calculate how you are going
to recharge local authorities for use of the Freedom
Pass in the future?
Mr Verma: In the near future that will remain
something which we do with surveys until we start
getting the bits of data directly counted through
the system.
Q299 Clive EVord: So are local authorities which are
likely to attract a high level of tourists who could be
using the Freedom Pass right to be concerned?
Mr Verma: Well, they are right to be concerned in
that they need to make sure that they have enough
funding from central government to pay for that.
Q300 Mr Hollobone: When is Oyster going to be
extended to the overground lines from south <strong>and</strong>
south-east London?
Mr Verma: We extended the Oyster to London
Overground on 11 November. We are extending it to
three train operating companies, Chiltern, c2c <strong>and</strong>
the West Anglian services on the One railway in
January 2008. The remainder will come in at some
point in 2009.
Q301 Mr Hollobone: What has been the problem
with getting those rail companies to be part of the
scheme?
Mr Verma: This has been under discussion since
before Oyster was launched <strong>and</strong> at successive stages
the Mayor has had to sweeten his oVer to the train
operating companies to come on board. Last year
the Mayor <strong>and</strong> the Secretary of State agreed a deal
where the Mayor will pay for all the equipment
which needs to be installed when the train operating
companies start accepting Oyster, <strong>and</strong> likewise the
Secretary of State will pay for the acceptance of all
the equipment which is required for the acceptance
of ITSO on Transport for London services. We have
now spent, since May of last year, eighteen months
in commercial negotiations with the TOCs to make
sure that they can agree to the scheme, they can agree
to the revenue apportionment coming out of the
scheme, <strong>and</strong> I am pleased to say we are near the end
but we are not quite at the end yet. There is a lot of
technical discussion also going on in parallel, but
there is a very intense phase of installing new
equipment. It is worth just reminding everyone here
that there are 275 stations on the London
Underground network, which is what we launched
Oyster on four years ago. We have 250 stations on
the national rail network as well, so this is a
challenge of a similar proportion in extending
Oyster over National Rail.
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 35
Q302 Mr Hollobone: Coming back to enforcement,
presumably Transport for London is responsible
now for enforcement on London Overground. Are
there disparities in the rules <strong>and</strong> regulations between
bus passengers, Tube passengers <strong>and</strong> Overground
rail passengers with regard to enforcing conditions
of travel?
Mr Burton: Yes, there are. They are subject to
diVerent by-laws <strong>and</strong> diVerent regulations <strong>and</strong> that
is one of the issues which going forward we would
look at to rationalise, because our view is that it is
confusing for passengers to have diVerent rules <strong>and</strong>
regulations applying to diVerent parts of the
network where you are using the same ticketing
product.
Q303 Mr Hollobone: Are those the rules <strong>and</strong>
regulations you were talking about being covered by
this Transport for London Bill which is going
forward?
Mr Burton: Partially, but not entirely. Without
going into too much arcane legislation, there is a
number of rules <strong>and</strong> regulations which apply to
diVerent modes of transport. So there is a national
set of regulations for public service vehicles, which
are buses <strong>and</strong> coaches. There are rail regulations,
there are London Underground regulations, the
trams in London have their own regulations, so
there is a number of diVerent pieces of guidance <strong>and</strong>
regulation that we need to look at to rationalise that.
So it is quite a complex job to do. It is one of the
things we are very keen to look at, particularly for
TfL’s own network because, as I say, I think it is very
confusing for passengers if you have diVerential
activities around revenue <strong>and</strong> enforcement.
Q304 Mr Hollobone: Is it for the Mayor to sort that
out, or is it for Her Majesty’s Government to sort
that out?
Mr Burton: I think it is for the Mayor <strong>and</strong> TfL to put
together a coherent package of things that need to
happen to regulate it in an even way, <strong>and</strong> then there
is a number of agencies within the Government,
including the DfT, <strong>and</strong> other agencies in the
Government to enact the changes that will make
that happen.
Q305 Chairman: Do you think the contactless bank
cards <strong>and</strong> mobile phones are going to make ITSO
obsolete?
Mr Verma: I would not go so far as to say they will
make ITSO obsolete. Again, I think we are
considering the use of contactless bank cards <strong>and</strong>
mobile phones for a very specific reason, which is
that our system, what we call a ticket, is just a means
of payment. What we are trying to do is collect a
payment when people travel through our system.
They do not get a reserved seat, they do not get any
of the other attributes that you would normally
associate with a ticket. So what is important to us is
to be able to collect the required payment from the
customer in a fast <strong>and</strong> eYcient way every single time
they travel, but at the same time to make that process
of collecting that revenue as unintrusive as possible.
Despite all the advances we have made with Oyster

Ev 36 Transport Committee: Evidence
cards, <strong>and</strong> clearly we feel very proud of it, it is still
the case that the basic method by which we are
collecting revenue is unchanged for the last 150
years. When you arrive at a TfL service, whether
that is a bus or the Underground, you have to
change your currency into something that we have
given you before you are allowed to travel. This is
the way we have done ticketing for the last 150 years,
but it does not need to be that way. If you go further
back into history, people were collecting cash on
buses. The reason we stopped doing that was
because a large portion of the cash used to go
unaccounted for <strong>and</strong> was typically taken by the
conductors. The ticket was largely invented as a
means of accounting for the revenue which was
being collected. We have moved on from that point,
but for the last 150 years at every point where new
technology has been introduced we have had to
invent it. For the first time the banking industry
seems to be coming up with a product that will
actually work for us <strong>and</strong> will be there in the h<strong>and</strong>s
of a large majority of the people, if not all. So this is
something we are looking at adopting because this
would remove the hassle for the vast majority of
people from buying tickets in the way they have to
do today.
Q306 Chairman: Is it reasonable that TranSys, who
actually have the Oyster contract <strong>and</strong> have a vested
interest in protecting Oyster, should be carrying out
the study into whether ITSO can be integrating with
the system?
Mr Verma: Unfortunately, because the system right
now is provided by TranSys <strong>and</strong> at the front end,
which is at the gates or on the buses, it has to be
integrated. There is no option other than the fact
that we have to go to TranSys. This is the PFI
contract that the Government –
Q307 Chairman: So you have built in some
independent checks <strong>and</strong> balances, have you?
Mr Verma: I have a very large team which oversees
everything which TranSys does.
Q308 Chairman: If a large team is a guarantee of
independence, life would be a lot easier!
Mr Verma: The point I would make to you is that a
large part of the new technology work that is going
on is actually going on within my team not within
TranSys, so the work that is going on to adopt—
Q309 Chairman: I underst<strong>and</strong> that, but all I am
saying is these people have the Oyster system. They
supplied the Oyster system. You have asked them to
look at whether it can be integrated with ITSO <strong>and</strong>
if you are not careful they are going to be doing the
final arbitration. I may be an untrusting creature,
but it seems to me they might have a vested interest
in saying no.
Mr Verma: There is no doubt that they have a vested
interest. They are a technology provider. They have
a long-term contract. They have essentially a
monopoly position for 17 years <strong>and</strong> the means that
we have at our disposal to control that is to build a
similar capability within our team. I can assure you
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
that we have spent a large amount of eVort building
technical capability within our team to make sure
that we are not being given answers which are
inadequate.
Q310 Chairman: Have you got any idea of how
much it will cost to integrate the two systems?
Mr Verma: We expect that it is going to be in the
region of about £50 million.
Q311 Chairman: Is that just the marginal cost of
adding ITSO?
Mr Verma: That is just the marginal cost of adding
ITSO.
Q312 Chairman: So no other upgrades are included
in that figure?
Mr Verma: No upgrades, no.
Q313 Clive EVord: Mr Verma, if you can tell us, if
you have got the information, what proportion of
the cost of the Freedom Pass in London do the local
authorities currently get back from central
government?
Mr Verma: I am sorry, I do not have that
information to h<strong>and</strong>. I can provide you with that
information if we have access to it, but I do not have
that information to h<strong>and</strong> right now.
Clive EVord: If you could it would be useful.
Q314 Chairman: Could you give us the figures about
the young people who are travelling with free bus
travel?
Mr Verma: About 16% of people travelling on the
buses are travelling on under 18 concessions.
Q315 Chairman: What impact has that had?
Mr Verma: We do see a more pronounced peak in
the afternoon which we did not see before. This is
when people are coming out of school between 3.00
<strong>and</strong> 4.00 in the afternoon. But the afternoon peak is
not as sharp as the morning peak. So the morning
peak is still the one that drives the total provision of
bus capacity in London.
Q316 Chairman: Do they cause an enormous racket?
Is there a lot of overcrowding <strong>and</strong> antisocial
behaviour?
Mr Verma: As I say, the peak bus capacity is in the
morning. The same bus capacity operates in the
afternoon, so it is diYcult to make the case that there
is overcrowding. The point about antisocial
behaviour as well has been trailed very widely.
Mr Burton: Just on the capacity issue, London Buses
works very actively to monitor where there is undercapacity
on the network <strong>and</strong> we have added a
number of additional buses to routes where capacity
is an issue, <strong>and</strong> that is kept under constant review.
With regard to antisocial behaviour, our feeling is
that the noisiness <strong>and</strong> low level disorder has
increased. That is mostly to do with the increasing
number of young people on the network <strong>and</strong> that is
the way young people are. We think you deal with
that through behavioural information, through
visual policing, through making kids more aware of

the impact of their behaviour on other people, <strong>and</strong>
we are looking at doing all that over the next year
or so.
Q317 Chairman: Yes. It will put oV a lot of people,
particularly pensioners, from travelling, will it not, if
the level of general antisocial behaviour is higher
than it used to be? It is a fairly urgent problem is
what I ought to have said to you, is it not?
Mr Burton: We are dealing with that issue in a
number of way. I think a lot of the noise <strong>and</strong> stuV
like that probably is not antisocial behaviour even,
it is just generally young people being rowdy on the
network.
Q318 Chairman: Yes, but in spite of what people say
most pensioners can sort out the diVerence between
somebody who is making a row <strong>and</strong> who is making
themselves perpetually deaf by having an industrial
level of noise in their ears through some tin <strong>and</strong>
someone who is actually doing something which is
causing the atmosphere to deteriorate for everybody
else on the bus.
Mr Burton: Yes, we recognise that <strong>and</strong> one of the
issues for us is to find the most appropriate way to
deal with those issues. For that low level stuV one of
the things we found to be very eVective is over the
last year we have put out 440 PCSOs into the outer
London boroughs <strong>and</strong> their roster <strong>and</strong> their shift
pattern is focused around that school run, 3.00 to
5.30 time period <strong>and</strong> they are very visible on the
buses. The thing about PCSOs is that they are there
to be visible to the public. We have had very positive
feedback about that <strong>and</strong> that is one of the ways we
are dealing with this. But I think it is really
important to say that there has been approximately
a 35% increase in young people travelling on the
network over the last two years because of the
concessionary travel, which we are very positive
about because it does allow people to travel around
the network. If there is a very small number of those
children—<strong>and</strong> I actually do believe it is a small
number—who are committing disorder/antisocial
behaviour then we will deal with them
appropriately. I think it really is important to say
that our experience is that it is a small number of the
kids who are problematic rather than the majority,
as sometimes you read in the papers.
Chairman: Yes. I did have an agent who was a bus
driver who used to do the school bus runs <strong>and</strong> who
alleged that they came out of some of the best
disciplined schools <strong>and</strong> behaved like absolute
maniacs, so I hope it is something you are dealing
with seriously.
Q319 Clive EVord: Just on that line of questioning,
do you get the majority of complaints about the
school bus run or is it about the young people who
are now using the buses where they did not in the
past because it is now free?
Mr Burton: The peak time of those sorts of issues is
during the 3.00 to 6.00 period when the kids are
travelling home mostly in general terms, <strong>and</strong> that is
when we focus our resources. There is a number of
options. In relation to kids travelling to the bus stop
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 37
from the school, one of the most eVective ways we
have got of dealing with that is we work with schools
who actually have teachers out just to be a figure of
authority around the queues. So there is a number of
ways in which we can deal with this <strong>and</strong> we are doing
a number of things.
Chairman: I just want to ask you about your own
revenue protection.
Clive EVord: Perhaps if people sent their children to
the local school it would reduce the problem.
Q320 Chairman: What a good idea. TfL you say has
not reached the levels of performance in the area of
revenue protection to which it aspires. You are in
total control of that, better than anybody else
anywhere in Engl<strong>and</strong>. Does that mean you are not
very good at it?
Mr Burton: It does not. I would say that, would I
not? If you look at it the other way round, we think
levels of evasion on the network are about 3%, which
means pretty much 96 to 97% of the public are
actually paying, if you turn that around. We have
some regulatory issues which we have talked about
already. We have diVerential regulations between
the modes. We think our oYcers could work much
more eVectively if they had a legal right to find out
someone’s name <strong>and</strong> address.
Q321 Chairman: Yes, we have done that, but what
training <strong>and</strong> supervision st<strong>and</strong>ards do you apply to
your revenue protection staV?
Mr Burton: They get very good training including
how to deal with confrontation, how the Oyster
system works, how the ticketing system works on the
network. We think they work very eVectively. I think
they do a very, very good job <strong>and</strong> will keep the levels
down very low. You can always improve, which I
know is always said, but you can. If we can get the
name <strong>and</strong> address stuV sorted out I think we can
drive the levels of evasion down even lower.
Q322 Chairman: How often do they get assaulted?
Mr Burton: We have no more than two assaults a
month at the most. Again, I can write to you with
the details.
Q323 Chairman: I need your health <strong>and</strong> safety
records for your staV, I think, in relation to the
revenue protection. If you could tell us about the
health <strong>and</strong> safety regulations.
Mr Verma: Could I make a specific point on the use
of smartcards on revenue protection. As I said, since
the introduction of the Oyster card the money lost
through the system has reduced quite sharply. On
the Underground particularly the largest amount of
loss of revenue is through the misuse of concessions.
So this is people who are not entitled to a concession
making use of the concession <strong>and</strong> the revenue
collection eVort has focused very largely on that
particular problem. All other means of travelling
without an appropriate ticket have largely been
taken into account in the design of the Oyster
system. The system is partially gated. It is not fully
gated, despite some miscomprehensions some
people have. There are large parts of the system

Ev 38 Transport Committee: Evidence
which are not gated, including some very busy
stations like Finsbury Park, but the Oyster system is
not designed to run on a system which is fully gated.
It is designed to run on a system where a large
proportion of the flows have one end gated, so either
the origin or the destination is gated, because we
collect a maximum cash fare when people enter the
system <strong>and</strong> we refund them the diVerence when they
exit the system to bring the fare down to the
correct level.
Q324 Mr Hollobone: On the fare dodging which does
take place, to what extent is there serial fare
dodging? Is there a hard core of people who
persistently try to evade their fares, or is it lots of
people making the occasional mistake?
5 December 2007 Mr Shashi Verma <strong>and</strong> Mr Steve Burton
Witnesses: Mr Manuel Cortes, Assistant General Secretary, Transport Salaried StaVs’ Association, Ms Fran
Hill, Chair of UNISON Bus Sector, <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Sherratt, Member of UNISON Transport Service
Group, gave evidence.
Q325 Chairman: Good afternoon. Can I ask you to
identify yourselves. I am sorry we are a little bit late.
Forgive me.
Mr Sherratt: Richard Sherratt. I am a member of
UNISON’s Transport Service Group.
Ms Hill: I am Fran Hill <strong>and</strong> I am from UNISON’s
Transport Service Group.
Mr Cortes: Manuel Cortes from the TSSA.
Q326 Chairman: Mr Cortes, can I ask you to do me
a favour <strong>and</strong> extend the best wishes of the
Committee to your General Secretary? We are sorry
to hear he is not well. We hope he will soon be back
firing on all cylinders.
Mr Cortes: I will do so.
Q327 Chairman: Did anybody have anything they
wanted to say to us before we start?
Mr Cortes: Yes, if I may, please. Just a few general
remarks before we start the session. As a union we
favour integrated ticketing, but what we see is that
there is not enough of it <strong>and</strong> we believe the
fragmented nature of our public transport systems
do not assist the eVorts of gaining further ticket
integration. We have also got particular concerns
with regard to what has been happening with the
provision of tickets because over the last decade
what we have seen is that the introduction of new
technology is being used as a way of reducing choice
for passengers. So what we have seen is a steady
deterioration in the amount of booking oYces
available, for example, on the railway <strong>and</strong>
supplementing those with ticket machines, call
centres, et cetera. This has been done in many
instances against the wishes of passengers. What
seems to happen—<strong>and</strong> we have got a good example
of what happened in South Eastern only a couple of
years ago where there was a very successful
campaign to stop the plans to significantly reduce
the opening hours of booking oYces—is that these
proposals resurface a couple of years later. So
although passengers are against it, the operators will
Mr Burton: It is both types actually. We have a small
hard core of serial oVenders, as you do in many areas
around antisocial behaviour. The way we deal with
that is we keep records of who we are issuing penalty
fares to, which is where the name <strong>and</strong> address would
really help us. I have a prosecution section within my
department which takes a very active role in taking
people to court when we think that is the appropriate
sanction <strong>and</strong> we work very closely with the criminal
justice system to ensure there are appropriate
sanctions in place. But yes, we do have a small hard
core of serial oVenders <strong>and</strong> those are people whom
you will not change their behaviour by posters <strong>and</strong>
they are the people where enforcement <strong>and</strong> visible
policing is a way to deal with it.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much. You
have been very instructive.
do so actually, if not with the approval, without
encountering the wrath of the DfT, <strong>and</strong> just come
back with recycled proposals <strong>and</strong> the booking oYces
opening hours get reduced. While we welcome the
introduction of Oyster, although its roll-out has
been somewhat slow, TfL is now using that as an
excuse to close down 40 booking oYces within the
London area. There are proposals for 40 complete
closures <strong>and</strong> then in addition to that they are looking
at reducing the hours in many others. Clearly, we
think the general public does not want that. In
addition to that, if you do not use an Oyster card
now you pay what can only be described as a penalty
fare because a single fare with an Oyster card is £1.50
for central London <strong>and</strong> without it it is £4.00. That
cannot be in the best interests of passengers. I think
I will leave it at that at this stage.
Q328 Chairman: Can I ask all of you, do your
members have any idea how smartcards or
integrated ticketing can develop in the UK? Is it
something you have debated at all?
Mr Sherratt: Not what we have debated, but the
actual bus company I work for has just started trial
on electronic smartcards using the GPS system. Yes,
there are benefits. The plus side for our members is
that the administration of it looks complex <strong>and</strong> is
certainly more involved than we are used to in the
bus industry—
Q329 Chairman: Was that a fleet which already had
GPS in it, or are they having new technology put in
<strong>and</strong> paid for by somebody else?
Mr Sherratt: No, it is new technology paid for by the
bus company. It is linked to real-time information.
All the bus stops have to be GPS located <strong>and</strong> the idea
is that the customer will have what we call a
“mango” card <strong>and</strong> touch on, touch oV, <strong>and</strong> the
current discount on a single fare is 25% <strong>and</strong> then it
is capped at a daily rate, but I am not aware if that
is ITSO-compliant or not.

5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, Ms Fran Hill <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Sherratt
Q330 Chairman: Can I ask you the average age of
your bus fleet?
Mr Sherratt: It is round about five to seven years.
Q331 Chairman: The turnover on most, certainly
fleets outside London, is about eight years. How
many of these buses you are dealing with are having
the new system put in?
Mr Sherratt: At the moment the trial is on about 18
buses on one particular route.
Q332 Chairman: Is that a requirement of the
contract they have got with the local authority?
Mr Sherratt: No.
Q333 Chairman: So it is something they have
decided to do because they could see it happening
<strong>and</strong> they are also paying for it themselves?
Mr Sherratt: Yes.
Q334 Mrs Ellman: We are told that the reason
booking oYces are closing is because passengers
want electronic means of payment <strong>and</strong> that it is
market-driven. What comments would anyone have
on that?
Mr Cortes: I have seen no evidence to that eVect <strong>and</strong>
actually when we did question London
Underground about their proposals to close
booking oYces in London one of the things they
have not at first, or actually even today, fully shared
with us is what research they have undertaken
specifically in those stations which are threatened
with closure that shows that is what customers
favour. The opposite is our experience because when
we have gone out there <strong>and</strong> engaged with the public
which uses those services we have had thous<strong>and</strong>s of
people signing our petitions against the closure of
their booking oYce. So what we tend to find is that
people are actually against the closure of booking
oYces. I think that people will want to see a mix. We
are not against using a mix of ways of being able to
purchase fares, but we should not be using new
technology to limit the choices of passengers. We
should be using it to actually extend the range of
choices passengers get.
Q335 Mrs Ellman: Has anyone any diVerent
comment on that?
Ms Hill: We do not actually cover—I think Manuel
is talking about mainly rail oYces.
Mr Cortes: Well, TfL covers the buses in London, it
covers the whole thing.
Ms Hill: Yes. We cover people outside London
mainly, so we do not see the same problem the TSSA
has seen.
Q336 Mrs Ellman: Young people in London now
have free bus travel. Has that led to any problems
for staV?
Mr Cortes: We do not represent many people who
work within the bus sector, so we have not seen any
significant increase of trouble, et cetera, to do with
people getting onto the public transport network. I
presume this is more to do with the buses, I would
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 39
guess, but it is our view that in order to increase takeup
you need to have a good concessionary fare
process in place, <strong>and</strong> in that respect we do support
what the Mayor has done in trying to get more
people to use public transport, <strong>and</strong> particularly
young people, because I think research does suggest
that if people get used to using public transport they
are more likely to continue to use that mode of
transport in the future, <strong>and</strong> in this era when we are
all concerned with global warming <strong>and</strong> its eVects
actually getting more people onto public transport
networks must be a positive <strong>and</strong> good thing.
Q337 Mrs Ellman: Are there any views on the gating
of railway stations? Does anybody have any views
on that, in terms of its eVects on passengers or on
staV?
Mr Cortes: I think that while it may help to protect
revenue, it also in some instances has led to
aggravation <strong>and</strong> conflict at barriers, et cetera, where
some people have become very excited about the fact
that they did not have the correct fare or they could
not get through the barrier, <strong>and</strong> because there has
not been enough staV around people have just got
even more exasperated with the situation <strong>and</strong> then
when a member of staV has actually attended to
them they have caught the brunt of the person’s
discomfort with the situation. We are not against
barriers, as long as they are not, again, a substitute
for a physical presence, because there might be good
reasons why people might have bought the wrong
fare, may not have a fare, et cetera, <strong>and</strong> if all you
have got are barriers <strong>and</strong> people then having to
extend their journey while they wait for someone to
deal with their inquiry, all it is going to do is
aggravate <strong>and</strong> potentially lead to a conflict situation.
Q338 Clive EVord: Do revenue protection oYcers
have suYcient powers, particularly on buses?
Ms Hill: I can only speak for the area I work in, I
suppose. I work for First Group in Stoke on Trent
in the Potteries. I suppose to a certain extent as well
it depends how many bus inspectors the diVerent
companies want to employ.
Q339 Chairman: How many have you got in Stoke?
Ms Hill: We have only got four.
Q340 Chairman: How far does that extend beyond
Stoke on Trent?
Ms Hill: North StaVs <strong>and</strong> south Cheshire. We only
have four inspectors. It depends how much money
each company—because they are paid by the bus
companies—want to spend on revenue protection.
Q341 Clive EVord: So the bus companies in that area
just assume that everyone is particularly honest, do
they?
Ms Hill: I do not think it is that. I think it is the fact
that they do not want to spend any more money
on it.

Ev 40 Transport Committee: Evidence
5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, Ms Fran Hill <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Sherratt
Q342 Clive EVord: Has anyone to your knowledge
ever done any cost benefit analysis of whether having
more revenue oYcers would actually bring in more
fares?
Ms Hill: I think the only cost analysis the company
did was how much it cost in wages for the inspectors
when we were having financial diYculties. We did
have ten inspectors <strong>and</strong> we are now down to four, so
perhaps that might show you.
Q343 Clive EVord: And no corresponding reduction
in income through the fare box?
Ms Hill: I would not have thought so. We have
recently introduced new measures where we have in
eVect a penalty fare if you have not got the right
ticket.
Q344 Clive EVord: How eVective is that if you have
only got four oYcers?
Ms Hill: It has been quite successful because what
they are now doing is following through, which they
have not done. It has only started the last twelve
months, where they were following through. If the
passengers will not pay the penalty fare they will take
them to court <strong>and</strong> follow them through that way, so
they have put quite a lot of publicity out about that.
Q345 Chairman: Do you have any diYculty in
getting people’s names <strong>and</strong> addresses, or are
Stokesters very good at volunteering information?
Ms Hill: We have got a few smartcards which are
used within the Crewe <strong>and</strong> Chester areas in
conjunction with Cheshire County Council, but
most of our tickets are paper tickets or the tickets
you can buy in advance for a week or a month, or
three months, <strong>and</strong> to get those tickets then you
provide a photograph <strong>and</strong> proof of your name <strong>and</strong>
address, so that is kept on a central database for our
revenue inspector. So we do not have the same
problem the gentleman was talking about from
London in actually getting the names <strong>and</strong> addresses
because we have got them on a protected databases.
Mr Cortes: Could I comment on the railway
specifically with regard to revenue protection? What
we find is that where there are staV about the
stations, whether they are revenue protection staV,
barrier staV or booking oYce staV, revenue is far
better protected than when you have not got people
around. So there is a direct correlation between the
amount of people <strong>and</strong> the visibility of staV at
stations <strong>and</strong> the ability of companies to maximise
their revenue. Whether or not people have got
enough powers is a very delicate situation because
these people are not police oYcers, they are ordinary
workers. They are subject to assault <strong>and</strong> clearly there
has to be good cooperation, not just with the law
enforcement authorities but also with the employers
putting into place good quality training on how to
avoid conflict, et cetera. Our view is that it varies
from operator to operator in the railway.
Q346 Chairman: Let us ask Ms Hill, because I think
this is very important. What is the health <strong>and</strong> safety
record in relation to assaults on your staV, both
revenue <strong>and</strong> presumably –
Ms Hill: The inspectors <strong>and</strong> the drivers?
Q347 Chairman: Does anybody divide it into bits?
Ms Hill: I do not know, to be honest. I do not know
what kind of –
Q348 Chairman: What is your impression?
Ms Hill: We do not get too many assaults on the
inspectors. I only know of one instance in the last
twelve months. We do get more instances with the
drivers.
Q349 Chairman: Is that drivers where they are sitting
in one man or one woman buses?
Ms Hill: Yes.
Q350 Chairman: So they are easy to get at?
Ms Hill: It depends. The most recent case we have
just had is where there was some kid messing about
at the back of the bus <strong>and</strong> they got the engine cover
oV, so the driver got out of the bus <strong>and</strong> was then
assaulted. In a lot of cases now they have protective
screens when they are sitting at the wheel.
Q351 Clive EVord: How could they raise the alarm?
Ms Hill: If they are assaulted? Some vehicles have an
alarm on that will just set oV <strong>and</strong> it sets oV a warning.
In other cases it would be using the mobile phone, I
would guess.
Q352 Clive EVord: That is a bit ad hoc.
Ms Hill: We have got CCTV on a limited amount of
services, but we have not got—
Q353 Chairman: What is the average age of the bus,
do you know? What is the bus fleet?
Ms Hill: Our fleet must be about the same as Mr
Sherratt’s, I would think, five to seven years, because
we are part of First Group so we have quite a
decent fleet.
Chairman: If you will forgive me saying so, a visual
check might not lead one to believe that they were
five to seven years old, but I am sure that is wrong!
Q354 Clive EVord: So there is no panic button they
can press to alert people to the fact that they are
being assaulted?
Ms Hill: Only on a few of the fleet, <strong>and</strong> certainly not
all of ours.
Q355 Clive EVord: Is it an issue you have taken up
with the bus operators?
Ms Hill: It is something which is taken up, yes. We
used to have a system which was a global positioning
system, but that got too expensive <strong>and</strong> that got taken
out, but it is something which is brought up under
health <strong>and</strong> safety. They are looking at putting in a
radio system which keeps the driver in contact with
the central control system.
Q356 Clive EVord: But that is mainly to tell him
when he is being late than for him to raise the alarm
is he is being assaulted?

5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, Ms Fran Hill <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Sherratt
Ms Hill: Well, everything. It would be for anything.
Mr Cortes: Could I just make a comment on where
we have seen a significant reduction in assaults? That
has been in the London area because significant
additional resources have been put into the BTP by
the Mayor <strong>and</strong> with them working closely with
London Underground <strong>and</strong> other operators within
the London area there has been a significant
reduction in assaults. So that shows how
cooperation actually does work.
Q357 Clive EVord: Good. To go back to your earlier
point, has there been a reduction overall in station
staV on Network South East?
Mr Cortes: I have not got a figure for the whole of
Network South East. I know that within the Greater
London area there has been, yes.
Q358 Chairman: Could you give us those figures?
Mr Cortes: I should be able to.
Chairman: I am not going to hold you to it.
Q359 Clive EVord: I use the train regularly every day
<strong>and</strong> I have noticed that at my station now the
barriers are open during the day. They are only
closed at peak time. They are never closed at any
other time. I put that down to a lack of staV on the
station. Is that your experience?
Mr Cortes: That would be our experience. Clearly if
you have got a barrier system, because people might
get on the network legitimately but not been able to
buy a fare, or whatever, you would need staV at
those barriers to be able to deal with people who
would have a ticket enquiry or not paid the correct
fare, et cetera. So you cannot close the barriers
unless you have got staV available.
Q360 Clive EVord: Are you aware of any
information about more evasion, people avoiding
paying the fares because there are less staV <strong>and</strong> more
barriers open?
Mr Cortes: The reason they brought barriers in in
the first instance was to maximise fares, so if you
have got them open it is defeating the purpose of
why they were there in the first place, so the answer
to that has to be yes.
Q361 Chairman: Have any of you noticed any
impact on your members since there has been the
introduction of a national concessionary bus travel
scheme?
Ms Hill: The eVect that it has had within the bus
companies is that obviously there is a lot more
people who are travelling with concessions, so it has
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 41
created more work behind the scenes, if you like,
because constantly questions are being asked such as
how many more people are travelling, where are they
travelling, when are they travelling, because we have
to provide info to the local authorities to get
reimbursement for the travel. They are constantly
worrying about how much it is going to cost them
because in some instances the costs have shot up
quite a lot with the extra patronage. We cover
mainly clerical work, obviously, <strong>and</strong> I actually work
in that area myself, so we spend a lot more time both
from within the companies that we work for
analysing all these figures for the local authorities.
Q362 Chairman: But they are, of course, benefiting
from that?
Ms Hill: Yes.
Q363 Chairman: So it is not exactly pro bono, is it?
Ms Hill: No, definitely not. The other concern that
we have about our members is because it is costing
the authorities such a lot more money, <strong>and</strong>
obviously they are worrying about what it is going to
cost them next year, they are cutting back in other
areas such as looking to see what tendered services
<strong>and</strong> things like that they can have because they are
like everybody else, they have only got a finite
budget, so they are looking to perhaps try <strong>and</strong> cut
back in those areas. Obviously, if a lot of the
tendered services are taken oV then we have got the
worry about whether that is going to cause any job
losses to our members.
Q364 Chairman: Is there anything else you would
like to tell us that you think would be useful?
Mr Cortes: Just one point I would like to make. We
have just had the opening of the high speed line from
St Pancras <strong>and</strong> we are talking about ticket
integration <strong>and</strong> it just shows how ludicrous this
current situation is. Many people cannot go into
their local station <strong>and</strong> buy a through ticket all the
way to Paris. That just shows how ludicrous it is.
Q365 Chairman: You are expecting too much, Mr
Cortes!
Mr Cortes: Well, we are in the twenty-first century.
Maybe I am asking for a bit too much.
Chairman: Fifteen years ago I went in to Crewe <strong>and</strong>
bought tickets not all the way down through Italy
but right the way down to Sicily with no trouble at
all. I had seats booked <strong>and</strong> it was all tremendously
eYcient. That is totally impossible now. If I want to
go to Chester it is another city, which may indeed be
true. Lady <strong>and</strong> gentlemen, you have been very
helpful. Thank you very much indeed.

Ev 42 Transport Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Members present
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair
Mr David Clell<strong>and</strong> Mr John Leech
Clive EVord Mr Eric Martlew
Mrs Louise Ellman Mr Lee Scott
Mr Philip Hollobone Graham Stringer
Witnesses: Mr Stephen Joseph, Executive Director, Campaign for Better Transport, Mr Anthony Smith,
Chief Executive, Passenger Focus, Mr Rufus Barnes, Chief Executive, London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon
Edwards, Company Secretary, <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest, gave evidence.
Chairman: Good afternoon to you, the Committee is
now in session. Members with an interest to declare,
Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Member of United.
Clive EVord: Member of Unite.
Graham Stringer: Member of Unite.
Chairman: ASLEF.
Mrs Ellman: Member of Unite.
Q366 Chairman: Thank you very much. Gentlemen,
you are most warmly welcome. I am sure several of
you already know the House rules, if you agree with
one another please do not repeat what somebody
else has said. If you want to catch the Chairman’s eye
it should not be too diYcult because the clerk will dig
me in the ribs. If there is anything else you want to
say we will ask you whether you want to say it.
Would you like to identify yourselves for the
record, please?
Mr Edwards: Gordon Edwards, Company
Secretary, <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest.
Mr Barnes: Rufus Barnes, Chief Executive, London
<strong>Travel</strong>Watch.
Mr Smith: Anthony Smith, Chief Executive,
Customer Focus.
Mr Joseph: Stephen Joseph, Executive Director,
Campaign for Better Transport.
Q367 Chairman: Do any of you have anything you
want to say briefly?
Mr Barnes: I would just like to say that the paper
was written nine months ago <strong>and</strong> certain things have
moved forward since then. I think it is important to
make sure that your members are aware of the
changes that we wish you to take into account. We
made reference towards the beginning of our report
to ticket queues on the underground. We believe
London Underground has made progress but things
have got worse recently at King’s Cross St Pancras
following the transfer of the Eurostar service <strong>and</strong> the
opening of the First Capital Connect station there.
We have noticed, rather worryingly, that there are
queues for the ticket oYce <strong>and</strong> the ticket machines
that are actually causing movement problems within
the station. Secondly, we believe that there has been
some very useful progress in relation to mobile
phones <strong>and</strong> telephones. We referred to this in our
report but we believe that Transport for London has
recently announced that they will be experimenting
with the use of mobile phones <strong>and</strong> Oyster
acceptance. That, we believe, is good <strong>and</strong> welcome
news.
Q368 Chairman: Mr Barnes, I am going to stop you
there. Do you think possibly as the questions come
up you can answer the particular points <strong>and</strong> point
out to us if there is a gap between what you said
originally <strong>and</strong> what is happening now <strong>and</strong> why. If
there is a diYculty <strong>and</strong> at the end of the time you feel
we have missed something by all means raise it. Mr
Smith?
Mr Smith: I think the Committee’s investigation is
extremely timely as the number of passengers going
through Britain’s railway network increases day by
day <strong>and</strong> in recent research we have done—which
unfortunately was done prior to our report being
submitted—reducing ticket queue time, something
as simple as that, actually came out as the sixth
priority among Britain’s rail passengers on a
national survey. Subsequently we have also done
some research on the passengers’ attitudes to the
future of ticketing <strong>and</strong> future ticketing technology
which I will refer to in the course of questions.
Q369 Chairman: Mr Edwards?
Mr Edwards: Our evidence was obviously submitted
nine months ago <strong>and</strong> most of it remains relevant
today. However, there has been one change, <strong>and</strong> we
welcome the Government’s decision to pay the
additional £212 million towards the cost of free
concessionary travel from the first of April next year
by specific grant using option four.
Q370 Chairman: Thank you. Mr Joseph?
Mr Joseph: I wanted to say that we would like to
take this opportunity, if the Committee wishes, to
update the Committee on something that it
expressed interest in in its report on the draft Local
Transport Bill in relation to the Competition Act
<strong>and</strong> ticketing <strong>and</strong> bus services. If the Committee
wants to explore that I am happy to update them on
where we have got to on that.
Q371 Chairman: That would be helpful. Let us see
how we go <strong>and</strong> if you think we have missed bits out
it is not above you to attract the Chairman’s
attention. Do you all think that the Government has
got a strategy on integrated ticketing?

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 43
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
Mr Smith: In terms of the national railways the
integrated ticketing works quite well inside the
railway network; it works less well when you try to
use rail <strong>and</strong> bus or a combination of some other form
of public transport. There are schemes which are
now being promoted, the PlusBus scheme whereby
you can buy a bus ticket relatively easily on top of
your rail ticket but we simply do not think that the
promotion is high profile enough at present.
Q372 Chairman: What about smartcards?
Mr Barnes: I think the smartcard is good in principle
<strong>and</strong> we are delighted that the Government has
pressed national rail to accept Oyster in the London
area. We are worried about the implementation
arrangements for that.
Q373 Chairman: In what sense?
Mr Barnes: We are very aware that the
Government’s concern is that the ITSO product
should not be undermined by Oyster. We are pleased
that the Government has said that Oyster has to be
accepted on all national rail stations in its pay as you
go concept but we are aware that there are going to
be diVerences across London that are going to be
really problematic <strong>and</strong> confusing for passengers.
Q374 Chairman: You have presumably drawn that
to the attention of the Government; what response
have you received?
Mr Barnes: The Government appears to be saying
that if some companies oVer one thing <strong>and</strong> another
company oVers another thing, then that is the
commercial world.
Q375 Chairman: That is what I am asking you: is
there a strategy behind this. Mr Joseph?
Mr Joseph: In answer to that precise question we
have not identified a strategy. In particular what we
have not identified is a strategy which would fit with
the current transport secretary’s express wish to
focus on door to door transport. There is, as my
colleague to my right said, a strategy for integration
within the railway; there is no strategy for
integration between rail <strong>and</strong> bus or between creating
a smartcard that will allow door to door transport
such as you find in many other European countries.
Q376 Chairman: Is that your view, Mr Edwards?
Mr Edwards: Yes, there is no strategy whatsoever
<strong>and</strong> we have made representations to the
Department for Transport when they have been
letting new rail franchises, that we wanted to see
some commitments in there around integrated,
multi-model ticketing. Nothing has happened
whatsoever.
Q377 Mrs Ellman: Are smartcards important or do
you think improvements could be made by existing
payment systems?
Mr Smith: The research we have done with
passengers shows that the smartcard is instantly
recognisable, people can see the benefits, they want
it, they would like it to be more available especially
in the London area with the pay as you go concept
on the national rail network. The diYculty with
smartcards on the national railway network is that
where you get longer distance journeys, where the
price is high <strong>and</strong> variable, there is a great reluctance
to store large amounts of money onto a smartcard.
It works very well for urban areas <strong>and</strong>, as my
colleagues have said, it would be great if those urban
areas <strong>and</strong> smartcards could talk to each other so you
could use them in Manchester, London or SheYeld,
but for longer distance journeys it is much harder to
see quite what the benefit is.
Q378 Mrs Ellman: What about outside the
London area?
Mr Smith: There are plenty of examples outside of
London—the <strong>Travel</strong>master card in South
Yorkshire, the Trio in Merseyside, System One in
Manchester—where smartcards work. People like
them; they are underst<strong>and</strong>able. As long as you have
a clear pricing structure, a zonal fair structure, <strong>and</strong>
people know what they are going to pay.
Q379 Mrs Ellman: Do you think that enough
attention is given to the views of travellers outside
London <strong>and</strong> there is not too much focus on
travelling within London?
Mr Smith: I think the existence of these other
smartcards indicates that it is a popular product in
all types of area <strong>and</strong> could be extended outside urban
areas. The fact is that the Oyster card is a very
prolific product in London; people have seen it <strong>and</strong>
a lot of people use it. In many ways it is leading
perceptions.
Mr Barnes: I think the issue about London is that
Oyster works <strong>and</strong> Oyster has been seen to work <strong>and</strong>
Oyster has been popular with users. It is first
generation. It is obviously the case that people need
to be able to have a product that is useable elsewhere
<strong>and</strong> I underst<strong>and</strong> your question, but we do not want
to lose the benefit we have seen of Oyster in London
because people want to have the ITSO product that
has a national benefit.
Mr Edwards: To go back to your original question,
there needs to be more done now, yes. In the south
west of Engl<strong>and</strong> there are 102 destinations without
railway stations where you can buy a through ticket
to. You can only book on the internet to 20 of those
102. For the other 82 you actually have to go to the
station <strong>and</strong> buy it. You cannot buy the add-on fare
with any advantage purchase ticket. Why cannot the
railway industry, with the technology that is
available today, just deliver that?
Q380 Mrs Ellman: Mr Smith, can I ask you from
Passenger Focus, do you think enough work is done
on looking at the needs of people who want simply
to be able to go to a station <strong>and</strong> buy a ticket on the
day? Is there not a drive to everything being through
Smartcards <strong>and</strong> other technologies to the exclusion
of passengers—I do not know how many—who
want to be able to buy tickets <strong>and</strong> travel?
Mr Smith: I think it is a fact that the move on the
railways is very much towards pre-purchase for all
types of travel whether it is through Smartcard or
through booking ahead. As we have seen in the

Ev 44 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
current fare rises the relentless pressure on walk up
<strong>and</strong> go fares continues <strong>and</strong> we are moving towards a
very diVerent type of railway which, in some ways,
on longer distance travel, is becoming more of an
EasyJet type booking system. This is happening
without any public debate <strong>and</strong> really at the behest of
the operators largely to suit their convenience.
Q381 Mrs Ellman: Passenger Focus is there looking
at the needs of passengers, have you done any
research on the views of passengers <strong>and</strong> particularly
those who do not want to have to go down this
route?
Mr Smith: It is quite clear that many passengers
value the ability to be able to turn up at the railway
station <strong>and</strong> purchase a ticket on the day of travel
either because they want to be suYciently flexible
about their plans or they want to talk to a member
of staV which is very important. I do not think the
rail industry is ever going to be able to get rid of
ticket windows because people want to talk to staV.
Some of the products are complicated; they need to
have a discussion with a human being about them.
People like the railway because it has that turn up
<strong>and</strong> go ability. I think it is one of the railway’s great
attractions <strong>and</strong> selling points that you can do that,
you can turn up <strong>and</strong> go.
Q382 Mrs Ellman: Has Passenger Focus made
representations to the operators <strong>and</strong> to government
to pursue the views of those people?
Mr Smith: Yes, we have. We have made strong
representation both to government <strong>and</strong> to the
operators <strong>and</strong> to the Association of Train Operating
Companies but I think some of the realities of the
pressure on space on the railways is pushing the
operators towards trying to get people to book in
advance. A lot of people are very comfortable doing
that <strong>and</strong> we should not decry it because you can
travel very, very cheaply if you book in advance. The
great benefit of the railway is that you can turn up to
go. It is a social service, it is a public service <strong>and</strong> it
should be available when you want to use it within
reason.
Mr Joseph: We have recently been focussing on the
closure of travel centres at various railway stations.
South West Trains are leading the way on this <strong>and</strong>
we think other operators will follow it. We are
concerned about this for a number of reasons, firstly
because, as Mr Smith said, some of the railway
products are complicated <strong>and</strong> people like to be able
to have the leisure to explore the options for them in
relation to travel which travel centres provide.
Secondly, we are concerned—from the aspect of one
of the other things the Committee is interested in—
with penalty fares. If you have no travel centre <strong>and</strong>
relatively few staV at ticket oYces people will simply
be caught by penalty fares regimes because they have
not had time to actually buy the ticket in advance.
We have certainly raised these issues with South
West Trains; we have, as usual I am afraid, come
across a split between whether this is required by the
franchise or a decision made by the operator.
Responsibility, as often with the railway, seems to be
divided or passed between the two.
Q383 Mr Scott: How eVective do you think
Transport Direct is?
Mr Barnes: Transport Direct is an organisation that
is providing information rather than ticketing. It is
one of the organisations that fulfils this role, but it
is just one of those organisations, the National Rail
Enquiry Line is another. It is one organisation . . .
Q384 Chairman: Is it eVective?
Mr Barnes: I cannot really comment on whether it is
better or worse than any of the others?
Mr Joseph: In principle what Transport Direct is
trying to do is admirable <strong>and</strong> certainly some of the
new features that it has added to allow, for example,
carbon calculations of journeys <strong>and</strong> so on are
admirable too. Nobody else is providing car <strong>and</strong>
public transport comparisons. The problem seems
to be when you get down to the very local level of
journeys in that it seems to fail to notice the
opportunities for walking any distance or for cycling
<strong>and</strong> therefore does not include those as options <strong>and</strong>
some of the first <strong>and</strong> last legs of the journey are still
very odd. It is also reliant on the local public
transport information, for example the location of
bus stops, provided by <strong>Travel</strong>ine <strong>and</strong> from that the
local authorities. We have evidence from some of
our local groups that some of those basics are not
very well done. We have some concerns about the
detail although we think in principle the case for
Transport Direct is very strong but needs to be
developed.
Mr Edwards: The key barrier to the use of public
transport is the availability of information. At the
moment we have both Transport Direct which gives
live travel news but also provides a journey planning
system which people find quite diYcult to use
initially but once you get used to it it is fine. Then we
have all these regional travel line organisations
which do not have a st<strong>and</strong>ard format <strong>and</strong> do not
cross regional boundaries. Really we want to see the
Government take some lead in joined-up thinking to
ensure that there is just one source of accurate public
transport information which is easily accessible. Rail
fares are available on the National Rail Enquiry site,
they are also available on the Transport Direct site,
but on Transport Direct you cannot get bus fares.
On <strong>Travel</strong>ine South West from 2 January you will be
able to get the bus fares but no train fares. All these
bodies are publicly funded so can we please have
some joined-up thinking.
Mr Smith: I think Transport Direct is a big step in
the right direction. Information is key prior to
ticketing <strong>and</strong> I think what they are trying to do is
interesting because in a sense they are competing
with the satellite navigation technology you are
seeing in use in cars increasingly, that sort of
pinpoint accuracy of journey information. Public
transport has to keep up so it is a step in the right
direction, but clearly there is more work to do.
Q385 Clive EVord: Has the ticket fares on trains
coming into line with the zones improved the
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the prices <strong>and</strong> the link between the
diVerent modes of transport in London?

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 45
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
Mr Barnes: I think when you start from the position
that prior to the introduction of zonalisation you
had vastly more fares options, anything that brings
about a simplification of that helps people’s
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the fares they are likely to have to
pay for the journey they make. That must be a good
thing. Zonalisation is also a vital prerequisite to the
acceptance of Oyster on the national railways in the
London area—Oyster pay as you go—otherwise you
would not have been able to introduce Oyster pay as
you go on the national railways because the system
could not cope with such a large number of
individual fares. Yes, it was a good thing; yes, it goes
towards simplification <strong>and</strong> it is a prerequisite before
we see Oyster pay as you go extended to the national
railways.
Mr Smith: I agree with my colleague’s comments
that overall it is a good thing but it has been painful
in its implementation because some of the fare rises
which have been implemented following the
introduction of the zones have been quite significant.
Individual passengers I think got quite a nasty shock
in terms of what might happen. We saw I think rises
in the order of 30% which were relatively small
monetary amounts but still quite a big jump <strong>and</strong>
what we have yet to see is what the overall impact
will be of turning London into a complete zoned
area on travel from outside of London. There are
many forces at play here, including the government
regulation of certain types of rail fare which apply to
the whole of a train company’s activities. Now you
get a sort of ring in London which sets certain things
happening in terms of price which we thing has a
potential consequence of reducing the train
company’s room for manoeuvre with prices outside
of that area so what could be good news for London
might not be quite such good news for Kent.
Q386 Clive EVord: It is not good news for south east
London. How satisfactory is the Oyster card from
the passengers’ perspective.
Mr Barnes: Oyster has been a massively beneficial
product for London but there are some uncertainties
about the future. I think everybody needs to be very
clear about those uncertainties. One of the reasons
that Oyster has been so beneficial with the pay as you
element of Oyster has been the fact that on
Transport for London services you get a discount in
the fare that you would pay compared with the fare
that you pay if you pay by cash. I think that there has
been an expectation that when Oyster pay as you go
is extended to the national railways that discount
will automatically be applied to national rail fares
where pay as you go is accepted. There is no
guarantee of that at all. In fact, some train operating
companies have said that they do not intend to give
that discount. Whereas we have seen some
companies in the recent pass actually accepting
them, others have said they positively will not. This
will cause confusion <strong>and</strong> cause massive
disappointment I suspect potentially to your
constituents if South Eastern were to decide not to
give the discount that currently applies to travel on
TfL services.
Q387 Clive EVord: How will that work? If you have a
smartcard <strong>and</strong> you are travelling around the system,
you could go from one section of the network that
oVers the discount <strong>and</strong> one that does not. How will
you know?
Mr Barnes: Because you have to click in <strong>and</strong> click
out of each section.
Q388 Clive EVord: Does it tell you? Until you have
clicked in or out, supposing there is a display screen
there to tell you what has just been taken oV your
smartcard, how do you know?
Mr Barnes: The current situation with Oyster on
Transport for London services is that there is a daily
cap; it cannot take more than the daily cap oV the
service. The detail of how it is going to work on the
national railways has not yet been worked out, but I
can foresee some very real problems. Southern
recently decided to accept Oyster pay as you go on
their service from Clapham Junction up to Watford
Junction; that parallels the service operated by the
London Overground. That is good news for
passengers. However, as I say, South West Trains
have made it clear to us that they believe in their
franchise bid there was no provision at all in the
financial bid that they put together for them to give
a discount.
Q389 Clive EVord: This is disastrous, is it not? If, for
instance, South Eastern were to say that they are not
going to oVer the discount on pay as you go Oyster
cards that means that the Oyster is irrelevant for
commuters in a quarter of London, is it not?
Mr Barnes: It is not necessarily irrelevant because it
does speed up the passage, for example, through the
ticket gates <strong>and</strong> it does enable people to travel more
easily if not more cheaply. However, I would agree
with you that the confusion that could result from
diVerent train operating companies in the London
area applying a diVerent policy could be very
unacceptable, confusing <strong>and</strong> in many respects it
could result in passengers believing that Oyster pay
as you go is going to deliver one thing <strong>and</strong> it delivers
something else.
Mr Smith: From our research the Oyster card has
been a tremendous success. The only downside that
we can pick up from our research is the inability of
passengers to be able to see what they have got on it
or what they have got left. It is a relatively dumb
piece of plastic in that respect unless you actually
have some sort of contact with the system. I think
Oyster’s success has been built on the fact that we
have had one organisation specifying the
introduction of it—Transport for London—<strong>and</strong> one
contractor delivering it <strong>and</strong> they meet exactly
together. Once you get 23 train companies or
however many trying to do this there has got to be a
common agreement otherwise the chaos that you are
predicting will come about.
Mr Joseph: Going back to Mrs Ellman’s earlier
question about whether there is a strategy, there is
no strategy. The Department for Transport needs to
specify <strong>and</strong> be an intelligent client that creates an
Oyster style product across the country.

Ev 46 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
Q390 Clive EVord: What is your underst<strong>and</strong>ing of
the conflict between the technology involved behind
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster?
Mr Barnes: Oyster has been developed by a
company, as Mr Smith has said, <strong>and</strong> is basically a
monopoly product, monopoly supply, monopoly
cost, et cetera. The interface of the ITSO product I
am told is extremely diYcult in respect of the pay as
you go element of the stored value ticket. As you
know Oyster is a double product, on the one h<strong>and</strong> it
can be a period ticket, on the other h<strong>and</strong> it can be a
stored value ticket. It is the stored value element
where there is a problem on the interface <strong>and</strong> I
believe, although I am not a technical expert, that
the problem is having the information stored on the
ITSO product that can be read by the Oyster
machinery in respect of pay as you go. I believe that
is where the problem lies.
Q391 Clive EVord: Are you aware of an internet
ticket sales line that claims it can provide an ITSO
type smartcard that will work on the current Oyster
systems without requiring any new gates or readers?
Mr Barnes: I am not personally aware of the detail
of that; I have heard of the company that is making
that claim but I do not know the details.
Q392 Clive EVord: Are you aware of the current rail
legislation that allows train operators to stop sales of
certain promotional tickets <strong>and</strong> that this is likely to
increase under smartcards?
Mr Barnes: Certainly the rail companies can sell
promotional tickets as much as they wish to. They
have to sell a particular core range of tickets but
above that they can sell any tickets that they believe
are in their commercial interests.
Q393 Clive EVord: This question is about something
more than that, it is actually blocking the sale of
other sorts of tickets that might be in a passenger’s
interest but not in the train operator’s commercial
interest.
Mr Smith: I am aware of this because I would have
thought it would still have been in the train
operator’s interest to sell products which are specific
to perhaps just that train company, whether it is
Virgin or South West Trains or whatever. You are
quite correct in your analysis that that benefits
consumers because you have a degree of choice.
Mr Barnes: What I suspect it may not be feasible to
do is to sell it through the Oyster product or through
the ITSO product because the benefit that the
companies have from their promotional tickets is
that they are usually only sold by that company <strong>and</strong>
they get all the money for it. When you go down the
route of an Oyster product or an ITSO product it is
a shared value <strong>and</strong> they have to share the money that
they get in. I suspect what you are alluding to is that
if a company wished to sell a promotional product it
would still have to be outside the ITSO/Oyster
product.
Q394 Clive EVord: What is the future for the
travelling public? At the moment if you start your
journey on a bus you cannot buy your train ticket,
what would solve this through-ticketing problem for
the public? What do you envisage?
Mr Barnes: We would definitely advocate wider
sales opportunities for multi-model tickets <strong>and</strong>
perhaps this is the right point to draw your attention
to a further potential problem with the ITSO/Oyster
product because it has to do with ticket sales. Again
South West Trains, under its agreement with the
Department for Transport, will, we underst<strong>and</strong>, be
accepting the Oyster pay as you go product but it
does not intend to sell the Oyster pay as you go
product; it only intends to sell the ITSO product.
Other train operating companies in the London area
have said that they will both sell <strong>and</strong> accept it so in
the South West Trains area—<strong>and</strong> maybe elsewhere,
I do not know—passengers who wish to top up their
Oyster pay as you go product will not be able to do
it at their local South West Trains station, they will
have to go to another ticket sales outlet. We think
this confusion is absolutely awful <strong>and</strong> perhaps a
further indication of lack of integration <strong>and</strong>
ticketing policy.
Q395 Clive EVord: Can I just clarify that they are
actually saying they will not allow TfL to put their
machines on their station forecourts so that Oyster
card users can top up their cards?
Mr Barnes: I think the problem is that South West
Trains would have to invest in the cost of that
product.
Q396 Clive EVord: What if TfL suggested that they
put the machines there themselves?
Mr Barnes: They would be very happy to accept
anything free.
Mr Edwards: Could I just make the point that from
the first of April next year all concessionary pass
holders in Engl<strong>and</strong> are going to be issued with an
ITSO smartcard for their concessionary fare travel.
This is a major investment by the Government but
they will be of no use getting on a bus in London
because they will not be able to operate the Oyster
machines there so they will be taken as paper tickets.
There really needs to be something joined-up here.
Mr Smith: I think trying to guess the future is always
a bit dangerous but we did ask passengers what they
thought the future as being <strong>and</strong> funnily enough it
does not look that diVerent from where we are now,
which is quite reassuring. People see the smartcard
as being the key where you can use a smartcard in
diVerent parts of the country, in diVerent urban
areas, a smartcard which has this element of both
stored value <strong>and</strong> pay as you go, but that is not a
replacement for that ability to have staV to talk to,
to have other methods of buying a ticket. I think the
future is smartcards.
Q397 Graham Stringer: Will you tell us what
progress you think there is being made on the
conflict between composition <strong>and</strong> cooperation on
ticketing?

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 47
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
Mr Joseph: The short answer is some, but not
enough. The opinion that we commissioned said
that the way in which the OYce of Fair Trading had
interpreted the competition law with respect to bus
services was too narrow <strong>and</strong> in fact not in the
passengers’ interest. It proposed in summary that
the OYce of Fair Trading would be able to allow
agreements between operators subject to the public
interest test that is being proposed to apply to
quality partnerships. In other words, that all
agreements between operators that met the public
interest test should be allowed. The result has been
some progress in the sense that the bill now removes
some of the rather extreme penalties that were
threatened through the Competition Act against the
bus operators who happen to catch each other’s eye
in the street <strong>and</strong> obviously deemed to be a cartel
arrangement. First group <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach, are at
least not now threatened with dawn raids <strong>and</strong> 15%
fines on their entire turnover. Some of the penalties
have been removed but we are a long way from
seeing an approach by the competition authorities
that actually facilitates the integrated ticketing that
this Committee is seeking in this inquiry. We
underst<strong>and</strong> that draft guidance has recently been
produced as part of the Local Transport Bill
proceedings. The lawyers who have been
commissioned on this have said they will scrutinise
that for us <strong>and</strong> we are due to go back to the OYce of
Fair Trading <strong>and</strong> the Department of Transport <strong>and</strong>
suggest ways in which that guidance can be changed.
We have also said to the Department that subject to
what the lawyers say we will suggest amendments to
the bill either in the other place or when it comes to
this House in order to give eVect to what passengers
actually want, which is the ability to be able to get a
ticket which is valid on all the services on a particular
route. The discussion we have had has been about
London where there is at least some product that
allows people to get on diVerent buses run by
diVerent companies because they are part of the
network. Outside London we are a very, very long
way from that. We did actually get examples from
passengers, not just in rural areas but in places like
SheYeld, where there are strong examples of where,
if you want to use the tram, you have to buy a
Stagecoach Dayrider but if the Stagecoach buses do
not run you also have to buy a day ticket for First
Buses. We are a very, very long way from the vision
that we were discussing about London a few minutes
ago, in which you can get a single product that will
take you door to door.
Q398 Graham Stringer: That is very interesting. I
have to say, I am rather in favour of dawn raids on
First Group <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach, there have not been
enough. What I would like your views <strong>and</strong> advice on,
Mr Joseph, we all want, with a guiding public mind,
sensible integrated ticketing. Is that going to open
the door for more anti-competitive monopoly
behaviour that is not in the interests of the
passengers between the big five bus companies, of
which there has been some evidence in the past, there
have been some prosecutions but not nearly enough
when you look at the overall evidence.
Mr Joseph: The lawyers we commissioned, who do
know the competition law very well, were clear
about the public interest test that needs to be applied
to such agreements. Where it is in the public interest
for operators to agree to accept each other’s tickets
or indeed where an area-wide ticketing system can be
set up, then there is not a problem that is against the
public interest. That does not give a blank cheque to
operators to shut out other operators to agree deals
that are against the public interest, but
overwhelmingly, in situations outside the areas
envisaged by the Local Transport Bill where you
have quality contracts, where you have multiple
operators, the evidence is that people want to be able
to get a single ticket that is valid on each other’s
services. The operators want to provide that <strong>and</strong> the
interpretation of the competition law by the OYce of
Fair Trading is impeding that.
Q399 Graham Stringer: Just staying with our friends
from Stagecoach <strong>and</strong> First Group <strong>and</strong> the other
members of the big five, they survive by <strong>and</strong> large by
tendering their services through public subsidy.
Have you analysed that there may be, or have been
where concessionary fares have been, unintended
consequences for people who are not concessionary
fare payers in the passenger services provided? I
hope that question is clear. When you bring in the
concessionary fare scheme it changes the level of
dem<strong>and</strong>, the kind of dem<strong>and</strong>. It enables the bus
companies to target their services more on public
subsidy. Are you aware that that has changed the
services in any sense?
Mr Joseph: We are starting to get anecdotal evidence
of that happening. We have not done a full survey
<strong>and</strong> it is probably premature to do so until after the
first of April. We have, for example, seen in Sussex
a situation where there have been serious cutbacks in
services around Worthing, for instance. We have
had press coverage turn up other evidence on that.
We have started to get ordinary people writing to us
saying—it looks as if the concessionary fares have an
inadequate compensation for operators in this—
that this is resulting in worse services in certain areas
<strong>and</strong> it also has an impact on the other fares charged,
particularly oV-peak fares charged by operators as
well. I think the previous evidence the Committee
has had does not, in this case, lead to a debate
between the local authorities <strong>and</strong> the bus operators.
I think all the evidence we have had has tended to put
the blame for this at the door of the Government in
terms of the formula they have used to compensate
operators <strong>and</strong> in particular routing it through
district councils rather than the passenger transport
executives or county councils <strong>and</strong> the level of
payments that the Government has given. As my
colleague from <strong>Travel</strong>Watch South West said, we
will have to see how the extra £212 million that the
Government has made available for the scheme after
the first of April works out, but I think there are still
concerns that particularly in tourist areas <strong>and</strong> in
places of high dem<strong>and</strong> there will be problems if there
is not full compensation given through the local
authorities to operators. I think, to put it brutally,

Ev 48 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
there is a danger that pensioners will get free travel
concessions <strong>and</strong> not have any buses that they can use
them on.
Mr Edwards: Since the first of April 2006 there have
been a large number of commercial services in south
west Engl<strong>and</strong> withdrawn <strong>and</strong> on many occasions the
bus company—a subsidiary of the major groups—
stated that the revenue from the routes has fallen due
to inadequate concessionary fare reimbursement.
We obviously do not have access to any financial
information to state whether that is true or not true.
What we do see, therefore, is that the local authority
then has to go out <strong>and</strong> put out a contract for a service
which usually, because of financial constraints, is
less good than the service that was previously
provided at substantial cost to public funds.
Mr Smith: Again some anecdotal evidence, but the
introduction of concessionary fares on the buses of
course has had an impact on the railways in some
parts of the country. Previously there was the bizarre
situation where the bus fare was more than the rail
fare in many rural areas. The introduction of free
bus travel has, to a degree, diverted quite a few
passengers onto the buses <strong>and</strong> away from the trains
where similar concessions are not available at the
present time.
Q400 Chairman: I think what worries the Committee
is how accurate is the information about this
because—I am not saying this in any sense in a
pejorative way—a lot of the information is after all
anecdotal. How would we obtain accurate research
that says what is happening <strong>and</strong> how widespread it
is in the event?
Mr Edwards: If I could draw your attention to a
report which was 179 from the Scottish Executive
Development Department after they introduced free
concessionary fares, they looked at the Lothian <strong>and</strong>
Strathclyde areas <strong>and</strong> said a significant switch from
rail to bus was measured by on-train surveys before
<strong>and</strong> after the introduction of free fares. The
abstraction was between 19% <strong>and</strong> 66% <strong>and</strong> it
averaged 46% for those two regions. I could give you
examples where we have seen abstraction on certain
railway lines in south west Engl<strong>and</strong> from rail to bus.
We now have a line like the Exeter to Exmouth line
which is basically becoming a commuter railway,
well used in the morning peak by commuters who
come back, of course, in the evening. During the day
the over-60s who used to use that service now go by
bus because it is town centre to city centre every 12
minutes, low floor, free.
Q401 Mr Martlew: Is that a problem?
Mr Edwards: In the south west we are worried about
the financial viability of our railway lines because
many of our railway lines are community railway
lines, have been designated by the DfT <strong>and</strong> they are
supposed to grow custom. However, you have
somewhere like Looe to Liskeard, Penzance to St
Ives where, in the winter, people, because of the high
percentage of concessionary fare holders in those
area, are now using competing bus services <strong>and</strong> not
using trains.
Mr Smith: I think that is a good question, does it
matter? From the passengers’ point of view of course
it is potentially of great benefit in the short term, but
in the longer term the railways in these areas are
subsidised by the Government for a purpose <strong>and</strong> if
that purpose is not being fulfilled you would hope
there would be a bit of joined up thinking about
which mode of transport is going to be favoured by
the public subsidy, but it appears to be approached
in separate parts.
Q402 Graham Stringer: Is there anything to be
learned from the experience in Wales or Scotl<strong>and</strong> or
Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> in relation to the introduction of
the national concessionary fares scheme? We have
had some very interesting examples, but are there
other lessons that can be learned which the
Government should be applying to Engl<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Joseph: Specifically on the point that has just
been raised about rail, in Wales there has been a new
approach <strong>and</strong> now three community railway lines
have been added to the National <strong>Concessionary</strong>
Fare Scheme <strong>and</strong> these are ones that are regarded by
the Welsh Assembly Government <strong>and</strong> all parties in
Wales as being important as lifelines for parts of
rural Wales. It seems important to keep them going
so they have been added to the National
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fare Scheme. The written evidence
of <strong>Travel</strong>Watch South West to the Committee
suggests—<strong>and</strong> we certainly support this—that
initially the lines designated as community railways
in Engl<strong>and</strong> should be added to the National
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fare Scheme. Scotl<strong>and</strong> actually went
through a process where they did try the kind of local
reimbursement that is being used in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
found that it was much, much simpler to organise it
nationally. We think that it would be appropriate to
learn from that experience from Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>
<strong>and</strong> move towards a genuinely national scheme.
Mr Barnes: Can I add that it is worth considering the
London situation as well which of course is entirely
diVerent in its funding regime. For many years now
senior citizens have had the opportunity to travel on
the bus, the underground <strong>and</strong> national rail, trams in
Croydon <strong>and</strong> Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway, <strong>and</strong>
because they are able to travel on the mode that is
appropriate for the journey they wish to make
people do not have to think, “This is the free option;
this is the option I am going to use” <strong>and</strong> it has not
had the worrying impact that quite clearly my
colleague in the south west is concerned about. If
you have the concession only on one mode it has an
impact on other modes.
Q403 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Our colleagues here will be aware
of the fact that the introduction of the scheme
impacted particularly badly on Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear
Transport Authority who found themselves with a
£7 million shortfall <strong>and</strong> in order to make up for that
some smaller services had to be cut <strong>and</strong> in particular
the Team <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme (which was a scheme to
help young people travel on a concession) had to be
cut back as well. Are you aware of any other
unintended consequences of the concessionary

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 49
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
travel scheme? Have other concessions been cut
back in order for authorities to be able to
implement it?
Mr Joseph: One example where this unintended
consequence came to South Yorkshire was as a
result of the shortfall the Passenger Transport
Executive started to charge buses a departure tax at
bus stations. Stagecoach, for one operator, charged
an extra fare if you were going to those bus stations.
Q404 Chairman: That is a unique idea, charging at a
bus station to get on a bus.
Mr Joseph: Exactly. This does not make any sense to
passengers at all. In answer to an earlier question
about where we can get evidence from on this, what
we can get evidence on is the percentage of the
average adult fare passed over to operators in each
local authority area. That evidence is available. In
the Sussex example I gave 41.9%, for instance, of the
average adult fare is being passed over compared
with 73.6% in Wales, which does give you some
indication of the level of shortfall. I think the
particular argument in SheYeld or the result in Tyne
<strong>and</strong> Wear are not defensible but to go back to the
point I made, the root of this is the level <strong>and</strong> formula
for reimbursement.
Q405 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Do we think that the new specific
grant is likely to go anywhere at all towards
resolving any of these problems?
Mr Joseph: I think the jury is out on that. Actually
when I have heard presentations from the relevant
Department for Transport oYcials they have
admitted that it is fingers in the air stuV. They really
do not know where the travel is going to be; they
have made a best guess. We area concerned that
particularly in things like tourist honey pot areas or,
for that matter, in London <strong>and</strong> some other big cities,
that there will be a significant shortfall which will
appear in places like Blackpool, for instance, <strong>and</strong>
there will be problems with that.
Mr Edwards: Another unintended consequence,
because the money goes down to district councils
there are of course a lot of district councils that have
received far more money for concessionary fares
through the Rate Support Grant than they actually
need to pay out. They are therefore able, because it
comes as part of the EPCS element, to use that
money on other services. If we had it all done by
specific grant—which we support—a lot of district
councils in the south west of Engl<strong>and</strong> would have a
major problem in how they fund certain services
which are currently being funded by concessionary
fares money which is not being used for that
purpose. We would fully support this Committee
taking district councils out as travel concession
authorities.
Q406 Chairman: Are you saying that they are not
good value for money anyway?
Mr Edwards: No, we are saying they are excellent
value for money, the concessionary fares, but as Mr
Clell<strong>and</strong> has said, he has a shortfall in Tyne <strong>and</strong>
Wear <strong>and</strong> we have a short fall in greater Bristol, but
we have West Devon which spends less than 50% of
its current money for concessionary fares actually on
concessionary fares.
Q407 Mr Clell<strong>and</strong>: Mr Joseph mentioned this rather
novel idea of the bus companies charging passengers
to use certain bus stations. Are there any other
consequences for the fare paying passengers by the
introduction of concessionary fares?
Mr Joseph: As I said in my earlier answer to Mr
Stringer, I think it is very much about cuts in the
commercial services, increases in oV-peak fares <strong>and</strong>
other things <strong>and</strong> Mr Edwards has also mentioned
this too. It is much less high profile than the charges
at bus stations or the loss of a particular scheme; it
is incremental eating away of the bus network <strong>and</strong>
incremental increases in fares.
Q408 Mr Leech: Mr Joseph, the implication from
what you said was that you were advocating direct
payment from government to bus operators for
journeys that are taken with concessionary fares, is
that right?
Mr Joseph: That is correct, as in Wales <strong>and</strong>
Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
Q409 Mr Leech: Why do you think it is that the
Government will not support that? Is it anything to
do with the fact that it is going to cost an awful lot
more than they say it is?
Mr Joseph: We are not experts on this but I think
actually the evidence from Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales was
that by the time you took in the transaction costs of
actually routing it through local authorities it was
actually cheaper for those respective devolved
governments to do it directly <strong>and</strong> that is why they
ended up with a direct system. It actually ought to be
cheaper. The problem we have at the moment is that
we have the imbalances that Mr Edwards referred
to, money going to places that do not spend it so
there is actually wasted money in parts of the system
<strong>and</strong> shortfalls elsewhere <strong>and</strong> a national scheme
would put that right.
Q410 Mr Leech: Why do you think the Government
is so against the idea?
Mr Joseph: I think that is very hard to say <strong>and</strong> you
are going to have to ask the Minister after this
session that question. As far as we can see it is simple
inertia <strong>and</strong> in-fighting between diVerent government
departments in terms of routing through local
authorities.
Q411 Chairman: Inertia is very seldom simple. Mr
Edwards?
Mr Edwards: It is nonsense to have 291 travel
concession authorities in Engl<strong>and</strong> all able to do their
own arrangements for issuing cards, all with their
own rules, all with their own local arrangements, all
with their own back oYce, all being encouraged by
the Government to sign separate contracts for 2008
ITSO cards. Mr Joseph is quite right, we need, like
Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, a national scheme with
national reimbursement; we need to stop all these

Ev 50 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Stephen Joseph, Mr Anthony Smith, Mr Rufus Barnes <strong>and</strong> Mr Gordon Edwards
arguments which are destroying relationships
between local authorities <strong>and</strong> bus companies
arguing about concessionary fares reimbursement.
Q412 Mr Martlew: Various local authorities have
diVerent schemes that go beyond. In my area there is
no time restriction. How would you deal with that if
you decided on a national scheme? Would you
destroy that?
Mr Edwards: I think that to get a national scheme,
whether with the advent of smartcards you would
then be able to say a local authority would be able to
top it up—
Q413 Mr Martlew: Smartcards are not working at
the moment.
Mr Edwards: No, but with ITSO smartcards <strong>and</strong>
with bus operators being able to accept them <strong>and</strong>
read them, it would be possible to load cards issued
in a certain district with special features. I think the
current system is just so complex; 291 diVerent travel
concessionary authorities is a nonsense.
Q414 Mr Hollobone: How bad is fare evasion? Is
enough being done to tackle it <strong>and</strong> is enough being
done to diVerentiate between deliberate fare evasion
<strong>and</strong> passengers who make an honest mistake?
Mr Smith: Industry estimates say that something in
the range of 5% to 8% of the revenue is lost as it is
not collected. At the moment passengers put in
about £5.5 billion into the revenue stream each year
<strong>and</strong> that is soon going to creep up to £6 billion. That
equates to about £400 million, that would pay for
400 new carriages tomorrow. It is a lot of money; it is
a tremendous loss. Passengers who have paid deeply
resent the fact that other people have not because
they are subsidising them <strong>and</strong> the industry should
collect what it is owed before it puts the fares up.
Mr Edwards: The only comment I would make on
this is that obviously we support all passengers
paying the correct fare for their journey, but the
railway companies have to make available ticket
oYces with suYcient windows <strong>and</strong> ticket machines
that work <strong>and</strong> issue the full range of tickets.
Q415 Chairman: I think the odd person looking at
those tickets would help too.
Mr Joseph: That is correct. We are concerned that
the emphasis on revenue protection happens on
intercity lines <strong>and</strong> that some of the local lines that
actually need that revenue most do not get the
revenue protection that they need. Lines like the
Severn Beach Line in Bristol or some other lines in
that market, as we have discussed in relation to
concessionary fares, need that revenue to support
them <strong>and</strong> do not seem to have the priority that
should be given to making sure that people on those
lines actually all pay up. In particular, where you
have severe crowding on parts of the network <strong>and</strong> a
pay as you travel on-train ticketing system, you
often find that the conductor or guard physically
cannot make his way down the train to collect the
fares which is another loss of revenue. We are
concerned that it is the local services where the
revenue protection ought to happen most is not
happening.
Mr Smith: We support the concept of penalty fares
as long as they are consistently applied <strong>and</strong> also
passengers have the ability to buy the correct ticket
before boarding. The great concern here is ticket
queues.
Q416 Chairman: Yes, we have had that point. Mr
Barnes?
Mr Barnes: I think it is very important to recognise
that some of the new train operating companies have
installed a number of new gates at the stations <strong>and</strong>
it is very interesting, when talking to the managing
directors of the companies, that some of them are
saying that they are raising far more money then
they ever realised they would as a result of the gates
they have put in.
Q417 Chairman: I want to ask finally about the
English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fare Scheme which
is estimated to cost around a billion pounds per
annum. Is that good value or not?
Mr Edwards: It certainly is, yes. It has been a
tremendous success. You only have to go out on
buses <strong>and</strong> talk to elderly people to see how it has
revolutionised their lives, their ability to access
hospitals, health centres, to go to the shops regularly
<strong>and</strong> get fresh food, to go out <strong>and</strong> see their friends. It
is a great success story <strong>and</strong> it is only a pity that it has
been so overshadowed by these arguments between
operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities about
reimbursement. For the customer it is a great, great
success story <strong>and</strong> it has led to phenomenal growth in
bus patronage.
Q418 Chairman: It does rather cut out young people
or anybody on a low income who might actually
benefit from a diVerent scheme.
Mr Barnes: Yes, I think that we have in London seen
the number of concessions for young people
introduced by the Mayor of London. They have
raised separate issues which I am sure you have not
time to look at at the moment, but there are other
options for concessions which over time need to be
looked at.
Chairman: You have been very tolerant, gentlemen;
thank you very much indeed.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 51
Witnesses: Mr Tom Harris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard,
Director, Rail Strategy <strong>and</strong> Stakeholder Relations, Department for Transport, gave evidence.
Q419 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Could
you introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Mr Harris: I am Tom Harris, the Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State for Transport <strong>and</strong> on my
left is Bob Linnard, Director of Rail Strategy for the
Department for Transport.
Q420 Chairman: Minister, is there something you
want to tell us before we start?
Mr Harris: Yes, please, I have a very short
statement. At the risk of being accused of trying to
curry favour with you, can I begin by wishing you a
happy birthday?
Q421 Chairman: Do you realise I am seven today?
Mr Harris: I was not going to mention the age! Can
I first of all thank you for the opportunity of
appearing here on my first oYcial appearance in
front of the Transport Committee. I think the
subject of your inquiry is very welcome to us. The
Government sees ticketing choices as being
absolutely crucial to the travelling public because we
believe they should be fair, they should be
transparent <strong>and</strong> importantly passengers should be
absolutely confident that they have made the right
choice in the product they have bought. It is the
Government’s job to make sure that the structures
are in place to make sure that that all happens. Smart
ticketing, which I know is part of your inquiry, is
already a reality in five of the rail franchises in terms
of ITSO requirements being built into them <strong>and</strong> all
future rail franchises that come up for renewal will
also have those requirements put in them. As you
know we are working with Transport for London to
integrate ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster cards across London.
The English <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme is
encouraging the roll out on a massive level of ITSO
cards because, as you know, all of the concessionary
cards are ITSO compliant. I believe that is going to
help create the commercial case for the roll-out of
further ITSO products. More generally on the
concessionary scheme, I think this is going to be of
huge benefit to millions of eligible people who will
qualify for a card. I should also point out that the
Act itself does allow for changes in the structure <strong>and</strong>
administration of the scheme at some point in the
future if that is required. You will also know that the
Department is working closely with the Association
of Train Operating Companies to provide a br<strong>and</strong>
new structure—we hope a very much simplified
structure—of rail fares which will take eVect next
year in fact. That is basically where I am starting
from.
Q422 Chairman: Thank you for that, Minister. You
will not be surprised to learn that there has been a lot
of praise for the impact of the concessionary fare
scheme on people’s lives in the quality of the passing
of their days, but I do think that there is one question
that we really do have to ask you before we start <strong>and</strong>
that is: does the department have an overall strategy
on how it wants all these diVerent schemes to work?
Has it thought through the implications of some of
the diVerent schemes working alongside one
another? What are your views of where you want to
end up with these schemes?
Mr Harris: When you say “these schemes” do you
mean the local authority base concessionary
schemes?
Q423 Chairman: The evidence we have taken has
been very interesting because we have taken
evidence both about the diVerence between the
Oyster cards <strong>and</strong> the areas around London but we
have also taken evidence from some of your
immediate predecessors about the impact that this is
having on some domestic rail lines <strong>and</strong> all sorts of
other schemes. You realise the complexity of this;
what we really want to know is whether you have a
very clear view of what you want out of this scheme,
where you are going, how you are going to get there
<strong>and</strong> what you want at the end of it?
Mr Harris: I think there are two aspects to it <strong>and</strong> I
think the general social benefit of the concessionary
fare schemes is one area that you might want to come
back to. The other side is the technical
implementation of it. Because they are ITSO
compliant (you know that ITSO is the integrated
transport smartcard organisation although it does
not st<strong>and</strong> for that any more) all these local authority
schemes are actually compliant because it is a
national scheme anyone with an ITSO
concessionary card can move from one scheme to
another physically.
Q424 Chairman: I am going to stop you there. I am
very happy that the Committee should discuss the
implementation but frankly I need to know what
your basic strategy is. Tell us how you see the overall
future <strong>and</strong> implementation <strong>and</strong> particularly what
your policy is in relation to these schemes. Tell us
that first <strong>and</strong> then we can actually put you through
the wringer on the way you make your mistakes.
Mr Harris: Essentially our vision is to allow as
seamless as possible a local transport experience
from buying the ticket in the first place to saying
what product you want until right through to
arriving at your destination. That will increasingly
mean doing it on a cashless basis although it would
not necessarily be cashless but a lot of people prefer
not to use cash, to use smartcard technology. If we
are going to encourage people to use more modes of
transport to make their journeys rather than use
their private car then one of the keys to that is to
make it as accessible as possible <strong>and</strong> that does not
just mean physically it means a seamless transaction.
Crucially it not only has to be seamless, we have to
provide a product <strong>and</strong> an experience that people
underst<strong>and</strong> how it is working. If it is not transparent
I feel that people are not going to trust that they are
paying the right amount of money on a particular
product. They have to be reassured that it is
transparent <strong>and</strong> that it works very, very eYciently.
No doubt I will have an opportunity to come back
later on to the technological side of that because that
is absolutely crucial.

Ev 52 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Q425 Mrs Ellman: You spoke about cashless
transport, what about the people who want to use
cash <strong>and</strong> just go <strong>and</strong> buy tickets? Is there going to be
any room for them in the future?
Mr Harris: Yes, absolutely, as there is at the moment
in London, if you do not want to use an Oyster card.
Q426 Chairman: It will cost you a hell of a lot if you
want to stick with your commitment to cash. Some
of us have this strange, old fashioned commitment to
the pound, shilling <strong>and</strong> pence as were.
Mr Harris: Indeed.
Q427 Chairman: We like the feel of it.
Mr Harris: To answer Mrs Ellman’s question, I do
not foresee a position in the future where it will not
be possible to use local transport without a
smartcard. There will be an opportunity to use cash.
Obviously in London, as you say Mrs Dunwoody,
there seems to be a premium on using cash. I do not
want to make predictions about how that situation
might be rolled out for the rest of the country <strong>and</strong> I
would not want to set any hares running or
newspaper reports that say that the Government
supports a scheme where you spend far more money
using cash than smartcards. That is what has
happened in London, but I just do not see the
situation arising where you would not be allowed to
use cash.
Q428 Mrs Ellman: What is the Government going to
do to ensure that that is the case? We have had
evidence that operators might find it cheaper not to
have cash <strong>and</strong> want to make booking facilities more
diYcult? Is the Government going to do anything to
restrain that?
Mr Harris: On trains the Government has a lot more
influence, as you know, than as far as buses are
concerned. Buses are completely deregulated
outside London.
Q429 Chairman: “Piratical” is the word you are
finding diYcult to find, Minister.
Mr Harris: That may be a word you are comfortable
using, Mrs Dunwoody; I will stick to “deregulated”.
The Government has little or very little influence on
the level of fares charged by bus companies outside
the capital. In terms of guarantees that I can oVer, I
could not, with h<strong>and</strong> on heart, tell you that we can
oVer a cast iron guarantee that that would not
happen in terms of bus operators. The Local
Transport Bill which I probably should have
mentioned in my introductory comments will allow
new structures in place where local authorities will
have to a certain degree more influence over local
bus operations <strong>and</strong> that may well include fares in a
quality contract context. As far as trains are
concerned, obviously we do not foresee any change
to the regulation of train tickets that currently exists
up to the end of the next control period in 2014;
decisions beyond that will obviously be taken in the
next few years.
Q430 Mrs Ellman: Will the Government maintain
any instructions on the availability of ticketing for
people who want to pay cash or pay on the day?
Would the Government put any regulations on that?
Mr Harris: I do not want to perjure myself in front
of the Committee by saying that we can oVer that
guarantee. At this stage, although I do not foresee a
situation where people will be forced to use a
smartcard, I am not aware of any mechanism that
the Government actually has to enforce that.
Q431 Chairman: Mr Linnard, you always get the
diYcult ones.
Mr Linnard: There is on the railway something
called the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement Agreement
which governs a number of technical issues about
the availability of tickets, including things like the
opening of ticket oYces. One of the things that the
Government would not agree to would be changes in
that that reduced the availability of the ability to pay
cash for tickets unless it was quite clear that that was
not going to disadvantage people.
Q432 Mrs Ellman: We have had evidence from local
authorities <strong>and</strong> the PTEs saying that it is diYcult to
introduce integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> smartcards in the
deregulated environment. What diVerence do you
think the Local Transport Bill is going to make to
that?
Mr Harris: The Local Transport Bill will eliminate
some of the obstacles that local authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs
across the country are having to navigate at the
moment if they want to move to quality contract.
This Committee will know far better than I some of
the complaints <strong>and</strong> problems that local authorities
have had trying to move towards quality contracts.
The Local Transport Bill grew out of an awareness
in Government that that situation should not go on.
Obviously we have never said <strong>and</strong> we do not intend
to go back to the situation pre-1986; I do not think
anyone wants us to go back to that particular era.
However, I do hope, not just in quality contracts,
that the fact that local authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs will be
able to get a quality contract more easily than at the
moment will serve as an incentive to some bus
operating companies to cooperate more fully with
local authorities. Even before the Local Transport
Bill comes into eVect <strong>and</strong> becomes an act there is
quite a lot of movement among the bus operating
companies in terms of cooperating with local
authorities, with Passenger Transport Executives to
produce more integrated ticketing. Obviously that
has to be done in cooperation with the Competition
Commission because it is illegal for bus companies
to talk to each other <strong>and</strong> set fares together; that is
why we have the block exemption from the
Competition Commission, but where that happens
there is actually quite a lot of cooperation between
bus companies <strong>and</strong> between those bus companies
<strong>and</strong> Passenger Transport Executives. However, you
are right, things will improve I hope with the Local
Transport Bill.
Q433 Mrs Ellman: How much do you expect them to
improve?

Mr Harris: I am sorry, I am not going to oVer you a
hostage to fortune; I think it will be significant.
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Q434 Mrs Ellman: What can be done to make it
easier to have bus tickets that enable people to travel
on diVerent buses instead of keep having to get
diVerent tickets?
Mr Harris: In January this year I was invited to
launch not PlusBus but it was the advertising
campaign for PlusBus. PlusBus—I am sure you have
dealt with this already—is an add-on to a train ticket
so that when you are travelling to one of the 220
diVerent towns throughout Great Britain, if PlusBus
is operating in the town or city you are going to you
can be oVered a £2 add-on to your train ticket <strong>and</strong>
that allows you to use bus services at the end of your
journey. It is the only such system in Europe which is
completely organised, paid for, administered by the
private sector. In that respect I do not foresee the
Department for Transport trying to elbow in on
that; I think it is actually a good product. My only
reservation about this—I raised this with the
Association of Train Operating Companies just
yesterday—is that you could perhaps lay a criticism
at the train companies that this is a tick box exercise,
they have ticked the box saying they do integrated
transport. The reason I am saying that they are
vulnerable to that accusation but I am not actually
making it myself is because the marketing budget for
PlusBus is between £40,000 <strong>and</strong> £60,000 a year,
which is almost nothing, <strong>and</strong> yet if you look at the
take-up of PlusBus it has increased by more than
100% in the past year, so there is a market there. I
am not sure that the Association of Train Operating
Companies are properly exploiting that market.
Chairman: Heaven forbid, Minister, that you should
suggest that the Association of Train Operating
Companies do not take up commercial challenges; I
cannot believe you could make such an unwarranted
slur on these entrepreneurs.
Q435 Mr Leech: Do you think that this could be
extended to include trams in areas where trams are
in existence, like Manchester for example?
Mr Harris: In principle I have no problem with that
at all, but as I said at the beginning this is <strong>and</strong> will
remain a completely private sector initiative.
Q436 Graham Stringer: In your introductory
statement <strong>and</strong> once or twice since you have said that
there are enormous benefits from concessionary
travel, it is always a benefit if you pay nothing or you
pay less. What other benefits are there?
Mr Harris: In terms of social inclusion, in terms of
saying to a group of people who perhaps did not feel
they could aVord to travel before, to say that you can
now travel from A to B completely free of charge. I
know from personal experience pensioners who are
taking up the opportunity this scheme has aVorded
to them in Scotl<strong>and</strong> who are making journeys that
they would never have considered before. It is
incredibly popular among those who qualify <strong>and</strong> I
just think that in terms of social inclusion that is by
far <strong>and</strong> away the highest benefit. Whatever you may
consider the drawbacks of its administration—you
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 53
might want to come back to that—I think the
principle of oVering pensioners, older people <strong>and</strong>
disabled people free bus travel is one which is very
diYcult to criticise.
Q437 Graham Stringer: I just wondered whether the
Government is moving or has thought of moving or
would move beyond the sort of anecdotal evidence
available—social inclusion, pensioners getting out
who were housebound previously—to some
measurement, some objective research that might be
related to social inclusion, it might be related to
health, it might be related to education. Have you
looked at that or is the Government just relying on
anecdotes?
Mr Harris: Going back to smartcard technology, it
is actually very diYcult to calculate the precise
number of people using a particular concessionary
travel scheme unless you have smartcard technology
to back it up. An awful lot of the evidence that you
are looking for about movement of people, about
numbers of people, is something that you will be able
to glean far more eVectively once ITSO is being used
nationwide.
Q438 Graham Stringer: I was thinking of something
more than movement of people. When those people
move, apart from them moving, is their quality of
life either in health, education or in other ways, is the
Government looking at measuring that?
Mr Harris: To be honest I am not aware of specific
bits of research that the DfT have made in this case.
Q439 Graham Stringer: That is slightly surprising, is
it not? There is a billion pounds being spent on
concessionary fares, or thereabouts, more than £200
million nationalising the scheme, would it not be
normal to look at a cost benefit analysis to look at
the benefits of what is happening?
Mr Harris: We will do once the 2008 scheme is fully
implemented.
Q440 Graham Stringer: So you are going to do this
kind of research.
Mr Harris: There will be an analysis after it is fully
implemented. By then of course the scheme will have
been implemented. I should think this is a political
decision the Government has made. This is political
<strong>and</strong> we have made a deliberate political decision
because we think this is a good thing.
Q441 Graham Stringer: You <strong>and</strong> I signed up to the
same manifesto <strong>and</strong> the same policies which are
based on evidence, are they not? What I am trying to
do is get to what evidence there is because there has
been criticism of the scheme in that you could spend
money to better eVect if you did not give free
transport to pensioners <strong>and</strong> made them pay
something but you extended the scheme to young
people, poor people, the unemployed <strong>and</strong> so on.
Have you looked at that or is this a straightforward
political decision without evidence?
Mr Harris: We have looked at making the scheme as
flexible as possible within the legislation so that in
future, depending on experience <strong>and</strong> basing any

Ev 54 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
changes we might want to make, we will base that
decision on the experience of running the scheme up
to a certain point. I do underst<strong>and</strong> the argument for
widening the scheme.
Q442 Graham Stringer: What the Commission for
Integrated Transport was saying was not widening
it, it was using the same amount of money to have a
diVerent scheme which would be wider but would
not be free.
Mr Harris: Yes, I was going to say widening some
areas perhaps <strong>and</strong> narrowing other areas. I think
that is a perfectly legitimate approach to take.
Within the current legislation there is flexibility for
individual local authorities to add increments to the
baseline national scheme.
Q443 Graham Stringer: I underst<strong>and</strong> that but what
I am trying to get at is whether there is an evidence
base or not behind the Government’s choice
between the free scheme for pensioners <strong>and</strong>, as you
described it, the more extended scheme.
Mr Harris: To be honest, Mr Stringer, that is
something I would have to write to the Committee
about, unless Mr Linnard has extra information
which I am not privy to.
Mr Linnard: We know the costs of extending the
concessions from half price to free <strong>and</strong> then from
within the local area to national. We have not tried
to do an assessment in economic terms of the
benefits of it. As the Minister has said, it is essentially
a political decision for wider reasons.
Q444 Graham Stringer: We had some witnesses
earlier on who were talking about the perverse
consequences of the current concessionary fares in
the south west in particular (this is before the scheme
goes national). The way the concessionary fare
scheme has been implemented has meant that
services have been withdrawn, dealing with larger
companies who are looking for subsidy, who will
look at the change in dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> change their
services. Are you aware of any evidence or have you
done any analysis of what is likely to happen,
whether there will be any perverse consequences
when the scheme is nationalised?
Mr Harris: I am not aware of examples like that, but
what I can tell you is that the actual number, the net
number of bus services that are operating outside the
major conurbations has actually increased more in
those areas than in conurbations since the 2004
scheme was actually introduced. I do not see this as
some kind of disincentive to running services at all;
I just do not accept that.
Q445 Graham Stringer: So you do not accept the
anecdotal evidence we heard earlier today.
Mr Harris: I was not present.
Q446 Graham Stringer: Will you look at that?
Mr Harris: Yes, of course I will.
Q447 Graham Stringer: Going to the nationalised
scheme, I have just done a quick count round this
table <strong>and</strong> I think there are six of us who represent
constituencies near either the Welsh or the Scottish
border. Does the Government have any plans to
come to agreements with Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> so that
our constituents, when they go on holiday to Wales
or Scotl<strong>and</strong>, can have the same facilities as if they go
to the south west of Engl<strong>and</strong>?
Mr Harris: The short answer is no, although I
underst<strong>and</strong> there are some local arrangements in
Cumbria <strong>and</strong> in Chester so far as cross-borders
services there are concerned. The reason I say no is
because the scheme in Scotl<strong>and</strong> for instance allows
free travel for concessionaires at all times of the day
but on weekdays the one in Engl<strong>and</strong> will only be
from half-past nine onwards. There are major
technical diYculties to be overcome if you are going
to allow that scheme to be Great Britain wide purely
<strong>and</strong> simply because the baseline schemes are not
exactly the same. That makes it very diYcult to
actually roll out the same scheme throughout
Great Britain.
Mr Linnard: There are powers within the
<strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Act to put in place reciprocal
arrangements between Engl<strong>and</strong>, Scotl<strong>and</strong>, Wales
<strong>and</strong> Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> should that be agreed with the
devolved administrations in the future.
Q448 Graham Stringer: What you are saying is that
there are no current negotiations underway.
Mr Linnard: That is right.
Q449 Graham Stringer: Do you not think it would a
good idea to try to overcome some of these technical
diYculties with the devolved administrations?
Certainly my constituents would rather like it.
Mr Harris: I absolutely agree with you. I would love
to see a Great Britain-wide scheme. I am a Scottish
Unionist; I think people in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>
should swap locations as often as possible. If there
is technically feasible <strong>and</strong> cost eVective way of doing
that then I think the Government should be doing
that.
Q450 Mr Leech: Mr Linnard, you said that you
knew how much it was going to cost going to a
national scheme, but is it not the case that the
Government does not have a clue how much it is
going to cost; it is your best guess. In fact, the only
way of ensuring that local authorities do actually get
the money to pay for the concessionary travel in
their area is for the Government to actually pay the
costs of each concessionary journey directly to the
operators. Can the Minister explain why the
Government is so opposed to this idea of direct
payment to operators to ensure that every local
authority area gets a fair deal?
Mr Harris: I am very confident in the financial
settlement that has been agreed that local authorities
are not being short changed over the concessionary
scheme. There is, as I said before, flexibility in the
current Act to allow a change of administration,
probably initially to county level rather than district
level <strong>and</strong>, if necessary, to a national level. You asked
about reimbursement arrangements <strong>and</strong> although it
is m<strong>and</strong>ated at a national level by the UK
Parliament, this particular concessionary scheme is

12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
going to be operated by the local authorities for the
very simple reason that they know who the
concessionaires are, they are issuing these passes <strong>and</strong>
I think it is better that these passes are actually issued
by the local authorities. It makes sense for those
reimbursement arrangements to be between the
local authorities <strong>and</strong> the bus companies.
Q451 Mr Leech: If it is a national scheme why can it
not be administered nationally? People are going to
have the opportunity to travel all the way round the
country, surely that is the fairest way of doing it.
Mr Harris: It is a national scheme but they can only
use it on local bus services.
Q452 Clive EVord: How are you going to sort out the
technical problems between Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO?
Mr Harris: We are working on it <strong>and</strong> I am very
confident that we will get to a stage fairly soon where
those two systems will be completely
interchangeable or integrated. It is a big task clearly;
no-one is under any illusion about that. I am
confident that in the next few years we are going to
have a situation where, if you are staying within
London or coming in from outside London—for
example South West Trains are going to be ITSO
compliant too—that you will be able to use your
ITSO card throughout the London area as well as on
South West Trains <strong>and</strong> ultimately other train
operators. I am fairly confident that that is going
to happen.
Q453 Clive EVord: So you do not think there is any
risk that incorporating ITSO will reduce the
performance of London’s transport system?
Mr Harris: No I do not at all. I was looking at the
figures for the technical specifications on ITSO
versus Oyster <strong>and</strong> it is something like 300
milliseconds for a transaction on an ITSO card <strong>and</strong>
200 milliseconds for a transaction on an Oyster card.
Chairman: We were given diVerent figures for that.
Clive EVord: We were given 300 for Oyster <strong>and</strong> 700
for ITSO.
Q454 Chairman: Which actually would make a
material diVerence. The diVerence between 200 <strong>and</strong>
300 is acceptable; the diVerence between 300 <strong>and</strong> 700
is not acceptable.
Mr Harris: On the tests we have done, Mrs
Dunwoody, it takes about a second, regardless of the
millisecond measurement for exactly when the
computer recognises that chip. It takes about a
second for someone with an Oyster card to swipe the
card <strong>and</strong> go through the turnstile. There is no
perceptible diVerence in the amount of time it takes
you to do exactly the same thing with an ITSO card.
Clive EVord: We had an answer earlier on from
London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch that said that there is a
problem between ITSO <strong>and</strong> the pre-pay Oyster
system. There is some information on the card that
can be read by the pre-pay which apparently creates
a technical problem. Are you aware of any of that?
Chairman: The Committee is adjourned for the
division.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 55
The Committee suspended from 4.16 pm to 4.31 pm
for a division in the House.
Q455 Graham Stringer: I take it that you do not see
that fares on trains <strong>and</strong> buses are wholly a private
operators matter because when fare dodgers do not
pay their behaviour is often related to other antisocial
behaviour. What action do you think the
Government should take to cut fare dodging? It is
rather surprising that the private companies do not
do more, but what do you think the public
authorities should do?
Mr Harris: Let us take trains first. Private
companies do take measures to protect their own
revenue <strong>and</strong> consider their own interests. There was
a lot of publicity recently about South West Train’s
revenue enforcement oYcers being a bit too heavy
h<strong>and</strong>ed according to the media reports <strong>and</strong> maybe
not giving people who were on board a fair
opportunity to defend themselves <strong>and</strong> explain why.
That is one side of the coin. Another side of the coin
is that there are other ways of enforcing revenue, one
of them is gating. Part of the South West Trains
franchise, as it happens, is a commitment to gating
at Waterloo. So there is gating <strong>and</strong> there are revenue
protection oYcers. I think any level of revenue loss,
whatever the percentage—somebody suggested the
figure 5% to me—is too high a figure <strong>and</strong> I would not
be happy unless that figure came down to zero.
However, there has always been fare dodging on the
trains, going back to British Rail days <strong>and</strong> train
operating companies, because they are private
companies <strong>and</strong> because their responsibility is
revenue collecting, it is incumbent on them to do as
much as they can to protect it. I am not aware of any
particular train operating company being
complacent about it.
Q456 Graham Stringer: I am a northern MP <strong>and</strong> I do
not travel on the London rail system very often but
the odd times I travel on it after eight o’clock at night
it is free; transport is free in London on the trains at
that time of night <strong>and</strong> it is dangerous, it is
threatening. Often fare dodgers are young men with
aggressive behaviour. Do you not think that the
public authorities should do something about that?
It surprises me that train companies allow it, but do
you think, for instance, ticket inspectors on trains
<strong>and</strong> buses should be given more powers to take
names <strong>and</strong> addresses? What action do you think
could or should be taken?
Mr Harris: Can I pick up on one point you made
earlier on in that question, you said that travelling
on the train is threatening. You said it was
dangerous <strong>and</strong> then you said it was threatening <strong>and</strong>
those two are quite separate.
Q457 Graham Stringer: Threatening is a better
word.
Mr Harris: Threatening is more accurate I think. At
the moment a ticket inspector is entitled to ask for
the name <strong>and</strong> address of whoever they have caught.
I received a letter the other day from one of our
colleagues representing a constituent whose name
<strong>and</strong> address he claims were given completely falsely

Ev 56 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
by somebody else. There is always a danger that even
if you get a name <strong>and</strong> address it is not actually the
right person. I am actually quite concerned about
the safety of train staV in that situation. If somebody
is employed to collect <strong>and</strong> inspect tickets I do not
think it would be fair, certainly not on every
occasion, to expect them to start to tackle anti-social
behaviour. I met a delegation yesterday from GMB
union who are very concerned about perceived
increases in very violent <strong>and</strong> sexual crime on the
Nottingham tram. These are people who are not on
terrific wages in order to protect <strong>and</strong> collect revenue.
I do not think we should be putting people
unnecessarily in harm’s way by asking them to do
more than simply collect tickets <strong>and</strong> identify where
is safe <strong>and</strong> the people who are evading the fares. I
think it is a very diYcult issue but I think the actual
apprehension of people who are creating anti-social
behaviour has to be left to British Transport Police
rather than to staV who are trained in checking
tickets who are not trained <strong>and</strong> should not be
expected to tackle sometimes quite violent people.
Q458 Graham Stringer: Do you think that there
should be more funding for British Transport
Police?
Mr Harris: I am always in favour of more funding
for the British Transport Police but the one caveat I
have on that is that British Transport Police should
continue to be funded by the train operating
companies.
Q459 Graham Stringer: With all respect your answer
is saying that there is a problem; you are accepting
there is a problem, particularly on the south London
network, but actually there is nothing the
Government can do about what is at least a
threatening situation. Incidentally, the estimate
given by previous witnesses was £400 million lost in
fare dodging. There are two questions there, do you
not think that the public authorities should do more
to protect people, it is not just a private sector
problem? Secondly, you are the train minister, will
you be having discussions with the train operating
companies to ask them what action they are taking
to protect their shareholders <strong>and</strong> their bottom line as
it were to collect tickets which will have a
beneficial eVect?
Mr Harris: Yes, I will be raising this with the
Association of Train Operating Companies next
time I meet them. Train operating companies have a
commitment in their franchise for revenue
protection but they are also, I think, under an
obligation to make sure that the service they provide
which, after all is paid for <strong>and</strong> specified by the
Government, is a service that is of a certain minimal
quality <strong>and</strong> that is not just in terms of how punctual
they are, it is also about how safe people feel on
board a train. We are progressing very successfully
with the Secure Station Initiative; certain stations
are certified by the British Transport Police as secure
stations if there is a certain level <strong>and</strong> type of lighting,
presence of close circuit television cameras et cetera.
That has proved very successful in reassuring
people. I think that is what it is about, people should
not think that travel by train is a particularly
dangerous activity. It is not, but I do underst<strong>and</strong>
that people do feel vulnerable so it is very important
not just on trains but at stations as well. I mentioned
gating earlier on. I accept there is only anecdotal
evidence but there is evidence that gating at a station
can make people on the other side of the gates feel
quite secure because they then know that nobody
without a ticket is going to join them <strong>and</strong> a lot of the
diYculties <strong>and</strong> trouble caused at stations, especially
at night, are by people who do not have tickets <strong>and</strong>
who are just using stations to congregate at.
Q460 Chairman: Can I ask you about ITSO? Are
you quite confident that it is fit for purpose, if it
actually is evolved right the way across the United
Kingdom?
Mr Harris: Yes, is the short answer to that. I think
ITSO has many advantages. The comparison is
always made between ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster for obvious
reasons—I am a big fan of Oyster; I have two Oyster
cards—but I think the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard allows us to
do more with an ITSO card than will ever be possible
with Oyster.
Q461 Chairman: I should explain to you that we had
evidence that it is a slow system, that it is not very
businesslike, it is two years behind programme
because it has not been fully tested in-house.
TranSys have made it clear that someone really has
to take control of this programme. How eVective is
ITSO as an organisation?
Mr Harris: The DfT has committed to funding ITSO
over the next year by £750,000. A condition of that
funding is that we are going to carry out a full review
of the organisation to make sure that they have
proper resources, expertise, personnel to make sure
it is eVective.
Q462 Chairman: How likely is it that all these new
technologies such as contactless bank cards <strong>and</strong>
mobile phones are going to make ITSO obsolete?
Mr Harris: ITSO is not a smartcard, it is a st<strong>and</strong>ard.
Q463 Chairman: A st<strong>and</strong>ard that we are told has
been overtaken by all sorts of other new bits of
technology which can do the job better <strong>and</strong> faster
<strong>and</strong> perhaps more eYciently. You know yourself,
Minister, from your own oYce that when you came
in here originally you must have had one level of
computer, we are now waiting on diVerent
technology, faster, smarter, easier to use for people
like me. It is not beyond belief that this st<strong>and</strong>ard has
now been past by other people going faster <strong>and</strong>
better.
Mr Harris: The big selling point of ITSO is that it is
very flexible. For example, although it has been
rolled out as part of the concessionary scheme next
April, it is currently possible, if the commercial will
is there, to put ITSO information on your mobile
phone <strong>and</strong> use that as a smartcard. ITSO is not
simply a credit card sized card with a chip in it, it is
a st<strong>and</strong>ard which can be applied to all sorts of things
that in future will become far more normal to
consider using.

Q464 Chairman: Is Transport Direct fully integrated
with the system?
Mr Harris: With ITSO?
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Q465 Chairman: With the travel information
coming from local authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs?
Mr Harris: Transport Direct is a website which gives
up to date information about, for example, carbon
footprint of diVerent modes of transport, travel
times et cetera. There have been 20 million visitors
since it was launched. I am not aware of any direct
interface with ITSO but in future whatever journey
you are going to make I hope more <strong>and</strong> more people
become aware that Transport Direct can absolutely
contribute to making that journey seamless.
Q466 Chairman: Your view is that ITSO is a good
st<strong>and</strong>ard, it is flexible, it can be adapted to new
increases in diVerent technology. That is your view.
Mr Harris: Yes.
Q467 Chairman: You intend to do a very full
assessment of the workings of these systems.
Mr Harris: There has been an on-going assessment
of ITSO’s workability, if you like. Once we are into
the new National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Scheme we will
certainly do an analysis of that <strong>and</strong> that does use
ITSO smartcard technology.
Q468 Chairman: What about people who are not
very happy with all the new gadgets <strong>and</strong> who like the
old fashioned tickets <strong>and</strong> money <strong>and</strong> things like
that? Are you going to look at the price diVerence
between electronic tickets <strong>and</strong> conventional tickets?
Mr Harris: Whether you choose to pay by cash or
whether you choose to use a smartcard on trains
your fare will continue to be capped if it is a
regulated fare by 1% above the rate of inflation. If a
train operator, however, wanted to reduce the cost
of a regulated fare as much as through a smartcard
then they would be perfectly entitled to do that
provided that nobody choosing to pay by cash is
going to pay above what the regulation states should
be paid. That is the flexibility that train operating
companies could use; whether they will or not is
another matter.
Q469 Chairman: Is Transport for London right
when it says that the cost of adding ITSO to Oyster
would be £50 million?
Mr Harris: I do not have a figure.
Mr Linnard: It is subject to the study we were
describing earlier. It is only when we have seen that
<strong>and</strong> when we have the negotiation with TfL
informed by that study that we will know how much
it is going to cost.
Mr Harris: This takes us back to the question that
Mr Stringer was asking just before the break about
this diVerence between the time it takes for an ITSO
card to be read through the reader <strong>and</strong> an Oyster
card. I think the point here is that if we were simply
going to change the information on the card so that
an Oyster reader could read an ITSO card, that is
where the delay comes in, that is where you have
quite a big diVerential between an Oyster card <strong>and</strong>
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 57
an ITSO card. The £50 million or whatever the figure
is of the capital cost is about changing the actual
readers throughout London so that they will read
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster cards. When that happens that is
when you get almost a negligible diVerence in the
time it takes to read an Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO card.
Q470 Chairman: Is all the personal information that
is stored on this card going to be absolutely safe?
Mr Harris: No personal information is stored on
the chip.
Q471 Chairman: Why are we being told that district
councils are placing personal information like name,
age <strong>and</strong> address on smartcard chips?
Mr Harris: They certainly do not need to on ITSO.
All the information on an ITSO card is held in the
back oYce. The only information in total on the card
is what is on the face of the card, your photograph
<strong>and</strong> your name <strong>and</strong> that is for fraud purposes. All the
other information about you should not be held on
the chip, it should be in the back oYce.
Q472 Clive EVord: Just before we broke for the vote
I asked you about the information that is stored on
the ITSO card that apparently, we were told, can be
read by the pay as you go Oyster card which causes a
delay when the card is swiped. Are you aware of this
problem?
Mr Harris: There are two ways of making ITSO <strong>and</strong>
Oyster compatible in London. One way is to allow
the Oyster reader to read both cards. That is where
you hit the delays <strong>and</strong> nobody wants that. I
underst<strong>and</strong> why Transport for London do not want
that because you end up with having a lot of people
backing up on the turnstiles <strong>and</strong> causing a lot of
delays <strong>and</strong> probably some safety issues as well. What
we foresee happening in the next few years is the
actual readers being replaced so that they will read
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster cards <strong>and</strong> you do not have to
choose which reader to go; you can go to any reader
whether you have an ITSO or an Oyster card. The
time taken to read that, because we are actually
upgrading the hardware <strong>and</strong> not just the software,
will be negligible; there will be no noticeable
diVerences. There is a diVerence, as I said earlier on,
between 200 <strong>and</strong> 300 milliseconds.
Q473 Clive EVord: Are you aware that one of the online
ticket sales companies believes that it can
provide an ITSO type smartcard that will work with
the current Oyster system without requiring any new
gates or readers?
Mr Harris: I am not aware of that but I would be
very interested to read what they have on oVer. Let
me make it clear, I do not have an interest in making
any of these processes either longer or more
expensive than they have to be.
Q474 Clive EVord: We have introduced the zones in
London to make through ticketing easier to
underst<strong>and</strong> between diVerent modes of transport
<strong>and</strong> we have allowed huge fare increases on the basis
of that from which train companies are currently
benefiting, is that fair on the travelling public to

Ev 58 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
introduce those zones well ahead of the benefits
actually coming along <strong>and</strong> should the increases not
be delayed until such time as they accept, say, Oyster
pay as you go.
Mr Harris: I do not think it is accurate to say that
the train companies have benefited. We made it quite
clear when we gave a derogation on regulated fares
that the move to zonal fares would have to be
revenue neutral <strong>and</strong> I am not aware of any evidence
to say that it has not been revenue neutral. There
were some people, because of historically artificially
low fares, when the zonal system was introduced
they did find themselves paying a much higher
percentage increase on a one-oV increase. So there
were losers when that happened but there were also
winners. If the Committee has any evidence that the
train operating companies have made substantial
profits rather than being revenue neutral I would be
very interested to see that. My underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the
second point of your question, was it necessary to
move to this right away, I suppose the argument
could be made that it could have been postponed.
There may be a technical reason why it had to be
done earlier—Mr Linnard might want to come in on
this—but I do suspect very strongly that whenever
that change was made the kind of increases that we
are seeing would have happened.
Q475 Clive EVord: Let me give you south east
London as an example. There is no alternative to
travelling into London other than the rail network;
buses are not an option for the length of journey so
far as commuters are concerned in my part of south
east London yet they are paying massive increases
on the basis of the London zones being introduced
with no justification whatsoever.
Mr Harris: The south east, of course, is slightly
diVerent from most of the other franchises because
of their 3% cap on average on regulatory fares
because of the very substantial risk that is going into
rolling stock in that particular area. However, I take
your point that smartcard technology has not yet
been introduced but that one-oV increase—<strong>and</strong> in
some cases a decrease—because of the introduction
of zonal fares. Can I just point out to the Committee
that we have moved from a position where there
were more than 97,000 diVerent fares to a situation
where there are 21 because of the introduction of
zonal fares? I said right at the beginning that part of
the attempt to encourage people onto public
transport is to make that journey more transparent,
more seamless; I fail to see how that can be done
when there are 97,000 diVerent combinations of
fares.
Q476 Chairman: You have done that, Minister, but
you have not actually sorted out the business of the
district councils who have to negotiate with
individual bus companies, have you? Since all of this
is funded at national level why is that not done at
national level? We have taken evidence of the
numbers of individual district councils that are still
negotiating; they are very large.
Mr Harris: You mean on concessionary fares?
Q477 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Harris: There are 291 travel concession
authorities outside London; there are 1500 bus
companies they have to negotiate with. I am not
confident in the DfT’s ability to devote the number
of man hours necessary to achieve those
negotiations.
Q478 Chairman: Could it not be done on a county
level or a regional level because each district council
having to negotiate with bus operators not only
takes up an inordinate amount of time <strong>and</strong>
administration, it does not always produce the result
that people want, does it?
Mr Harris: No, I think that is absolutely valid.
Q479 Chairman: They have no control over the level
of charges, do they?
Mr Harris: That is right. Once the scheme is up <strong>and</strong>
running <strong>and</strong> once we see how it is working if a
consensus emerges that we do want to move to
county level then there are powers within the act for
us to be able to do that. The caveat on that is that we
have just agreed a three year local government
settlement. I think it would be very diYcult to move
to county level before the end of that three year
period. It is not impossible <strong>and</strong> if the authorities are
determined to go down that road I think the
Government have to listen to them, but I think it
would be very diYcult before the end of that three
year period to start disaggregating the capital sums
or the revenue sums that have been given to the
councils <strong>and</strong> start recalculating that at a county
level. That is why I think it is more likely to happen
in three years.
Q480 Chairman: Do you have a workable estimate
of the increase in bus patronage because of the
English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme?
Mr Harris: Not to h<strong>and</strong>.
Mr Linnard: I do not think we have. What we do
know is what has happened since 2006 when the
concession was extended from half price to free <strong>and</strong>
there there has been a substantial increase in
patronage, particularly outside the metropolitan
areas.
Q481 Graham Stringer: Are you going to make any
attempt to keep the statistics that the department
keeps in such a way that you can compare 2009
statistics with 2003 statistics? We are going to be in
a diYculty in looking at what happens to bus
patronage when we get to 2010 or 2009 because we
will have had three diVerent systems over that period
of time. Has the department looked at whether it can
disaggregate the figures so that they can be
compared?
Mr Linnard: It is quite diYcult to do.
Q482 Graham Stringer: It may well be but will you
try?

12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Mr Linnard: What we can look at is what has
happened to bus patronage in areas where there was
already free travel, some of the PTEs for example,
compared to what has happened to bus patronage
when free travel was introduced. Looking at the
diVerence between those gives you some idea of the
underlying trend in bus patronage compared to what
is happening as a consequence of more generous
concessionary travel being introduced.
Q483 Graham Stringer: It is an important point
because it is a matter of both political debate <strong>and</strong> of
government policy to increase patronage. We need
to underst<strong>and</strong> what is happening, so would you give
a commitment to at least look at preparing statistics
so that we can make those comparisons?
Mr Harris: Absolutely. I see no benefit in the
Government trying to make those kinds of statistics
less available or less transparent.
Q484 Clive EVord: Are you stipulating on the
smartcard technology for the concessionary fare
that it should identify where the card was issued
from?
Mr Harris: I think all the cards do actually contain
a mark about which authority issued them.
Q485 Clive EVord: In the long term, some local
authorities you will be aware of are concerned about
reciprocity, who is going to be paying for the journey
undertaken, so if somebody comes to a tourist area,
uses their concessionary fare card, goes back home,
that local authority gets billed for that journey. If
that could be recharged back to the local authority
where the card was issued then some of those fears
might not come about. Is there any plan in the long
term to have the smartcard technology able to
identify where the card was issued no matter where
it was used so that recharge can be made?
Mr Harris: Mr Linnard may wish to come in on this
after I have spoken. I am not aware of any plans to
change the funding regime but, as I said earlier on,
unless you have a working smartcard system you are
never going to be able to actually trace <strong>and</strong> calculate
what those passengers’ journeys are <strong>and</strong> where
people are travelling. I think the information we are
going to get from the use of the smartcard system
will actually make the funding regime more robust
because we will actually now who is using it <strong>and</strong>
what the numbers are, but I do not know whether
that is part of the act.
Mr Linnard: The way it will work is that the local
authority in which the journey takes place or starts
has to reimburse the bus operator; that is the basis
principle of it. To get a completely diVerent system
where the home local authority system pays for any
journey regardless of where in the country it was
made you would need readers in all the buses which
do not exist at the moment. You would need a
completely diVerent level of technology.
Q486 Clive EVord: If that is the way you want to end
up you should be planning for it now.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 59
Mr Linnard: It is not necessarily where we need to
end up. As long as we have got—<strong>and</strong> we think we
have—a fair system for distributing funding to the
local authorities that are going to meet the most
costs.
Q487 Clive EVord: Can we ever have a fully
operational smartcard or concessionary fare scheme
whilst we have a deregulated market out of London
or a fragmented market on the rail system?
Mr Harris: Yes, I think you can. Once you have that
system there may be avenues for improving the
whole scheme by changing that regulation, but I
think it is certainly possible to have an eVective
smartcard system that works throughout the
country that people underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> which give
people the best deal for their particular journey. It
happens in Scotl<strong>and</strong> although the readers have not
yet been introduced on the buses there, but there is
a smartcard system, there is a concessionary bus
system which is nationwide. The buses are not any
more regulated there than they are here.
Q488 Clive EVord: Do you think we will ever get to
a position where either the train operating
companies or the bus operators will not act in their
own interests against the interests of through
ticketing scheme, whether it is smartcard or any
other form?
Mr Harris: I think there is a very good commercial
argument to say that the bus operators should
embrace this kind of technology. I do not think this
is a threat to bus operators’ revenues; quite the
opposite. I think there is a lot to be gained by bus
operators in introducing this kind of technology. I
do not accept the argument that bus operators will
not want to have some kind of integrated
smartcard system.
Q489 Chairman: I take it you do not know any bus
operators.
Mr Harris: I have met a few of them.
Q490 Chairman: Are you satisfied that people can
appeal satisfactorily against penalty fares?
Mr Harris: It is an independent appeals process.
Q491 Chairman: Forgive me, Minister, but it is not
exactly, is it? The railway companies themselves
actually appoint whoever is dealing with the penalty
fare system <strong>and</strong> it is not very clear how they operate
or what their criteria are.
Mr Harris: The criteria I think are quite clear.
Penalty fare systems have to be approved by the
secretary of state for transport.
Q492 Chairman: There is not an independent
appeals panel, is there?
Mr Harris: It is certainly arm’s length from the
company where the dispute has taken place <strong>and</strong>
anyone not satisfied with that can appeal.

Ev 60 Transport Committee: Evidence
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Q493 Chairman: That is not total independence, is
it? If someone was criticising you <strong>and</strong> I was the one
who was sitting there, of course I would have your
best interests at heart.
Mr Harris: It is certainly industry run but I have to
tell you that I am not aware of any major serious
causes for concern in terms of its eVectiveness.
Q494 Mrs Ellman: If you do not know what the
extent of the increased patronage will be from the
National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fare Scheme, how do you
know it is going to produce value for money? What
are its benefits actually going to be?
Mr Harris: I think the benefits are in terms of social
inclusion, in terms of extra mobility <strong>and</strong> extra
opportunity for people who qualify for the
concessionary card. I accept that those are benefits
that cannot be quantified; there is no cost benefit
ratio. What we are trying to achieve is something
you probably cannot measure in terms of giving
freedom to people who might previously have felt
that they cannot aVord that level of freedom.
Q495 Mrs Ellman: The Commission for Integrated
Transport suggested that better value would be
gained from extending low fares for young people
<strong>and</strong> for people on low incomes. Did you ever
consider that as an option?
Mr Harris: The act is flexible enough so that that
could be an add-on to the system at some point in the
future. We have made a deliberate policy decision
that older people <strong>and</strong> disabled people are, for the
moment, a priority. However, for a number of years
we have allowed local authorities to have their own
add-ons or increments. If they want to add
something on to the base scheme, whether it is young
people, whether it is the carers of disabled people,
then that is something that the local authorities have
the opportunity to add onto the scheme.
Q496 Mrs Ellman: Would there be any financial
support for that?
Mr Harris: No, that would be at the expense of the
local authority.
Q497 Mrs Ellman: Does the Government have a
view on that?
Mr Harris: Their view is that local authorities
should be able to have the freedom to decide how to
spend their own income. I do not think it would be
right for us, having set out the base scheme, to say
that if you want to have any increments at all we will
meet the costs of that. I think that would defeat
the purpose.
Q498 Chairman: One of the ways in which your
smartcard systems would work would of course be
making the whole system a closed system. That is
why London Underground is so eYcient because it
is easier to organise. Do you have any idea of the
implications for passengers of making stations
which at the present time are open stations closed
stations?
Mr Harris: We are never going to have a railway
system in this country that is completely closed.
Q499 Chairman: No, but with respect Minister,
many stations will be gated <strong>and</strong> this is going to
present a hazard for anyone with a disability or
young children or large bags or bicycles.
Mr Harris: I do not think that will be the case. The
Government will expect the station operators at any
station where there are gates to have staV available
to make sure that disabled people, people with
prams, people with bikes are able to access stations.
It is everyone’s right to access those stations. At
Waterloo, for example, there has been some
criticism along exactly the lines you have just
expressed, <strong>and</strong> that gating simply will not happen if
it results in significant numbers—or anyone—being
excluded physically from Waterloo Station.
Q500 Chairman: You will underst<strong>and</strong> that this is not
a question that can be lightly dealt with because
many people using railway systems will have
considerable amounts of baggage. I notice that
Virgin has put a notice on Crewe Station which says,
“Only travel with luggage which you can
conveniently carry” which is very kind of them, but
if I wanted to limit the amount of luggage I would
not go by train. As long as you can assure us that
companies will not be allowed to get away with
gating stations in such a way that somebody who is
disabled or someone with young children in prams
are going to find it very diYcult to use the station.
Mr Harris: I can give an absolute guarantee that
there will be very strict obligations on any station
operator to make sure that where a station is
currently accessible by people in those categories
that they will continue to have access after gating
comes in. The reason I phrase it like is because there
are a lot of stations around which are not accessible
already, but where they are already accessible when
new gating goes in there must be accommodation
made for those groups.
Q501 Chairman: Minister, it has been very
interesting listening to you, but we are very
concerned about the problems of integrating these
two very diVerent systems. Am I misinterpreting you
if I say that you are assuming that within the first
year of the operation of new schemes there will a
proper assessment not only of the risk element but
the benefits <strong>and</strong> general advances that are
represented by working with these new schemes?
Mr Harris: Do you mean the Bus <strong>Concessionary</strong>
Scheme?
Q502 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Harris: Yes, we will be doing our own
assessments on the eVectiveness <strong>and</strong> getting as much
information as we can about the success of the
scheme.
Q503 Chairman: Mr Linnard, how long do you
think it will be before ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster are
completely compatible?

12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <strong>and</strong> Mr Bob Linnard
Mr Linnard: I would not like to give a prediction of
exactly when, but we would hope broadly within a
couple of years.
Q504 Clive EVord: Is that because of the roll out of
the equipment or because train operating companies
will not agree to it?
Mr Linnard: First of all there has to be the
completion of the study into the way we are
integrating it. There then has to be negotiation
between the department <strong>and</strong> TfL <strong>and</strong> its suppliers.
That is obviously not entirely possible to predict.
Q505 Clive EVord: Are you holding up the process
by which Oyster could read the ITSO cards until
ITSO is fully integrated on the rail network. Are you
blocking it? Are you stopping it? I underst<strong>and</strong> that
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 61
Oyster could actually read ITSO cards right now if
you wanted it to <strong>and</strong> that is just being held up
because you want to roll out ITSO before you
actually have them compatible.
Mr Harris: I am afraid that is a new one on me; I am
not aware of any deliberate action by the department
in that respect.
Q506 Chairman: Can you assure us, Mr Linnard,
that there is a constant monitoring of the changes
<strong>and</strong> any possible gaps that could develop between
ITSO <strong>and</strong> any new technology.
Mr Linnard: Yes.
Q507 Chairman: Minister, you have been very
helpful. We are delighted to have had you here this
afternoon <strong>and</strong> doubtless you will come again.
Mr Harris: I hope so.

Ev 62 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Dr Roger Sexton, Academic Legal Studies, Nottingham Trent University (TPT 01)
1. Introduction—Three Separate Inquiries?
The terms of reference of the inquiry divide into three very distinct issues:
A Integrated ticketing—including smartcards;
B Revenue Protection;
C Free Public Transport for Seniors (<strong>and</strong> other “socially disadvantaged” groups).
2. Integrated Transport Impossible in Britain
The legal regimes governing British public transport (bus deregulation <strong>and</strong> over-centralised rail
franchising) means that it is impossible to integrate public transport in the way it is done by the Swiss <strong>and</strong>
by some of our EU partners (notably the Germans <strong>and</strong> the Swedes).
2.1 European Best Practice
As I have explained in previous memor<strong>and</strong>a, the integration in Sweden is achieved by organisations called
Lanstrafiken (regional PTEs). Each Lanstrafiken controls all the local public transport in its area. The
control extends, of course, to ticketing <strong>and</strong> fares. There is one ticketing system for the whole of a
Lanstrafiken region. The Lanstrafiken tickets are valid on all operators (except certain long distance intercity
services).
Similarly, every major German-speaking conurbation in Europe has a “Verkehrsverbund” controlling all
public transport within its area. Eg the Rhein-Ruhr Verkehrsverbund covers the whole of the industrial
Ruhrgebiet. There is one ticketing system for the whole of this vast region; the tickets are valid on all public
transport except Inter-City long-distance trains.
2.2 Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> Impossible in Britain
As I have explained in previous memor<strong>and</strong>a, bus deregulation, with operators competing against each
other, is the antithesis of integration. Each bus operator has its own fare structure <strong>and</strong> its own tickets, <strong>and</strong>
(except in rare cases) tickets are not inter-available between operators..
Tickets which are valid on both buses <strong>and</strong> trains (the norm with Lanstrafik or Verkehrsverbund tickets)
are very rare in Britain.
2.3 Conclusion—Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> Through Franchising
The only practical way of achieving a comprehensive integrated ticketing system is to have all public
transport controlled by franchising bodies. The franchising structure I would adopt in Britain is set out in
my memor<strong>and</strong>um to the committee regarding Rail Franchising—see page 212 of your report on that subject.
3. Smartcards—Look Abroad
I am not qualified to comment on the technological issues raised by your questions 3, 4 <strong>and</strong> 5. I would
however urge the committee to look for lessons from abroad, as well as looking at the London <strong>and</strong>
Scottish schemes.
In particular, the committee should pay a study visit to the Väst (West) region of Sweden (main city
Gothenburg) where the existing ticket system is being replaced by smartcards. ALL passengers on ALL local
<strong>and</strong> regional public transport (buses, trains, trams <strong>and</strong> ferries) will be using the same type of smartcard.
3.1 Nottingham— Two Operators—Two DiVerent Systems of Smartcards
For many years now, my “easyrider” season ticket on Nottingham City Transport has been in the form
of a smart-card which I hold against a reader as I get on the bus. (On the tram I h<strong>and</strong> it to the conductor
who holds it against his portable reader.)
The other major bus operator in Nottingham (Trentbarton) is about to introduce an apparently totally
incompatible smartcard system. The Trentbarton cards will have to be held against the reader both as the
passenger gets on <strong>and</strong> as he/she gets oV. (Check in—check out.)

3.2 Conclusion—Smartcard St<strong>and</strong>ards Prescribed by Legislation
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 63
The Nottingham example I have just given is not known nationally. By contrast, every one knows that
Mayor Livingstone was having problems (possibly now resolved) getting Train Operating Companies to
accept Oystercards.
The truth is that the current legal structure of British public transport is such that each public transport
operator will opt for whatever smartcard (if any) it considers best suits its commercial purposes.
If Britain wants to achieve an integrated ticketing system through the use of smartcards, then (whatever
other legal regulation there may or may not be) legislation will have to be passed (a) compelling operators
to accept smartcards, (b) laying down uniform technical st<strong>and</strong>ards for smartcards.
4. Revenue Protection—Complex Legal Issues
The committee’s questions 6, 7 <strong>and</strong> 8 require a lot of empirical research which it would be impossible for
anyone to accomplish in the four weeks allowed for the preparation of memor<strong>and</strong>a. I will therefore confine
myself to a few remarks of a rather general nature.
4.1 Level of Penalty Fares
In the few places in Britain where there are spot fines for ticketless travel, the fine is, typically, ten pounds.
This is much lower than elsewhere in the EU, where the spot fine is now (typically) 60 (or even 80) Euros.
I would (however) be unhappy with granting privately owned democratically unaccountable bus
operators the powers to impose “fines” in the region of £45.
Spot fines are acceptable, but only if they are administered by inspectors working for a democratically
accountable body such as a regional PTE.
4.2 The Adequacy of Revenue Protection Measures Taken by Operators
Question nine is of a very diVerent nature from questions six, seven <strong>and</strong> eight. The short answer to
question nine is that some operators take adequate measures, others do not.
4.3 Revenue Protection by Rail Operators
Those operators (including the London Underground) which have “gated” their stations obviously take
revenue protection very seriously.
Where stations are not “gated”, then it is essential to have an adequate number of roving conductors on
the train (or tram).
There is a major problem in the mornings (<strong>and</strong> on Saturdays) on lines which have busy unmanned stations
(or stops). The conductor does not have time to collect all the fares. This problem would be ameliorated by
employing (part-time) staV to man the otherwise unstaVed stations. The exact hours of staYng would
depend on local conditions.
4.4 Revenue Protection by Bus Operators
The old-fashioned bus inspector is almost extinct. With all passengers boarding past the driver, the driver
can normally ensure that everyone has a ticket (or pass) of some sort. But the driver has no time to check
for forgeries. (I gather this is a problem in some areas, even with Seniors’ passes.)
On busy routes, the driver has only a limited chance to check against overriding, ie the passenger traveling
further than they have paid for.
4.5 EVect of Free <strong>Travel</strong> for Seniors on Payment Morale of Other Passengers
There are already some bus routes where Senior passengers (who go free) outnumber fare payers. Many
of those fare payers are likely to be between 18 <strong>and</strong> 25, <strong>and</strong> either unemployed, in low-pay employment, or
students running up five-figure debts.
Increasingly, I fear that this younger generation will be thinking, “Why should I pay for my ticket when
others—more well-oV than me—go free?” They will be increasingly tempted to evade payment.

Ev 64 Transport Committee: Evidence
5. Free <strong>Travel</strong> for Seniors <strong>and</strong> other “Disadvantaged” Groups
I would again first ask the committee to re-read what I said in section 10 of my memor<strong>and</strong>um to the
inquiry on public transport overcrowding. I continue to adhere to those views, even though they have now
been very much overtaken by events.
The free bus travel for pensioners has in Engl<strong>and</strong> (as it did in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales) produced an upsurge
in bus usage, especially on inter-urban routes. But it is to the long-term detriment of buses as a means of
public transport.
5.1 The Social Services Image of Bus <strong>Travel</strong>
Outside London, many British citizens view buses as a means of transport only used by the less wealthy.
Buses full of people over sixty strengthen that perception.
5.2 Things are Worse for Existing Fare-paying Passengers
There are three aspects to this. Firstly, there is the danger (which has now materialised on long inter-urban
routes such as the Nottingham–Manchester “Transpeak”) that fare-paying passengers wanting to get on at
intermediate stops are crowded oV by the “freebies”.
Secondly, there is the eVect of the “freebies” on the level of fares. In most areas, re-imbursement to the
operator is on the basis of a percentage of the adult fare. The higher the fare, the greater the re-imbursement.
If (as happens on some routes) the majority of passengers are “Seniors”, the operator will be tempted to set
the normal adult fare as high as possible.
Thirdly, there are signs that operators are now deliberately targeting the Senior “market”. In particular,
the elderly do not like going out in the evenings. Operators who focus on the Senior “market” will have their
buses back in the depot by 1900. The (fare-paying) younger generation want buses which run 18 (or even
24) hours a day.
5.3 A Massive Subsidy to Democratically Unaccountable Bus Operators
As a matter of pure legal theory, free travel for pensioners is meant to be a subsidy for pensioners, not
bus operators. The practical reality is now very clearly otherwise. Throughout most of Britain, enormous
sums of taxpayers’ money are now being paid to bus operators who (unlike their continental or London
counterparts) can decide when they are going to run their buses <strong>and</strong> the fares that that they are going to
charge.
5.4 Subsidising Seniors’ Inter-Urban Journeys
Most (but not all) of the current English schemes already allow free direct bus journeys from a Senior’s
home district to towns which are on a direct bus route from that home district. I personally see a lot of
Seniors making long free inter-urban journeys, eg Nottingham to Chesterfield or Lincoln to Skegness.
Is it right that the taxpayer should pay for such trips?
I answer this question with a resounding “No!” And I give that answer even though I am in my sixtieth
year, <strong>and</strong> I am retiring at the end of September. I do indeed intend to spend some of that retirement travelling
around the country on buses, but I do not think that my fellow tax-payers should pay for my joy-riding.
5.5 The Cost of Free <strong>Travel</strong> for Pensioners
Partly as a result of the “inter-urban” phenomenon just mentioned, the free bus travel for Seniors is
already (in Engl<strong>and</strong>) costing more than anticipated. There are also a large number of disputes regarding
re-imbursement rates for operators.
Free travel for Seniors (<strong>and</strong> I shall soon be one) is becoming an unacceptable burden on taxpayers. It is
particularly unfair on rural areas, <strong>and</strong> on Seniors who (for any reason) are unable to use bus services.
5.5 Conclusion—Abolish Free <strong>Travel</strong> for Seniors
Free travel concessions (except perhaps for the disabled) should not be exp<strong>and</strong>ed. Rather, they should be
abolished.
To soften the blow (<strong>and</strong> the potential political consequences) I would enact two straightforward
proposals:
A. All public transport operators (train, bus, tram <strong>and</strong> ferry but not air) must charge the over-60s half
the fare a normal adult would pay. There would be no time restrictions on this concession, <strong>and</strong> there
would be no reimbursement for operators.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 65
B. At least two-thirds of the money saved by the abolition of free travel should be used to increase the
basic state pension payable to those who do not have a private pension. These “poor” pensioners
lose their free bus travel, but they get more money to spend as they wish.
February 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Alco Group Ltd (TPT 02)
1. ALCO is a strategic consultancy in ICT. One of its founders, Chris Oulds was the TfL (then London
Transport) Project Manager during the development of the Oyster Card. Alan Leibert was an editor on the
design of the ITSO Specification, the first General Manger of the ITSO organisation <strong>and</strong> is currently a
consultant to ITSO. In addition, he is currently an editor on the European st<strong>and</strong>ards committee developing
the pan-European equivalent to the ITSO smartcard transport ticketing system.
2. On the issue of integrated ticketing, rail has long had an integrated ticketing system managed by the
Rail Settlement Plan (RSP) division of the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). However,
the same cannot be said for buses; indeed the deregulation of buses has meant that competition positively
works against integrated ticketing. The Government’s strategy of using ITSO as a way to promote
integrated ticketing would be fine if the strategy was supported by a fully proven product <strong>and</strong> by the
management activities of the ITSO organisation; however since neither is the case the strategy falls down.
Why should rail operators with a perfectly adequate ticketing system pay out millions of pounds to
implement smartcards to achieve the same result (for them)? Why should bus operators support their
competition by agreeing to integrated, multi-operator ticketing?
3. While ITSO, as defined <strong>and</strong> implemented, meets all the requirements of the DfT, the transport industry
<strong>and</strong> passengers, take-up has been slow as a result of poor management of the development of ITSO by both
its organising body <strong>and</strong> the DfT which has resulted in it taking far too long to be completed. This in turn
has led to lack of confidence by operators that “it will ever happen”. In addition, the lack of ITSO in-house
testing before it was made available to the operators <strong>and</strong> their implementers has acted as a positive
disincentive to early adopters.
4. One knock-on eVect of the long gestation of ITSO is that new technologies are overtaking ITSO;
examples being the growing use of the mobile phone as the prime user interface, Near Field Communication
(NFC) to allow mobile phones to replace smartcards, <strong>and</strong> contactless payment cards to be used directly as
pay-as-you-go tokens. A number of operators <strong>and</strong> local authority transport planners are now considering
whether to leapfrog ITSO straight to these.
5. Experience in London, where Oyster was an eYciently developed, implemented <strong>and</strong> tested project,
shows us that smartcard ticketing is very acceptable to passengers, works well <strong>and</strong> speeds up throughput
of passengers, including reducing bus boarding times. However, it must be remembered that the London
environment is essentially a closed system <strong>and</strong> does not parallel the competitive multi-operator environment
in the rest of the country; <strong>and</strong> Oyster was designed specifically to meet this requirement.
6. The current Scottish implementation of ITSO is of very limited assistance at present as it is solely for
concessionary fares at the moment <strong>and</strong> is still in its deployment phase. Essentially it is acting as a test-bed
for ITSO.
7. Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> have both gone the route of a national, free concessionary scheme <strong>and</strong> it is hoped
that Engl<strong>and</strong> will follow this same path. In order to properly manage concessionary travel spanning the
English <strong>and</strong> Scottish border <strong>and</strong> the English <strong>and</strong> Welsh border, as well as properly to support multi-modal
travel, the use of an ITSO smartcard scheme is essential, subject to ITSO getting “its house in order” as
discussed in paragraph 3 above.
February 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Jonathan Horan (TPT 03)
There are a couple of points I wished to make under question one of the ticketing consultation:
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent
geographical areas? In London, yes. In other areas, even where the Plusbus exists, no-one knows about it
<strong>and</strong> it doesn’t apply to all operators. The West Midl<strong>and</strong>s seems to be a bit better, but when you’re going
from one area to another there’s no consistency. I live in StaVord, which is semi-rural. The only example of
integrated ticketing is where I can use a train ticket on one of the bus routes. Apart from that, all the bus
operators have their own tickets <strong>and</strong> fare structure. It’s a nightmare, <strong>and</strong> despite not owning a car I find it
diYcult to defend public transport because of its inadequacy <strong>and</strong> complexity.

Ev 66 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. When I want to take my bike on the train, there are additional barriers. I can’t reserve my bike place
on line any more, because they’ve removed the option from online ticketing systems. So, if I want to reserve
a bike place, I have to visit the station. What’s the point in having bought the ticket online in the first place?
February 2007
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Iosis Associates (TPT04)
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
2. From my point of view, in general terms, nowhere near, despite the 1998 Integrated Transport White
Paper <strong>and</strong> the new Bus White Paper “Putting Passengers First”. The new White Paper totally ignores
integrated ticketing, although it does mention “through ticketing” without defining the term. Also the new
White Paper is generally internally inconsistent <strong>and</strong> sloppy in its use of terms. See the Annexes to this
submission for analysis <strong>and</strong> comment on the White Paper.
3. My viewpoints are two:
— that of passenger, using bus services in my local near-metropolitan area (Greater Bristol), bus
services in other areas that I visit, long distance coach services, heavy rail services, metro services
(eg London), <strong>and</strong> the half-way house of Merseyrail Electrics; <strong>and</strong>
— that of technologist in ICT areas that include the ITSO secure ticketing <strong>and</strong> journey management
environment
4. As with so many questions in an area of service delivery to a large number of people, the 80/20 rule
comes into play. If the service oVered is perfectly adequate for 80% of the people or for 80% of the
transactions, is that good enough? DiVerent situations of course produce diVerent splits 60/40, 90/10, 99.99/
0.01 . . . DiVerent people will therefore give diVerent opinions.
5. In terms of expectations following the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper, the answer to the
Committee’s question is overall “No”. In terms of the desire to minimise the growth of private car traYc,
even reduce it, the answer is very definitely an overall “No”.
6. Geographically, in some areas of the country the answer is “Almost Yes <strong>and</strong> improving”—London is
the example most often cited as having good ticketing provision. Oyster demonstrates, as does for example
the current national scheme in The Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, that integration must be organised <strong>and</strong> managed at the
level of a natural geographical <strong>and</strong> demographic region. To some extent the PTEs have been able to provide
integration across diVerent operators <strong>and</strong> even, as in Merseyside, across bus <strong>and</strong> rail modes. But overall the
application of competition law has brought about a deterioration in the progress of integration, <strong>and</strong> has
even caused the ceasing of some integrated ticketing schemes.
7. To people who live in another town or city that has public transport that the local residents rate as
“poor” together with heavily congested roads (eg Greater Bristol, which does not have a PTE <strong>and</strong> has
recently been described as the largest metropolitan area in the country that is not a metropolitan county),
once we learn how the Oyster scheme works we want it in our area. Those of us who know that the current
Oyster technology is not scalable <strong>and</strong> not interoperable with clones of itself in other urban centres are aware
that the forthcoming overlaying of ITSO technology on the Oyster scheme will be a boon.
8. The initial integration of further heavy rail London local services into the Oyster scheme is a start, but
essential is resolute <strong>and</strong> expert progress with the growing commitment by DfT to ensure that longer distance
heavy rail services implement ITSO technology <strong>and</strong> do it properly. However, the longer distance heavy rail
service ticketing provision, currently supposedly at the start of implementation, is the subject of very
considerable internal disagreement within the industry, <strong>and</strong> DfT gives all the appearance of not having the
expertise or knowledge to resolve the problems.
9. We should temper the answer “No” with an assessment of the possibility of doing better without
significant extra cost. Here we frequently hear about, <strong>and</strong> some of us experience for ourselves, public
transport systems in European cities or further afield (eg the far east) that in metropolitan areas are better
integrated. If we look at the diVerence between their way of doing things <strong>and</strong> ours, we very often see a
publicly owned service (eg Brussels, Paris), or at least a much better partnership between public <strong>and</strong> private
sector (eg Holl<strong>and</strong>). In fact Holl<strong>and</strong> is a good place to study, for they are currently installing a fully
integrated public transport ticketing system from one of the only two companies recognised as being capable
of delivering (with suitable partners) a fully integrated ticketing system over a complex multi-modal
network. 1
1 Holl<strong>and</strong> is using Thales, whereas London uses Cubic.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 67
10. A major characteristic of the public transport networks in the urban areas of those other countries
is consistently <strong>and</strong> carefully applied capital investment. It is the careful application of that investment that
really matters: we fall down on that in this area of technology, as we do with many areas of technology
applied to public services. Thankfully, there is a move (eg Transformational Government, but perhaps more
importantly a growing feeling that more <strong>and</strong> more civil servants are determined to do better) to be more
careful in our use of investment money, but I still believe that there are major lacunae that continue to negate
much of the possibilities for benefits.
11. A final note: long distance coach services are currently operated entirely separately from other modes,
with no sign of a move towards integration with those other modes, either of ticketing or, in the larger
picture, of services.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
12. Not any more; perhaps it never really did, as it may well have been that only a small number of civil
servants (the key one in DfT, Eric Sampson, has recently retired) really understood what ought to be done,
although I submit that their concept of how it should be done has never been adequate: nowhere enough
application of the needs for thorough planning <strong>and</strong> for engineering discipline.
13. Having been working recently with the trade association PSSG 2 on this topic, I do not know of any
such strategy, despite the commitment to seamless travel as long ago as the 1988 Integrated Transport White
Paper. Indeed, on heavy rail services ticketing has become more fragmented <strong>and</strong> increasingly diYcult for
either customers or sellers to underst<strong>and</strong>. In particular, the selling by or for TOCs of tickets for use on
specific, timed rail services has been causing considerable distress, because ticket validity is not checked at
the point of boarding: after departure, those who get on the wrong train are charged the full open ticket
fare by the Train Manager. The “Putting Passengers First” paper (see Annexes below) about bus services
concentrates only on proposals that attempt to improve punctuality <strong>and</strong> reliability (note that those are very
technical terms in the industry <strong>and</strong> in regulatory circles, not necessarily having the meaning that the common
man or woman assign to them), to the exclusion of all other benefits to the passenger. For long distance
coach services there are no government strategies for integration of ticketing, either within that mode or
between that mode <strong>and</strong> other modes.
14. The strategy has to have two parallel streams:
— commercial arrangements that benefit the traveller; <strong>and</strong>
— technology <strong>and</strong> management that enables eVective <strong>and</strong> eYcient delivery.
15. Commercial arrangements have been severely restricted by the application of competition law. There
have been some improved guidelines recently, but I believe that that is nowhere near enough for the large
commercial organisations currently operating most of the UK’s surface <strong>and</strong> sub-surface public transport.
Despite guidelines from OFT, there is always the risk that massive commercial disruption will be caused if
OFT changes its mind. An operator of public services needs a long term stable environment, <strong>and</strong> so do the
passengers. I have repeatedly used the phrase: “its no good accepting a guideline if the OFT can on a whim
change it <strong>and</strong> come <strong>and</strong> hit you with a hammer”—they can stop what you do, tying up company executives
in a long <strong>and</strong> expensive investigation, <strong>and</strong> levying massive fines. Bus operating companies 3 in particular run
lean on supervisory, admin <strong>and</strong> managerial staV, so that any investigation is extremely disruptive.
16. Technology has to be carefully planned <strong>and</strong> managed: its an engineering job. The TfL Oyster scheme
in the end came good after a shaky early development period, but with its present technology it is not scalable
much further than its present scope, <strong>and</strong> separate Oyster technology schemes in diVerent areas of the country
cannot link up in the way that ITSO-compliant schemes are designed (<strong>and</strong> proven) to do—thus there is no
interoperability between Oyster technology schemes. Oyster may, however, by adding ITSO technology, be
capable of being economically applied to other urban areas linked into national interoperability 4 —but
present tests indicate that, even with some optimisation, performance of an ITSO compliant mode
embedded in an Oyster scheme, in terms of throughputs through station gates, may not always meet the
current contractual performance commitment to TfL.
17. Currently it is unfortunately the case that ITSO Ltd <strong>and</strong> its developments are not managed as a Best
Practice engineering company <strong>and</strong> project, <strong>and</strong> DfT, despite its significant funding for ITSO Ltd, has failed
to trigger improvements. 5 The generic problem with a Company Limited by Guarantee without shares is
that the Members have little opportunity to influence the incumbent management, <strong>and</strong> most of the Directors
(generally operating as volunteers) find it extremely diYcult to influence a dominant cohort of managers (or
even of Directors). By contrast with ITSO Ltd, Network Rail works extremely well, through having an
excellent team in charge, but in the long term such a corporate arrangement has some in-built risk.
Nevertheless, Network Rail is successful in delivery terms <strong>and</strong> has gained the financial strength to source
2 Public Sector Supplier Group. See their statement on this topic (submitted to Transcom <strong>and</strong> also available at www.pssg.biz)
3 The big groups organise their bus operations into many regional operating companies.
4 Eg in a competitive procurement process it might be that another metropolitan area purchases an ITSO compliant Oyster
badged scheme.
5 DfT does not have a Director on ITSO’s Board, <strong>and</strong> has to be careful not to be seen as a Shadow Director.

Ev 68 Transport Committee: Evidence
additional funds. It is therefore sensible for Network Rail to look beyond the rail network <strong>and</strong> consider
supporting all modes of surface <strong>and</strong> sub-surface public transport. With DfT policy now being to spread
ITSO technology onto heavy rail, <strong>and</strong> the financial needs of ITSO Ltd, it makes sense to fold one
Membership Company (ITSO Ltd) into the other one (Network Rail).
18. The present commercial arrangements (with the competition problem mentioned above, <strong>and</strong> the
short termism still built into rail franchising) militate against significant investment by the service providers,
<strong>and</strong> of course central government doesn’t want to fund large capital programmes. But there may be a light
at the end of the tunnel as far as ticketing systems are concerned, although the tunnel appears to be currently
blocked by DfT inaction—hence the statement made by PSSG this week.
19. It has recently become clear that there are two str<strong>and</strong>s being discussed <strong>and</strong> perhaps developed
within DfT:
— in a similar manner to the Scottish project 6 , roll out electronic ticketing over all 50,000 service
buses in the UK (the public sector to use the functionality to manage concessionary travel); <strong>and</strong>
— roll out electronic ticketing right across heavy rail (perhaps 25,000 items of ticketing equipment).
20. But there is no co-ordinated action, <strong>and</strong>, at the March 19th Supplier Briefing session for the DfT
procurement of services for <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong>, there was a clear statement that there is no DfT
policy to roll out ITSO technology across all of surface <strong>and</strong> sub-surface public transport in Engl<strong>and</strong>.
21. The probable timescale is five years, ie roll out to be completed by 2012. If that is coupled with
eVective on-line ticket purchasing across the internet 7 , it should be possible to leverage a large proportion
of the capital investment out of the private sector—that is because with multi-modal deployment there will
be a long term future for the methods. I believe that Eric Sampson was right when he said to me that the
big service operators have to get to the stage where they all decide to move together <strong>and</strong> authorise the
investment in interoperable electronic ticketing. Currently I believe that none of the major operating groups
has a positive business plan for the rollout on their own: they see costs but not enough financial benefit 8 ,
but they will invest if they see a national policy announced <strong>and</strong> taken forward. DfT has to show us a coordinated
five year project if integrated ticketing is to be delivered, <strong>and</strong> DfT has to manage the programme
far better than hitherto.
22. It should be noted that the ticketing environment resulting from a nationwide rollout will not just be
a rollout of smart cards. Other physical formats of smart media will be used, as will (with care) print at home
(using bar codes for security) <strong>and</strong> “show <strong>and</strong> go” ticket to mobile phone. New secure short range technology
is coming along (Near Field Communication is currently the best suggestion, embedded in mobile phones),
<strong>and</strong> could fit onto the front end of ITSO style schemes. The ITSO Method is capable of adaptation to these
diVerent ticketing media, although currently a very rigid DfT m<strong>and</strong>ate for “all cards to be usable
everywhere” 9 is inhibiting, <strong>and</strong> there is no credible way for extensions to be managed.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
23. No, but why should it? “Industry” in the shape of the set of public transport operators has an
overwhelming duty to its shareholders, <strong>and</strong> until recently there have been indications that they see
introduction of the technology as having a massively negative business case for them unless about £250M
is pumped in by government. Also, in the absence of measures to promote growth in public transport, the
necessary parallel introduction of interoperable ticketing has a negative business case to a service operator,
because it increases competition. But now I believe that they see the benefits of improved service
management that the ITSO Environment delivers, plus a determination within government to improve
public transport services.
24. The answer to this one is already presaged in the answer to Q2: we need:
— a co-ordinated 5 year strategy <strong>and</strong> programme from DfT, designed to leverage most of the
investment out of the private sector; <strong>and</strong>
— a change in the way that the technology is managed.
6 But it must be managed much better than the Scottish project.
7 Not using the clumsy method apparently currently being put forward—see later in this submission.
8 About three years ago someone from one of the big transport service groups showed me his figures: they were looking for a
grant as subsidy that, divided by the number of buses in their fleet, came out at £3,000 per bus—however, since then many
of them have already invested in new ticket machines, so the per bus figure will now be lower. Get them to move together,
justifying the capitalisation of the funding, <strong>and</strong> they will do it themselves.
9 Which has already been deviated from.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 69
25. But, even if the technology stays as it is now, it will still need over £100 million of investment from
the public sector 10 , plus on top of that will be perhaps £50 million to re-issue all 10 million concession passes,
although some of that pass issuing funding will already be budgeted for over the five year period as part of
the normal cycles of replacement <strong>and</strong> accretion of new entrants.
26. Scotl<strong>and</strong> may soon get its second wind, after a stuttering start to its ITSO-compliant smart media
bus-based ticketing scheme. Wales has issued ITTs for an all-Wales scheme similar to that in Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
27. No, but it is capable of extension (needs capital investment for development, <strong>and</strong> a security
management organisation that also needs public funding).
28. Some extensions (to diVerent media) have already been mentioned above, but the particular missing
link is that there is no provision in the ITSO Method for on-line purchase of tickets for direct download into
the ticket media. This extension is particularly important for heavy rail. It requires a significant re-think of
security methods, <strong>and</strong>, if a competitive market in systems <strong>and</strong> equipment is to be maintained, a rigorous
application of the international systems level st<strong>and</strong>ard ISO EN 24014-1 11 , which the UK has been very active
in developing out of the basic principles of the ITSO Method. Currently ATOC/RSP, after a request from
DfT Rail, has proposed a centralised architecture rather than the distributed one described in the st<strong>and</strong>ard
<strong>and</strong> implemented in the ITSO Method—that proposal must be rejected.
29. There is also the problem that reading the ticket or tickets in the smart media cannot at present be
carried out with a low cost reader, thus requiring tickets for a complex multi-leg multi-modal journey to be
sold with a printed itinerary.
30. At the management level, the ITSO Licensees (scheme owners/operators) have recently agreed to
form a co-operative of the schemes. 12 However, there is no provision for overall security management across
the network of schemes 13 , <strong>and</strong> some key supporting ITSO specification material has not been delivered.
31. DfT is currently looking at BIBO technology (Be-In Be-Out), ie automatic detection of the
passenger’s token as the passenger enters a vehicle, automatic charging, <strong>and</strong> automatic detection of exit.
Revenue protection is exceedingly diYcult with this method.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
32. London’s scheme is not scalable (or interoperable with other schemes using the same Oyster
technology) unless it is updated by adding ITSO technology. Considerable funding has already been
provided for this upgrade, but may not be enough. London’s scheme is expensive to run <strong>and</strong> more expensive
to change; it does not translate well to more rococo areas (eg rural areas).
33. Scotl<strong>and</strong> got the contractual organisation massively wrong, <strong>and</strong> their attempt to marry up transport
ticketing with use of smart cards for citizen services was bungled. A recent presentation to the DfTsupported
Transport Card Forum, by Anne Gibson of Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong>, illustrates the diYculties that
they have been <strong>and</strong> are having. An oYcer from the NoWcard scheme (Cumbria, Lancashire, Blackpool <strong>and</strong>
Blackburn) indicated at the time that they have made the same mistakes.
34. Planning for system integration in Scotl<strong>and</strong> was neglected, with delays to rollout of the acceptance
network now apparent <strong>and</strong> serious concerns by the commercial software contractor. The same delays can
be seen in the NoWcard project (Lancs <strong>and</strong> Cumbria—the same consultants as were used in Scotl<strong>and</strong> were
used for NoWcard). DfT has recently published a report on the early stages of ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster
integration 14 , again showing project planning failures, causing significant delays—the same consultants
were involved (<strong>and</strong> many of us knew about the contractual diYculties that would be encountered). By
contrast, Merseytravel’s Stage 1, to issue ITSO-compliant concession passes <strong>and</strong> outsource much of the
operation of the scheme, had project planning <strong>and</strong> system integration managed in-house by an expert
Information Systems team, <strong>and</strong> has quietly <strong>and</strong> successfully started issuing smart media passes. 15
35. Revenue protection is often very diYcult in an electronic ticketing system, but most publicly owned
public transport schemes in dense urban areas (ie in other countries, <strong>and</strong> perhaps also TfL) don’t concern
themselves too much about people who travel without paying: public transport is a public service.
10 A lower cost transitional method where only passes have to be accepted has been partly developed by the author of this
submission in work done for Merseytravel, but it has yet to be deployed; DfT have been made aware of this method but have
not responded.
11 Integrated Fare Management Architecture, currently awaiting publication after a successful final ballot.
12 That follows a proposal made over three years ago by Dr David Everett <strong>and</strong> the author of this submission, as part of a joint
piece of work for DfT <strong>and</strong> an agency acting for ODPM; that proposal was signed oV by DfT “for discussion” <strong>and</strong> sent to the
embryo Association of ITSO Licensed (<strong>and</strong> would-be licensed) Operators.
13 Here the new (draft) Information Assurance framework from Cabinet OYce CSIA applies.
14 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/otherresearch/itsooysterinteroperability
15 The author of this submission was technical adviser on the ITSO level aspects of this project; Paul Oakley, Information
Systems Manager at Merseytravel, should be able to provide information about the management methods used.

Ev 70 Transport Committee: Evidence
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
36. This is not an area about which I am knowledgeable.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
37. As a user of public transport, I do not know of an appeal mechanism, other than to write to the
operator of the service. More generally, the notices on First Group buses list a general complaints procedure
which is misleading: it appears from the notice that the ultimate authority is the TraYc Commissioner when
we know that the Commissioner’s powers are very limited. 16
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
38. Again I do not know.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
39. Yes, by definition, because they are private sector companies <strong>and</strong> so their measures are adequate until
shareholders (or in some cases govt) discover that they are not. From the public sector’s point of view, I do
not know what government’s attitude is to public transport as a public service, <strong>and</strong> am aware that the present
controls over the application of public sector funding for concessionary travel are, for a significant number
of local authorities, significantly inadequate.
40. However, for revenue protection of concessionary travel funds, there is no need to have a rollout of
the complete ITSO method: costs could be saved by using a lower cost method of accepting slightly modified
ITSO media—this has been partially designed by the author of this submission, using Merseytravel funding.
That stage of the Merseytravel project is shortly to be taken forward in a limited way: at the gates on
Merseyrail stations; DfT is aware of the concept but ITSO Ltd ignores it.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
41. From the debates in the Lords on the <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Bill (about which I have had some contact
with both Lord Bradshaw <strong>and</strong> Lady Scott), the Lib Dems clearly think not on the technology front <strong>and</strong> in
terms of the eligibility criteria, <strong>and</strong> both Lib Dems <strong>and</strong> Conservatives think not in the way in which the funds
are administered, so this is partly a political question. However, I think that I detected in Lord Davies’
answers in the Lords that govt may be thinking about extensions of eligibility (but probably only in
association with rolling out better management of the services, using the ITSO smart media method, so we
are looking at 2010–11).
42. Certainly I personally find the extended timeline of eligibility of concession passes provided in Greater
Bristol to be a boon (09.00 to well past midnight), <strong>and</strong> would welcome this extension being applied
nationally.
43. Technically, information reaching me (verbally, not confirmed) about the ideas within DfT for a five
year rollout of the ITSO Method show no sign of taking advantage of the lower cost method mentioned in
the answer to Q9 above.
44. The current proposal from the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> team in DfT is for framework agreements
with suppliers capable of re-issuing perhaps 6 million to 8 million passes before April 2008. Such a crash
programme is unlikely to hit the target date, <strong>and</strong> the exchanges in the Lords suggest that, at a high level,
govt is not expecting to by any means fully resolve the revenue allocation problems in time for the 2008–09
financial year. Such a crash programme might well trigger compensation payments on existing contracts
between local authorities <strong>and</strong> their suppliers, <strong>and</strong> is already in trouble because LAs in some cases cannot
fund the necessary database cleaning within the timetable. Much better would be to set up an 18 month
programme to re-issue, <strong>and</strong> also to group local authorities by regions, with regional br<strong>and</strong>ing, rather than
have a single national br<strong>and</strong>. For the summer of 2008 there could be special local agreements to accept all
passes at holiday hot-spots such as Blackpool, along with DfT funding for training <strong>and</strong> inspectors.
16 Putting Passengers First gives the impression that only punctuality <strong>and</strong> reliability (both technical terms in the context, not
having their normal meaning) matter, when delivery against every parameter of a service is essential for its overall success.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 71
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
45. No, but, for geographical areas, the legal minimum 2008 provision will considerably improve matters;
local arrangements for enhanced eligibility in dense urban areas (such as Greater Bristol) with multiple
CTAs 17 will benefit many travellers. For transport modes, there are clearly numerous areas where multimodal
eligibility would be sensible from the customer’s point of view.
46. The author of this submission is an independent ICT Strategy <strong>and</strong> Secure Technology consultant,
particularly for e-government <strong>and</strong> electronic transport ticketing methods. He is also working with Smartex
Ltd on the development of PSSG, a new trade association for businesses active in the same fields. Further
information may be found in a CV already submitted to the Committee.
February 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Tony Cornah <strong>and</strong> Polly Blacker (TPT 06)
To put us in context, we are Cycle Trainers, we rely on cycling as our main means of transport (we don’t
own a car) <strong>and</strong> are members of the SheYeld Cycle Campaigning group PedalPushers (so we have a feel for
what other regular cyclists in the area think too). We feel that provision for integrating cycling with other
means of transport is so poor as to be laughable.
To take train travel in Britain first:
1. We can’t book our bikes onto trains at the same time as we book our tickets online. This means that
we can’t really book online as we then risk not getting our bikes onto the trains we’ve booked. The facility
did exist in the past (can’t remember when it last did) but was removed by the operating companies.
2. Calling one of the train operators to try to book tickets <strong>and</strong> bikes at the same time often results in
various levels of frustration when the person you’re talking to either doesn’t underst<strong>and</strong> what you want or
seems not to have been trained in how to use the system to provide it.
3. Even when we go down to the station, <strong>and</strong> therefore suVer the inevitable enormously lengthy queues,
the ticket oYcer has to book tickets first <strong>and</strong> then use a separate system to confirm that cycle spaces are
available. This often results in several attempts before a suitable service can be identified (<strong>and</strong> increases the
length of the queue behind us!).
4. Many services restrict the number of bikes on any service to 2: how then can a family plan a trip?
5. Some train operators don’t provide a facility to book bikes onto their trains: to be fair they are often
the most flexible companies with the more helpful staV but it means that a long weekend away with bikes
is potentially subject to others’ dem<strong>and</strong>s rather than being bookable. With diVerent operators having
diVerent rules there is a pressing need for all staV to be trained to be as flexible as possible in all
circumstances.
6. To see a functioning cycle-friendly service try Deutsche Bahn’s website (in English too) at http://
reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/e which covers all of Europe: how’s that for integration?
Next, consider trying to plan a trip by train <strong>and</strong> bike to Europe:
1. First reference is to the website above http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/e which enables
onward travel after the Channel with relative easy <strong>and</strong> integration.
2. Now to Eurostar, who won’t guarantee that a bike booked onto one of their services will arrive until
up to 24 hours after you do: how do you plan a journey with that sort of restriction in place?
Continuing with coach services:
1. I think it is the case that no coach service will allow a conventional bike to be carried. When we
travelled fairly extensively in Central <strong>and</strong> Southern Europe for a year we were invariably able to book our
two bikes on to local <strong>and</strong> international services as luggage: we took responsibility for removing front wheels
where necessary <strong>and</strong> stowing the bikes in the hold but there was rarely any conflict with other dem<strong>and</strong>s on
the luggage space.
More locally, the SheYeld Supertram (but it applies to all other tram services in the UK as far as I know):
1. The service operators will not allow a conventional bike onto their trams under any circumstances.
2. It would make far more sense for the operators to allow bikes to be carried on the less busy services (<strong>and</strong>
at slacker times of the day) always with the proviso that pushchairs, buggies, wheelchairs, sudden influxes of
passengers, etc would have priority.
17 <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Authorities.

Ev 72 Transport Committee: Evidence
I hope that the above comments fall into your committee’s remit as the integration of all modes of public
transport with non-polluting options at either end (or even in the middle) seems to us to be vital to helping
tackle pollution <strong>and</strong> climate change.
March 2007
0.0. Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Stagecoach Group plc (TPT 07)
0.1 Stagecoach Group welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry <strong>and</strong> present evidence to the
Transport Committee.
0.2 Stagecoach Group is a leading international public transportation group, with extensive operations
in the UK, United States <strong>and</strong> Canada. The Group employs around 27,000 people, <strong>and</strong> operates bus, coach,
rail, <strong>and</strong> tram services.
0.3 In the UK, our fleet of around 7,000 buses connects communities in more than 100 towns <strong>and</strong> cities
across the country. We carry nearly two million passengers a day on a network stretching from the
Highl<strong>and</strong>s of Scotl<strong>and</strong> to south-west Engl<strong>and</strong>. It includes major city bus operations in Liverpool, Newcastle,
Hull, Manchester, Oxford, SheYeld <strong>and</strong> Cambridge.
0.4 We also operate express coach services linking major towns within our regional operating company
areas. The Group runs the market-leading budget inter-city coach service, megabus.com, which carries
around two million passengers a year on a network covering more than 30 locations. Scottish Citylink, our
joint venture with ComfortDelGro, is the leading provider of inter-city express coach travel in Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
0.5 Stagecoach Group is a major rail operator <strong>and</strong> has an involvement in running around a quarter of
the UK passenger rail network. The Group operates the South Western rail franchise, which incorporates
the South West Trains <strong>and</strong> Isl<strong>and</strong> Line networks. South West Trains, the UK’s biggest commuter franchise,
runs nearly 1,700 trains a day in south-west Engl<strong>and</strong> out of London Waterloo railway station. Isl<strong>and</strong> Line,
on the Isle of Wight, has been designated a Community Rail Partnership. We also operate Supertram, a 28
km light rail network incorporating three routes in the city of SheYeld.
In addition, Stagecoach Group has a 49% shareholding in Virgin Rail Group, which operates the West
Coast <strong>and</strong> CrossCountry inter-city rail franchises.
0.6 The Transport Committee is considering ticketing arrangements <strong>and</strong> concessionary travel on public
transport, specifically the way in which ticketing is organised, h<strong>and</strong>led <strong>and</strong> enforced. We believe that
ticketing is an important contributory factor in attracting passengers, delivering modal shift <strong>and</strong> driving
growth in the future.
0.7 The information below outlines Stagecoach Group’s views in response to the specific questions set
out in the Transport Committee’s call for evidence, published on 8 February 2007.
1.0 Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
1.1 It is fair to say that ticketing is already highly integrated across rail. Indeed, the structure of rail
franchising requires full through ticketing <strong>and</strong> inter-availability to be maintained, <strong>and</strong> there are strong
commercial imperatives to do this as well. It could be argued that integration is less eVective between
diVerent modes, although great strides have been made in the past ten years with the introduction of bus
links <strong>and</strong> bus-rail schemes under the “PlusBus” banner, to feed into rail stations from communities remote
for the network. There is still plenty of scope for enhancing these schemes as they are still somewhat
sporadic. The best example of integration remains the example of travel to <strong>and</strong> within London, where
integration between national rail <strong>and</strong> Transport for London ticketing has existed for over 20 years. ITSO
could provide the common platform to make greater integration possible.
1.2 Each of the metropolitan areas has a range of integrated multi bus operator <strong>and</strong> multi modal tickets as
do many Shire Counties. The Transport Act 2000 enables Authorities to require bus operators to introduce
ticketing schemes where none exist. There is, therefore, no reason why integrated bus tickets are not oVered
wherever they are needed.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 73
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 The Government has made an important step in facilitating easier integration between modes by
m<strong>and</strong>ating ITSO as the national public transport smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard. Going forward, this will provide a
common platform for schemes on all modes. By specifiying the format of data across each interface, ITSO
enables scheme implementers to mix <strong>and</strong> match their system component suppliers in the knowledge that they
will be able to work together.
2.2 However, technical solutions need to be complemented by commercial strategies that ensure
incentives exist for deals to be made between diVerent ITSO users. Clearly, there needs to be a business case
to support each such strategy.
2.3 It is important that scheme promoters—whether they are public authorities promoting concessionary
travel schemes, or bus or rail operators promoting their own commercial ticketing schemes—should drive
forward the appropriate commercial mechanisms. They are best placed to ensure that they are appropriate,
adequate <strong>and</strong> eVective in achieving the desired objectives.
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 The last 12 months has seen the rail industry increasingly take up smartcard technologies, spurred on
by inclusion in rail franchises as they come up for renewal as well as local authority sponsorship of ITSObased
concessionary schemes. Stagecoach is fully supportive of the take up of smartcard technologies in the
bus <strong>and</strong> rail industries <strong>and</strong> is actively developing schemes for its bus <strong>and</strong> rail companies.
3.2 It is widely accepted that it is diYcult to make a st<strong>and</strong>-alone case for commercial smartcard systems
on buses. However, the business case improves considerably when the system infrastructure is already in
place. Thus the introduction of nationwide smartcards for concessionary travel on buses is an important
first step in developing the use of smartcards for commercial ticketing applications.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
4.1 In theory, there is no reason why ITSO cannot cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel
providers. As ITSO is an open st<strong>and</strong>ard, it has the added advantage that a scheme promoter does not need
to lock in to one sole supplier. This has further benefits when consideration is given to system replacement,
which can be undertaken on a component-by-component basis. However, as discussed earlier, while ITSO
deals with the technical issues arising from the need to operate from a common smartcard platform, it does
not in itself address commercial issues. Whether the necessary commercial agreements that drive integration
are made will depend on operators being incentivised to make a positive business case.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
5.1 London has worked well as an example of how a transport smartcard can work, although it has also
thrown into relief some of the issues that need to be overcome. On the positive side, Oyster works well from
the customer point of view, as it is popular <strong>and</strong> flexible. There is no doubt that the rapid movement of
passengers over to Oyster has been very heavily influenced by pricing strategies that charge significant
premiums to passengers choosing to pay with cash. On the systems side, the use of a PFI contract between
TfL <strong>and</strong> a sole supplier has created numerous hurdles to the eVective <strong>and</strong> rapid rollout of Oyster to TOCs.
The principles behind the ITSO platform are far more straightforward in permitting the organic growth of
individual schemes <strong>and</strong> linkages between them.
5.2 In Scotl<strong>and</strong> the scheme is still in the implementation phase, but it is already producing benefits for
the rest of the UK in that a number of ticket machine suppliers have been contracted to provide the necessary
on bus equipment to the ITSO specification. They will, therefore, be well placed to provide equipment for
English systems when called upon to do so.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
6.1 Stagecoach Group believes the legal framework in which ticket inspectors operate appears both fair
<strong>and</strong> reasonable. We believe the respective rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> ticket inspectors are well balanced <strong>and</strong>
appropriate, providing they are properly <strong>and</strong> consistently applied <strong>and</strong> managed.

Ev 74 Transport Committee: Evidence
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
7.1 There is no doubt that the area of rail penalty fares is a sensitive one that requires the highest
st<strong>and</strong>ards of stewardship. To ensure that stewardship is carried out in a fair <strong>and</strong> reasonable way, passengers
currently have the right of appeal to an independent appeals body IPFAS (the Independent Penalty Fares
Appeals Service).
7.2 In the case of buses, Stagecoach companies have not experienced any issues that they have been
unable to resolve with those who have been charged penalty fares. Should it prove necessary, the TraYc
Commissioner would arbitrate in such cases.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
8.1 Clearly, one of the keys to a successful revenue protection policy is communication, ensuring
passengers know what the rules are, how they are to be applied <strong>and</strong> what recompense is available. It is clearly
in everyone’s interest, not least that of the genuine fare-paying passenger, that all available revenue is
collected. The best environment is one where a combination of education <strong>and</strong> enforcement convinces people
it is simply not worthwhile economically trying to travel without a ticket.
8.2 However, it can sometimes be diYcult for bus ticket inspectors to establish a person’s identity, which
can make penalty fares diYcult to collect.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
9.1 Stagecoach, through its bus <strong>and</strong> rail companies, is adequately incentivised to collect as much revenue
as possible from passengers <strong>and</strong> to do everything possible to minimise ticketless travel.
9.2 Stagecoach designs its bus ticketing systems to enable drivers to visually check all prepaid tickets,
which itself limits fares evasion. The introduction of smartcards would enable more sophisticated fares
oVers, which are currently precluded by this visual inspection constraint.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 Stagecoach would ideally like to see a nationally administered concessionary travel scheme in
Engl<strong>and</strong>, modelled broadly on the Scottish arrangements. 10.2 While it is for DfT to determine how the
English national scheme will function, Stagecoach would wish DfT to ensure that the funds available to
reimburse operators under the scheme are suYcient to minimise the need for appeals against the proposed
reimbursement arrangements.10.3 Stagecoach would also welcome the use of smartcards by all
concessionary bus pass holders as this would minimise the potential for fraudulent use <strong>and</strong> provide accurate
recording of trips made, thereby aiding reimbursement arrangements.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
11.1 The introduction of English national concessionary travel on buses from April 2008 will increase the
geographic coverage of concessionary travel significantly.
11.2 Local concessionary authorities are currently able to extend the concessions to tram <strong>and</strong> rail modes
if they so wish <strong>and</strong> some already do so, within their area of jurisdiction.
11.3 Whether or not such facilities should be provided across all modes nationwide, or across the whole
of Great Britain is a matter for Government.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority <strong>and</strong> Executive (GMPTAE)
(TPT 08)
Summary
— The range <strong>and</strong> pricing of public transport tickets available in Greater Manchester is over-complex
<strong>and</strong> acts as a disincentive for passengers to travel <strong>and</strong> to change between modes or services.
— On-bus cash fares <strong>and</strong> ticket sales cause significant boarding delays <strong>and</strong> can negate much of the
investment that has taken place in bus priority measures.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 75
— Premium pricing of all operator bus tickets, together with discounting of single operator tickets
mean that, in Greater Manchester, only 12% of all paid-for tickets are valid on all buses
— We believe that developing an easy-to-underst<strong>and</strong>, easy-to-use ticketing system is a key factor in
determining the attractiveness <strong>and</strong> eYciency of public transport services.
— However, even with the simplest of schemes, tickets must remain aVordable. There is evidence in
Greater Manchester that ticket complexity <strong>and</strong> fare levels restrict the mobility of the most
disadvantaged members of the community.
— ITSO compliant Smartcards have the potential to facilitate better inter-operability, interchange
<strong>and</strong> cross-boundary travel. The government should fully fund the roll out of ITSO smartcards in
Engl<strong>and</strong> as has happened in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales.
— In pursuit of our social inclusion objectives, Passenger Transport Authorities should have the
power <strong>and</strong> funding to grant concessions to groups other than the elderly, disabled <strong>and</strong> children,
including unemployed people, those on low incomes <strong>and</strong> young people.
B. Background
B.1 GMPTA/E, working with its partners, the district councils, are responsible for the planning, coordination
<strong>and</strong> development of the public transport network in Greater Manchester. Public transport
services are however, provided largely on a commercial basis by private operators, including around 70 bus
operators, each responsible for their own fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing arrangements. GMPTA/E has an aspiration
for a ticketing system that is “easy-to-underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> easy-to-use”, but the reality is very diVerent; there are
approaching 100 diVerent ticket products available to passengers, not counting individual operators’ single
trip tickets
B.2 In common with other transport authorities, our Local Transport Plan represents the policy
framework <strong>and</strong> scheme programme for the conurbation over a five-year period. However, our long term
vision <strong>and</strong> strategic direction is provided by the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy
(GMITS) which was produced jointly by GMPTA/E <strong>and</strong> the local authorities in April 2005 <strong>and</strong> forms the
basis for our Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid currently being prepared for submission to Government
in July 2007. GMITS emphasises the importance of transport investment to secure future economic growth,
regeneration <strong>and</strong> quality of life improvements across the conurbation. A range of measures is proposed to
deliver a sustainable network which reduces car dependency through a combination of dem<strong>and</strong>
management measures <strong>and</strong> extensive investment to improve the quality <strong>and</strong> coverage of the public transport
system. The development <strong>and</strong> design of a ticketing <strong>and</strong> fares system is identified as a key factor in
determining the attractiveness <strong>and</strong> eYciency of the future public transport network so as to achieve our
modal split <strong>and</strong> social inclusion objectives.
B.3 GMTL 21 provides a range of tickets valid on all operators’ services. However, it is widely regarded
that the complexity of tickets <strong>and</strong> fares is a major disincentive to using public transport, which then limits
the potential to increase the modal share of public transport. <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> fares for local bus services are
particularly complex, with diVerences in the level <strong>and</strong> structure of fares levied by individual operators <strong>and</strong>
a number of single-operator period tickets oVered.
B.4 On average, buses in Greater Manchester spend a third of their journey time stationary or moving
slowly. Boarding <strong>and</strong> alighting accounts for about a third of this (11% of overall journey time). There is
considerable variation in individual passenger boarding times, ranging from an average of around four
seconds for pass users, to six to nine seconds for a single or return ticket <strong>and</strong> 12–15 seconds for the initial
on-bus sale of day/weekly tickets. A high proportion of single-operator weekly tickets are sold on Monday
mornings leading to a significant variation in boarding times over the course of the week. GMPTE is
currently working with bus operators in Greater Manchester to identify ways of improving boarding times
by increasing the level of rules of oV-bus tickets, including the provision of on-street ticket machines.
B5 Developing a pilot ITSO compliant smartcard project.
A pilot scheme with a local bus operator to promote oV-bus ticket sales.
B.6 It is against this background that GMPTA/E oVers the following comments on the questions posed
in the Committee’s Terms of Reference <strong>and</strong> Call for Evidence.
18 Greater Manchester <strong>Travel</strong>cards Limited, a consortium of local public transport operators <strong>and</strong> GMPTE.

Ev 76 Transport Committee: Evidence
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Q1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport between diVerent geographical
areas?
1.1 Within Greater Manchester there is a fairly comprehensive range of inter modal tickets covering day,
weekly <strong>and</strong> longer period travelcards. However, there are still gaps in coverage—for example there is no
ticket that is available to peak travellers that covers all modes.
1.2 Overall there is insuYcient integration amongst modes. This in part stems from the fact that ticketing
policies are diVerent between bus <strong>and</strong> the other modes. On train <strong>and</strong> tram, it is nearly always possible to
buy a through ticket from any point on the network to any other point—“one journey, one ticket”. This has
made it easier to have through ticketing between train <strong>and</strong> Metrolink in Greater Manchester.
1.3 In contrast, bus passengers have to buy a new ticket every time they change bus routes, unless it is
cheaper to buy a day ticket (if one is available). This discourages interchange <strong>and</strong> integration as there is not
full ticketing integration across bus as a mode. For many passengers this is more important than inter-modal
integration. Journeys requiring interchange can be even more diYcult where they involve travel across local
authority boundaries.
1.4 Apart from the national rail network, diVerent operators have their own ticketing systems <strong>and</strong> this
can lead to problems with automated ticket checking. Where there are inter-modal, integrated tickets they
are always priced at a significant premium to other tickets valid only on one mode or for one operator. For
example, the two main bus operators in Greater Manchester, First <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach, oVer weekly tickets
priced at £13.00 <strong>and</strong> £9.50 respectively whereas the all operator bus weekly is £15.00. As a consequence, only
12% of all paid bus journeys (ie excluding use of concessionary passengers, school <strong>and</strong> employee passes)
involve a ticket valid on all buses. There is evidence in Greater Manchester that some passengers avoid
travelling outside the territory of their local dominant bus operator because they cannot aVord to buy a more
expensive multi-operator ticket. Because making an inter modal journey or even changing buses often
carries a financial penalty few passengers interchange—hence operators argue that there is no dem<strong>and</strong> for
interchange.
1.5 GMPTA is one of the few Authorities that has made a statutory <strong>Ticketing</strong> Scheme under the
provisions of S.135—138 of the Transport Act. However, whilst we have powers to require integrated tickets
we cannot control the price of those tickets as in a deregulated bus market, operators are free to set their
own fares.
Q2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 We are unaware of any overall government strategy for integrating ticketing systems. DfT has
supported the development of the ITSO specification for Smartcards (which can facilitate but not in
themselves create integrated ticketing). The Department has insisted that it will not fund smartcard ticketing
systems that are not ITSO compliant.
2.2 However, this is, in many ways, negative. There does not appear to be any strategy to encourage
development of integrated ticketing—this is left to PTA/Es <strong>and</strong> operators. However, bus operators are still
more concerned with maximising market share than with increasing the overall market for public transport
through better integration.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
Q3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 A number of Authorities started work on adopting smartcard ticketing technology in the early 1990s,
an example being TfLs Oyster card system which was launched in 1998.
3.2 It was quickly recognised that interoperability of ticketing schemes between authorities, operators,
transport modes <strong>and</strong> with other applications was essential <strong>and</strong> ITSO was established as a consequence in
1998. ITSO is the most comprehensive <strong>and</strong> secure ticketing interoperability ticketing st<strong>and</strong>ard in the world.
However, with the benefit of hindsight it took too long to develop <strong>and</strong> did not involve industry suppliers
early enough in its development. The outcome is that there have been too many latent technical issues which
have delayed its implementation <strong>and</strong> wider adoption. During the development of ITSO those authorities
who were contemplating the introduction of smartcard ticketing decided correctly to defer its introduction

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 77
until the final specification of ITSO was published. The cost of migrating a non or partial ITSO system to
full ITSO certification is substantial, as TfL has found. Those authorities which had an existing smartcard
system essentially required funding support from DfT to migrate to ITSO compliance.
3.3 The extent of the technical modifications since the final ITSO specification was published in March
2003 has caused a number of authorities to defer a decision on adopting ITSO until they see it operating
successfully on more than the current h<strong>and</strong>ful of individual bus routes.
3.4 The only major smartcard ticketing systems which have proceeded since ITSO was launched have
been in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales where the funding has been provided by the Scottish Executive <strong>and</strong> the Welsh
Assembly respectively. Thus the industry is not currently taking up smartcard ticketing technology
adequately because it recognises the inherent risk. Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales are proceeding because the risk has
been minimised by the provision of full funding.
3.5 Most authorities would like to see ITSO systems operating successfully on diVerent bus routes
involving multiple bus operators, across boundaries <strong>and</strong> ideally on multimodal transport before they will
regard the risks to be minimal. One solution would be for central government to fully fund new ticketing
systems as in the case of Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales.
Q4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
4.1 ITSO has been designed to provide interoperability across ticket types for diVerent modes of
transport <strong>and</strong> to allow multiple applications to co-exist including multiple purses. From a technical
perspective ITSO does provide passengers with a secure multiple choice smartcard <strong>and</strong> scope to use other
media, for example, mobile phones.
4.2 As there are no ITSO systems currently operating in UK on a major scale involving multimodal travel
across ticketing authority boundaries there are still some operational unknowns.
4.3 Some bus operators have expressed concerns about the level of ITSO licence fees <strong>and</strong> charges.
4.4 ITSO per se does not solve many of the practical issues of using a smartcard or a mobile phone for
ticketing. For example, should passengers be asked to validate their journey when they get on <strong>and</strong> oV a bus
(check in/check out) as occurs in closed rail systems; what time period should be allowed for passengers to
interchange between routes <strong>and</strong> modes when using one ticket type. ITSO does provide the technical means
to solve these policy options.
4.5 A stored value ticketing solution is probably the simplest approach to interoperability for the vast
range of tickets on sale today in UK. The use of ITSO <strong>and</strong> the ticketing system software enables the
calculation of “the fairest fare” based on actual usage eg it emulates a single trip, a daily or weekly ticket
based on the journeys undertaken by the passenger. A passenger buying a weekly or monthly ticket in
advance <strong>and</strong> then unable to use the full value due to changes in work requirements or illness would only pay
for the journeys actually made.
Q5. What can be learned from the experience of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard
technology is already in place?
5.1 The most obvious <strong>and</strong> least practised lesson is to develop st<strong>and</strong>ards for interoperability before
introducing new technology. The problem is that technology is commercially driven <strong>and</strong> normally develops
much faster than st<strong>and</strong>ards which are generally government driven <strong>and</strong> funded. Where the need for
st<strong>and</strong>ards has been legislated by governments in advance, such as in mobile phones the resulting
interoperability has allowed almost three billion mobile phone users to operate across over 170 countries
today.
5.2 The second lesson is that there needs to be far more consultation both between transport authorities
<strong>and</strong> with suppliers before introducing major new technology schemes.
5.3 Smartcard ticketing interoperability would have been achieved far earlier in the UK if each tender for
a new ticketing system had m<strong>and</strong>ated the requirement for open system interfaces (st<strong>and</strong>ards) <strong>and</strong> included a
10–15% retention amount which would be held <strong>and</strong> only paid if interoperability is fully achieved with other
systems within a given time period. Industry is far more adept at achieving interoperability if there is a
financial incentive.
5.4 Finally, simplified flat fares in London have been the key to the successful adoption of Oyster card
<strong>and</strong> have helped to speed up journeys by taking cash fares oV buses in central London.

Ev 78 Transport Committee: Evidence
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
GMPTA/E has no comments to oVer on Q6–Q9.
Q6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors’ function appropriate?
Q7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Q8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
Q9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
Q10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 The Government’s decisions to firstly introduce a local free bus fares scheme for pensioners <strong>and</strong>
disabled people from April 2006 <strong>and</strong> then, from April 2008, to make this available on a national basis has
been widely welcomed by concessionaires. In Greater Manchester we have taken the decision to also make
free travel available on local tram <strong>and</strong> rail services. This scheme is undoubtedly leading to greater use of
public transport <strong>and</strong> a reduction in car use, particularly among younger pensioners amongst whom car
ownership <strong>and</strong> car use has been rising over recent decades. The local scheme is simple <strong>and</strong> well understood
by users. The extension of the scheme next year will provide additional benefits <strong>and</strong> will be particularly well
received by those who need to make cross boundary journeys on a regular basis or who are visiting other
parts of the country.
10.2 However, the 2008 scheme presents huge financial risks to authorities that have high visitor numbers
such as Greater Manchester. The <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill requires the authority in which a travel
concession journey begins to reimburse the bus operator. This means that whilst the large number of visitors
who travel in to Greater Manchester by bus will have their incoming journey reimbursed by their originating
authority, GMPTA will have to pay for the return journey <strong>and</strong> any journeys that take place within Greater
Manchester during the period of that visit. Similarly, large numbers of visitors will continue to travel to
Greater Manchester by car or by train <strong>and</strong> once within the county boundary they will be able to travel by
bus. In such circumstances, the journey will have originated within Greater Manchester <strong>and</strong> it will fall to
GMPTA to reimburse the operator.
10.3 There is also a contrast between the national scheme which is available for pensioners <strong>and</strong> disabled
people <strong>and</strong> the lack of any equivalent scheme for children <strong>and</strong> other potentially vulnerable groups. In
Greater Manchester the recent decision of the Government assessor to accept the arguments of the local bus
operators that they should receive additional re imbursement for participating in the national scheme has
meant that, in order to balance its budget, the PTA has reluctantly had to increase the child concessionary
fare from 50 pence to 70 pence. In addition we, along with other transport authorities, do not have the power
to grant concessions to unemployed people or others on low income. It should also be noted that many
authorities, including all our neighbours, oVer a significantly less generous scheme for children than Greater
Manchester with half fare schemes being commonplace. In Greater Manchester we estimate that a half fare
scheme would mean that the average child fare would increase to 85 pence.
10.3 We would argue that there is a case for reviewing the categories of people who are entitled to
concessions <strong>and</strong> also for considering whether available national resources should be more evenly allocated
<strong>and</strong> enabling local transport authorities to balance the needs of diVerent groups in a more even h<strong>and</strong>ed way.
Given that children <strong>and</strong> young people are potentially the public transport users of tomorrow concessions
which help to develop the public transport habit could be seen to be a good investment. There is therefore
a need for greater clarity about the overall objectives of the Government’s strategy in these terms. If modal
shift <strong>and</strong> promotion of public transport is an objective then some degree of support towards the transport
costs of children <strong>and</strong> young people is likely to deliver positive outcomes.
Q11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
11.1 Greater Manchester has a history of oVering concessions across all modes of public transport. As
mentioned above the recently introduced free scheme is available across the bus, rail <strong>and</strong> tram networks.
We recognise however that not all authorities oVer similar schemes <strong>and</strong> the oVer to concessionaires on local
rail <strong>and</strong> light rail networks is likely to continue to vary significantly across diVerent areas after April 2008.
The present problems that arise for pensioners <strong>and</strong> disabled people making cross boundary bus journeys
are likely to be alleviated once the national scheme is introduced next year but anomalies are likely to persist
for other groups of concessionaires who are not subject to the national scheme.
March 2007

Integrated Transport
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch (TPT 09)
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 79
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent geographical areas?
In London significant progress has been made with integration of multi-trip ticketing, notably through
the multi-modal <strong>Travel</strong>card. More recently prepayment for individual trips by diVerent modes has become
available in the form of Oyster Pay-as-you-go. In other areas, the introduction of PlusBus tickets has
extended the scope of through ticketing between rail <strong>and</strong> bus services. However, this is often still limited to
tickets which are bought at rail stations for journeys which involve the use of a bus at the end of a train
journey. In many cases it would also be desirable from the passengers’ perspective to be able to purchase a
combined bus <strong>and</strong> rail ticket (or one day <strong>Travel</strong>card) on the bus to the station. There is also still much that
could be done to make the public more aware of the ability to purchase such through tickets, with their
associated benefits.
London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch has recently expressed concern about the length of queues at Underground ticket
oYces at major National Rail termini in London (Kings Cross, Euston, Paddington, Victoria, Liverpool
Street). Much of this problem stems from rail passengers arriving without tickets that would take them
onward via the Underground. In many cases this is because they have not been made aware of the
availability at their stations of origin of tickets which include a <strong>Travel</strong>card. In the case of some journeys
from places outside the former Network SouthEast area, no such through ticket exists. For visitors to
London staying for more than one day, it would be helpful if the longer distance train operators (Virgin,
Midl<strong>and</strong> Main Line, One, GNER, First Great Western) followed the example of Gatwick Express <strong>and</strong> sold
pre-paid Oyster Pay-as-you-go cards on their trains <strong>and</strong> at booking oYces. It will be particularly important
to resolve this matter before the 2012 Olympics.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
If the Government has such a policy, we are not aware of it, as the current situation is highly reliant on
the initiative of individual companies <strong>and</strong> transport authorities. Any involvement from the Department for
Transport is largely reactive in nature, except to the extent that participation in the all-operator National
Rail ticketing system is an obligation placed upon all franchised train companies. Indeed, it is a licence
condition imposed by the OYce of Rail Regulation on unfranchised operators as well. The Government has
only very lately chosen to use its influence as the franchising authority for the railways to promote the take
up of smartcards.
Outside Greater London the interpretation by the OYce of Fair Trading of competition law has had an
inhibiting impact on the development of integrated ticketing systems. It is diYcult—or there is little
incentive—in practice to develop these without co-ordinating fares charged, rendering operators open to
the risk of accusations of anti-competitive behaviour (conduct presumed by the law to be contrary to the
public interest).
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Transport for London’s Oystercard is one of the most extensive <strong>and</strong> versatile contactless smartcard
systems in the world. Its development predated any significant interest on the part of the Department for
Transport <strong>and</strong> its regulatory oVshoots in such technology, with the result that—for example—National Rail
operators have until recently been under no obligation to participate in it.
The rate at which smartcard technology is now taken up further in the public transport sector will be
determined by the willingness of the DfT to use its power through the franchising system to require rail
companies to do so. To date, with a few notable exceptions, British bus <strong>and</strong> train companies have been very
slow to introduce smartcard ticketing. This is despite its obvious benefits both to passengers (in terms of
convenience <strong>and</strong> a wider range of fares options) <strong>and</strong> to operators (in terms of reduced costs of fare collection
<strong>and</strong> a clearer knowledge of journey patterns).
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
Very few ITSO compliant systems are yet operational, so it is too early to say with confidence whether
ITSO will provide adequately for the needs both of passengers <strong>and</strong> operators. The development of Oyster
preceded the development of the ITSO specifications, <strong>and</strong> there are some technical challenges to be
overcome in ensuring that the two are compatible (not least in the area of protecting intellectual property
rights).

Ev 80 Transport Committee: Evidence
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
Transport for London had to design a bespoke system in the absence of a fully-developed <strong>and</strong>
commercially available product. The advent of contactless bank cards <strong>and</strong> the further development of
mobile phone technology are pushing back the boundaries of what it may be possible to achieve (for example
the use of e-tickets via mobile phones by Chiltern Railways <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach’s Megatrain). The key to the
success of such initiatives will be the ability to add low value cash transactions such as buying newspapers
<strong>and</strong> snacks, <strong>and</strong> paying parking fees. The development <strong>and</strong> start-up costs may be prohibitive for small
operators unless they are able to participate in joint industry-wide schemes.
The high take-up rate in London has been boosted by the substantial fares savings oVered to passengers
willing <strong>and</strong> able to switch to electronic payment technology. But currently these savings are only available
to users travelling on services provided by Transport for London, <strong>and</strong> they could be withdrawn at any time.
Currently, there seems little prospect of their being extended to National Rail passengers when Oyster payas-you-go
becomes more generally available to them too.
It has also been necessary to have a high level of reliability in the cards <strong>and</strong> the card-reading equipment
(to maintain user confidence), a wide network of sales outlets, <strong>and</strong> a easily-accessible “helpline” to answer
queries <strong>and</strong> resolve diYculties. It is unfortunate that in the case of Transport for London the accuracy of
information oVered via the helpline, <strong>and</strong> the speed at which erroneous transactions are corrected, has been
less than ideal, at least in the initial period. The fact that the same Oyster br<strong>and</strong>ing has been used both for
season tickets <strong>and</strong> for stored value (Pay-as-you-go) cards has undoubtedly made smartcard ticketing more
diYcult for users—<strong>and</strong> prospective users—to underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> new entrants may wish to consider whether
there would be advantages in keeping these two fare products more visibly distinct.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors appropriate?
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well balanced?
The legal framework has two distinct parts, though it is likely that many passengers (<strong>and</strong> some transport
operators’ staV) have only limited awareness of the diVerence between them.
On the one h<strong>and</strong>, there are provisions in the Regulation of Railways Act, the railway companies’ byelaws,
<strong>and</strong> the PCV “Conduct” regulations (applying to buses), which make travel without a valid ticket an
oVence, punishable with a fine—but only on conviction in a criminal court.
On the other h<strong>and</strong>, railway companies <strong>and</strong> organisations providing services under the auspices of
Transport for London can (but are not obliged to) charge penalty fares. Despite their title, these fares are
not fines, but simply a higher charge levied retrospectively for travel made without a ticket having been
purchased in advance. An unpaid penalty fare is a civil debt, recoverable by applying for an order in a
civil court.
Prosecutions are expensive to bring, <strong>and</strong> not necessarily easy to secure since it is necessary to prove intent
to defraud the operator—whereas the in the case of penalty fares, the simple test of “could the passenger
produce a valid ticket when challenged?” applies, <strong>and</strong> the burden of proof is reversed. Certainly, the police
(working in conjunction with ticket inspectors) have found the existence of a penalty fares scheme on
London buses a useful means of identifying passengers who have not only neglected to pay for their journeys
but who may be committing other misdemeanours as well, such as carrying illegal substances. This facility
is not generally available to them on buses elsewhere, because other bus companies do not have similar
schemes.
It is in the interests of all honest passengers that there should be eVective means of preventing fares
evasion, not least because the revenue lost by this means may be reflected in higher charges paid by the rest
of the travelling public. For this reason, London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch’s predecessor did not object when—in the
1980s—British Rail <strong>and</strong> London Transport first sought <strong>and</strong> obtained powers to levy penalty fares, provided
that suYcient safeguards were put in place to minimise the likelihood of innocent users falling foul of the
system.
In particular, we argued then (<strong>and</strong> continue to believe) that all reasonably practicable steps must be taken:
(a) to publicise the existence of the penalty fares scheme, <strong>and</strong> the manner in which it works;
(b) to ensure that passengers have a convenient opportunity to pay for their travel before—or at the
start of—their journey, <strong>and</strong> are not at risk of being penalised when no such opportunity is
provided;
(c) to warn passengers of the fact when they are entering a penalty fare area (eg a platform, train or
bus);

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 81
(d) to explain to them why they are being issued with a penalty fare when this happens, <strong>and</strong> of their
right of appeal;
(e) to provide an objective, impartial <strong>and</strong> demonstrably independent system for determining
appeals; <strong>and</strong>
(f) to operate the scheme in a consistent manner, so that the same actions by diVerent passengers (or
by the same passenger on diVerent occasions) have the same consequences.
Our caseload suggests that none of these conditions is invariably met, <strong>and</strong> that much more could be done
to educate passengers about the existence <strong>and</strong> operation of penalty fare schemes, both in general <strong>and</strong> at the
time they are issued with penalty fares. The fact that not all transport operators choose to have such schemes
at all, <strong>and</strong> that even where they do not all ticket inspectors are empowered to issue penalty fares under them,
undoubtedly creates confusion—because the same action on the part of a passenger will have a diVerent
outcome depending on where <strong>and</strong> by whom the ticket (if any) is inspected. As with the enforcement of
parking controls, we believe that it is often diYcult for staV “on the ground” to be expected (<strong>and</strong> seen) to
exercise discretion in a manner which is demonstrably fair, so we recognise that it may be better for flexibility
to be exercised via an appeals system. But we have three main criticisms of the manner in which they
currently operate.
First, transport operators are perceived to be judges in their own cause. It was only after penalty fares
had existed for more than a decade that Transport for London was finally persuaded to set up an
independent appeals body (whose members are nominated by London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch—an arrangement
which now works well). But those National Rail operators who have penalty fare schemes use what are
eVectively in-house appeals services, since they are operated from railway premises by railway employees,
<strong>and</strong> the guidelines under which they work are not published. Their communications are frequently
peremptory <strong>and</strong> give little or no indication of the grounds on which their rulings are based. The manner in
which some of them work (most notably the self-styled “Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service”) gives
rise to frequent criticism in our casework, not least because what is eVectively the same organisation also
operates as a debt-collection agency (“Revenue Protection Support Services”) outside the scope of the
penalty fares regulations, <strong>and</strong> thus beyond the supervisory reach of the Department for Transport.
Second, the simple test of fact which is used to determine whether a penalty fare is due can sometimes be
applied in a heavy-h<strong>and</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> inflexible manner which alienates honest passengers who have innocently
fallen foul of the system. This applies, for example, to season ticket holders who have neglected to bring
their tickets with them on a particular trip but can prove afterwards that they did hold a ticket which was
valid for the journey. It also applies to passengers with Oyster Pay-as-you-go smartcards, which are valid
for travel on some National Rail routes in London, who wrongly assume that they are therefore valid on
any route. To issue (or uphold) penalty fares in such circumstances—particularly on the first occasion—is
manifestly unfair.
Third, the distinction between the criminal <strong>and</strong> civil law is not suYciently clear cut. A passenger cannot
be both prosecuted <strong>and</strong> charged a penalty fare for the same unpaid journey. An unpaid penalty fare is a civil
debt. But if a passenger’s appeal against a penalty fare is unsuccessful, the penalty fare may then be deemed
to have been the fare due, <strong>and</strong> failure to pay it can be construed as intention to travel without payment,
resulting in a threat of prosecution.
London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch is not opposed to penalty fares in principle. But it does believe that the manner in
which they are applied in practice can sometimes raise legitimate concerns about whether the principles of
natural justice are being observed. Previous reviews by the former Rail Regulator <strong>and</strong> Strategic Rail
Authority did not, in our view, seek relevant evidence on, or take suYcient account of, these weaknesses.
We would welcome a more searching inquiry into the subject.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
We have already argued that it is in the interests of honest passengers that all fares due should be collected.
We have welcomed the introduction of automatic ticket gates at stations (including virtually all of those on
the Underground), which make it more diYcult to evade payment. Other changes such as flat-fare systems
on buses, <strong>and</strong> free travel for children <strong>and</strong> concessionary pass holders, have reduced the scope for (<strong>and</strong> scale
of) non- or under-payment for travel.
But some other recent developments have had the opposite eVect, such as multi-door boarding on
articulated buses. And we are still surprised that it is possible to travel freely on most National Rail trains
in London (other than to or from the largest stations) at little or no real risk of being challenged to produce
a ticket. We are aware that most passengers are honest, <strong>and</strong> that the spread of pre-paid tickets (such as bus
passes <strong>and</strong> <strong>Travel</strong>cards) means that it is increasingly likely that the costs of selling fares for individual
journeys will exceed the revenue collected at less-busy times. Nevertheless, the fact that it is perceived to be
possible to travel unpaid adds to the belief that operators are uninterested in maintaining the security of
their premises <strong>and</strong> vehicles generally, <strong>and</strong> thus reinforces widespread public anxiety about the risk of crime
<strong>and</strong> disorder on public transport systems.

Ev 82 Transport Committee: Evidence
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
The scheme proposed by the Government for introduction in 2008 is still very rough at the edges, <strong>and</strong> we
believe that there need to be significant changes if it is fully to meet the needs of those it is intended to benefit.
On 16 November 2006 the Chairman of London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch wrote to Gillian Merron MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, in the following terms:
“We have serious concerns about the proposed Bill to implement a concessionary fares scheme
giving free travel to people with disabilities <strong>and</strong> those over 60 on the English local bus network.
Whilst we welcome this, we are very concerned that it is too narrowly focused on the bus as a mode
of transport, rather than on the travel needs of individual users.”
“Currently the proposal would exclude the use of any concessionary bus pass on trams <strong>and</strong> other
forms of transport. Whilst we accept that you propose to give discretion to local authorities to
include other modes in their concessionary fares schemes; in practice this will probably only
happen in a very piecemeal fashion. This will result in confusion as to where <strong>and</strong> when such passes
may be used, <strong>and</strong> discrimination against those persons who because of the nature of their location
or disability sometimes cannot use buses.”
“For example, in our area Croydon Tramlink is regarded as part of the bus network. This is
because when it was constructed it replaced a significant number of local bus services which were
ab<strong>and</strong>oned, curtailed or reduced in frequency. I realise that you, in conjunction with London
Local Authorities, intend to preserve the benefits currently available under the Freedom Pass.
However, in the case of many Surrey residents who view Croydon as their local shopping centre,
their pass will be valid on the feeder bus to the tram interchange but not on the tram for the major
part of their journey. In other cases it may be that community transport or dial-a-ride services are
more appropriate, either because local bus services do not exist, or the local bus stop is too far
away for them to walk, or the bus is not physically accessible—whereas virtually all tram <strong>and</strong> light
rail systems are fully accessible. Under the new scheme it would be very odd that some people could
use the tram free while others who live a few yards down the same road could not.”
“Can I urge you to consider revising your proposal, to widen the scope of the concessionary fares
scheme to include trams or similar quasi-bus transport, as well as buses themselves? If you would
like to meet to discuss this further I would welcome the opportunity.”
The Government’s concessionary fares strategy is also deficient in that it only applies to people over 60
<strong>and</strong> those with disabilities (<strong>and</strong> to those categories of railcard which have statutory protection). There is no
discernable strategy for targeting other potential beneficiaries such as children, students in full time higher
education or jobseekers. Any initiatives to assist these groups have been largely left to local decision makers,
either in local government or the transport industry itself. The cost of fares for families travelling together
by public transport can be very high if child fares are only 75 or 50% of the cost of an adult fare, <strong>and</strong> will
exceed the perceived the costs of car (or even taxi) travel for a similar journey. This is particularly important
for low income families.
It is noteworthy that in a number of schemes around Britain (such as park <strong>and</strong> ride in Salisbury <strong>and</strong>
Cambridge, <strong>and</strong> the Mayor of London’s free travel scheme for accompanied under-11s) significant modal
shift has been achieved from car to public transport where accompanied children travel free, as this has
reduced the overall cost of travel by public transport for the family group. The availability of free or reducedcost
home to school or college transport also has a significant impact on the ability of children from low
income families to access education facilities sited too far from their homes to be within reasonable walking
or cycling distance.
However, there are a number of lessons to be learnt from the London experience of free travel on buses
for under 16s. The availability of such a concession can also have the eVect of attracting children to use
public transport for short journeys who had previously walked or cycled, as well as those who had previously
been taken by car. Some will take advantage of it to make unnecessarily short hops or, conversely, to travel
continuously from end to end of a route. There must be robust procedures in place to ensure that the
privilege of free or reduced cost travel is not abused, <strong>and</strong> can be withdrawn as a penalty for inappropriate
behaviour.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
Unlike most other local government services, concessionary fares are really a universal benefit which is
unrelated to the locality, as has been recognised in Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>. While it may be convenient to use
local authorities as agents for issuing passes, it makes little sense for each authority to be negotiating
separate settlement arrangements with operators, or devising not-always-consistent criteria governing
eligibility on grounds of disability (or entitlement to concessionary travel for escorts). Once all authorities’
schemes are required to be (a) issued free to users, (b) valid for free travel at the point of use countrywide,

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 83
<strong>and</strong> (c) honoured on all local buses for the same minimum hours, there is little scope for local variation.
Where this still exists, eg in terms of additional hours <strong>and</strong>/or modes of validity, this is likely to cause
confusion <strong>and</strong> argument when one authority’s holders try to use them elsewhere (eg London Freedom Pass
users making local rail or metro journeys outside London because they are entitled to do so within it).
There are many localities—though not in London—where some public transport links are provided only
by rail or ferry, not by bus. And a bus-only pass is of little or no use to passengers whose disabilities prevent
them from travelling on mainstream public transport vehicles <strong>and</strong> who are therefore restricted to door-todoor
services such as dial-a-ride or taxis.
We would therefore welcome the maximum practicable consistency in the times of operation of
concessionary fares schemes <strong>and</strong> the modes of transport which they cover, provided that this is achieved
through levelling-up to the st<strong>and</strong>ards of the best <strong>and</strong> not by depriving existing holders of benefits they
currently enjoy.
March 2007
Integrated Transport
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch (TPT 09a)
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent geographical areas?
In our earlier written statement we said that “London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch has recently expressed concern about
the length of queues at Underground ticket oYces at major National Rail termini in London (Kings Cross,
Euston, Paddington, Victoria, Liverpool Street). Much of this problem stems from rail passengers arriving
without tickets that would take them onward via the Underground. In many cases this is because they have
not been made aware of the availability at their stations of origin of tickets which include a <strong>Travel</strong>card. In
the case of some journeys from places outside the former Network SouthEast area, no such through ticket
exists. For visitors to London staying for more than one day, it would be helpful if the longer distance train
operators (Virgin, Midl<strong>and</strong> Main Line, One, GNER, First Great Western) followed the example of Gatwick
Express <strong>and</strong> sold pre-paid Oyster Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) cards on their trains <strong>and</strong> at booking oYces. It
will be particularly important to resolve this matter before the 2012 Olympics”. We would advise the Select
Committee that whilst some eVorts have been made to resolve this situation, at Kings Cross St Pancras the
problem has got substantially worse since the Eurostar <strong>and</strong> transfer to St. Pancras International,
particularly at London Underground’s western ticket hall.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Since we submitted our evidence to the committee much of what we said is likely to have been or will be
overtaken by events. Firstly, that the government has made mention of ticketing systems within the High
Level Output Statement <strong>and</strong> in the Local Transport Bill there is also a commitment to review a number of
competition law applications in relation to the bus network.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Transport for London are now trialling adding Oystercard to mobile phone applications.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
No further comment.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
The high take-up rate of Oyster in London has been boosted by the substantial fares savings oVered to
passengers willing <strong>and</strong> able to switch to electronic payment technology. But currently these savings are only
available to users travelling on services provided by Transport for London, <strong>and</strong> they could be withdrawn
at any time. Currently, there seems little prospect of their being extended to National Rail passengers when
Oyster Pay-As-You-Go becomes more generally available to them too. There have been a number of
extensions to Pay-As-You-Go on the National Rail network in recent months. However, Train Operators
continue to maintain the position that when Pay-As-You-Go is extended throughout London that they will

Ev 84 Transport Committee: Evidence
not oVer any discounts over the cash fare. This is likely to lead to confusion <strong>and</strong> dissatisfaction amongst
passengers, especially when some Train Operating Companies are already oVering discounts over cash fares
on some of their services.
In addition, we still have concerns about the impact of the Governments’ requirement in Train Operators’
franchises to the ITSO smartcard such that within London, operators such as South West Trains, although
they are committed to accepting Oyster, are refusing to contemplate selling Oyster at their stations. Again
this is likely to lead to confusion <strong>and</strong> dissatisfaction amongst passengers.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors appropriate?
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well balanced?
We continue to press the Department for Transport to review the Penalty Fares appeals criteria <strong>and</strong> hope
for their agreement to do this shortly
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
No further comments to add.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
We continue to have concerns about the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, particularly their
reluctance to include other modes of transport such as Trams <strong>and</strong> Community Transport which provide
services equivalent to local bus services.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
No further comments to add.
December 2007
Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg) (TPT 10)
pteg represents the six English PTEs which plan, provide, procure <strong>and</strong> promote public transport in six of
the largest conurbations outside London. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport <strong>and</strong> Transport for London
are associate members.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
Tickets which are available across the modes <strong>and</strong> across operators are a cornerstone of any truly
integrated public transport system. PTEs initiate, administer, promote <strong>and</strong> provide a range of such tickets.
Many of these schemes are successful <strong>and</strong> make a considerable contribution to encouraging the use of public
transport. For example, last year in Greater Manchester, one in 12 bus journeys (19 million) were made
using multi-operator <strong>and</strong> multi-modal integrated tickets, <strong>and</strong> over 900,000 multi-modal “Metrocard”
season tickets were sold in West Yorkshire.
Market research undertaken in preparing West Yorkshire PTE’s bus strategy found that ticketing—
particularly around simplicity <strong>and</strong> value for money—were one of four principal areas of concern for bus
passengers.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 85
However, ticketing integration in the PTE areas falls well short of that achieved in London where the
<strong>Travel</strong>card provides easy access to the bus, tube, light <strong>and</strong> heavy rail network, <strong>and</strong> the Oystercard system
facilitates easy payment <strong>and</strong> automatically selects the cheapest way of buying travel for the pay-as-you-go
user (although yet to be fully extended to heavy rail).
In the PTE areas bus deregulation makes it impossible to replicate what London has achieved on
integrated ticketing, <strong>and</strong> it makes it extremely diYcult to provide the kind of competitive <strong>and</strong> comprehensive
integrated ticketing that the citizens of most other European city regions take for granted. For example only
40% of passengers surveyed in West Yorkshire were confident that they had the right (ie best value) ticket
for their bus journey. Confidence in what ticket to buy was much lower amongst non-users. The only group
that expressed confidence in having the right ticket was concessionary travellers.
85% of public transport trips in PTE areas are made by bus <strong>and</strong> bus service provision is largely a free
market but with provision characterised by large, near-monopolies operated by combinations of the five
biggest UK transport operators punctuated by numerous smaller local operators. With operators free to set
their own fares <strong>and</strong> to change them at will, multi-operator tickets require all those operators to be bought
into the scheme. Those tickets can—<strong>and</strong> are—undercut by operators promoting their own single-operator
schemes, creating a very complex <strong>and</strong> unsatisfactory ticketing structure.
For example in West Yorkshire the number of each type of operator only tickets are:
Day 5 day Week Month Term 3 month 6 month Year Total
37 1 19 17 3 2 2 7 88
PTE attempts to develop <strong>and</strong> promote multi-modal <strong>and</strong> multi-operator schemes are often frustrated by
operators who focus on their own schemes in order to protect their own market share.
For example, In May 2004 major bus operators in West Yorkshire gave an undertaking to the PTE that
they would progress the introduction of “on bus” sales of the multi-modal, multi-operator, “DayRover”
tickets (equivalent to the London one day <strong>Travel</strong>card). This has not occurred however, <strong>and</strong> the operators
continue to promote their own tickets which are only valid on their services.
Another example can be found in Merseyside. In March 2006 the cost of Merseytravel’s multi-operator
Bus Saver travelcard was £13.50 compared with £11 for the First Group adult weekly or £8.50 for the
Stagecoach adult weekly.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Outside London there is no overall strategy for ensuring the integration of public transport ticketing
throughout the rest of Engl<strong>and</strong>. Two initiatives could help in the development of such a strategy. Firstly,
greater regulation of bus services <strong>and</strong> secondly, new technologies—<strong>and</strong> in particular smartcards (see
response to Q3–6).
On the former—if the Government’s bus proposals (set out in Putting Passengers First) were to achieve
their objective of making the introduction of quality contracts “more realistic” then it would be possible for
PTEs <strong>and</strong> local authorities (where there is no PTE) to specify competitive <strong>and</strong> comprehensive multi-modal
ticketing as part of the franchise contract. This is one of the many advantages of Quality Contracts although
not an issue that Putting Passengers First considers, given its near exclusive concentration on performance
<strong>and</strong> reliability issues. Although performance <strong>and</strong> reliability are of major importance in attracting passengers
to the bus—rapid increases in the cost of oV-peak bus travel is a major factor in the continuing decline in
the number of fare-paying passengers in PTE areas. We believe that the ability to develop soundly based
<strong>and</strong> aVordable integrated strategies for fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing are an important benefit to be gained from
franchising of local networks.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard
technology is already in place?
Smartcards oVer significant benefits. These include: ease <strong>and</strong> convenience of use for passengers; reduced
fraud; better data about public transport use <strong>and</strong> lower costs. There is also the potential for the public
transport smartcard to be the basis for wider “e-purse” add ons—as has been achieved with the Octopus
card in Hong Kong, <strong>and</strong>/or “civic” add ons—for example as a wider concessionary card for particular
groups (such as younger or older people).

Ev 86 Transport Committee: Evidence
Ensuring that all public transport smartcards are ITSO compliant will help ensure inter-operability <strong>and</strong>
reduce the costs, complexities <strong>and</strong> limitations of adopting diVerent smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ards. The ITSO
specification allows schemes to select the necessary equipment <strong>and</strong> back-oYce from a range of suppliers,
rather than being tied to a bespoke system. The ITSO specification also provides a framework <strong>and</strong> security
environment for the development of a wide range of tickets <strong>and</strong> passes to meet the needs of passengers <strong>and</strong>
travel providers.
The experience in London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> on smartcards has so far been positive. In the rest of the county
progress has not been as rapid. The reasons for this are that Transport for London had both the resources
<strong>and</strong> control over the Underground <strong>and</strong> bus system which made the introduction of Oystercard possible. In
Scotl<strong>and</strong> the Scottish Executive is fully funding the Scottish Smartcard. In Engl<strong>and</strong> outside London none
of these conditions are replicated.
The ‘Yorcard’ experience demonstrates the diYculties involved in implementing a smartcard scheme in
Engl<strong>and</strong> outside London. The Yorcard project aimed to provide a multi-modal, multi-operator ITSO
smartcard covering all of South <strong>and</strong> West Yorkshire—with over a million smartcards in circulation. To
make the scheme work in a deregulated environment the scheme required both the active support of
operators <strong>and</strong> a grant from the DfT. The scheme was approved as a Major LTP scheme by the DfT in
December 2003.
However, since then the major bus operators have constantly disputed the commercial benefits of the
scheme to them. Given that the PTEs have no ability to impose the scheme the project has been reduced to
a pilot in South Yorkshire. The pilot covers 200 buses, seven rail stations <strong>and</strong> 30,000 cards <strong>and</strong> is designed
to demonstrate to the operators the benefits of Yorcard. Provisional approval for this pilot was agreed in
2005. Since then operator concerns about the scheme have meant that it has taken a further year to get
agreement on the specification of the scheme—with a supplier finally selected in March 2006.
PTEs believe that the industry needs to be more flexible in its thinking about the opportunities (including
for cash-flow <strong>and</strong> innovative pricing structures) that smartcard ticketing oVers, as well as the value of
customer information through data-mining.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
No response.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Free oV-peak concessionary bus travel for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people is popular <strong>and</strong> has significant social
inclusion benefits. Prior to the scheme’s introduction PTEs were already supporting schemes more extensive
than the legal minimum, so pteg has welcomed the introduction of the free local scheme <strong>and</strong> the 2008 free
national scheme. However, the way in which the scheme is currently funded <strong>and</strong> administered by the
Government is leading to unintended consequences—which threaten to worsen over time. There is a
pressing need for the Government to establish a clearer national framework for the planning, funding <strong>and</strong>
administration of the scheme if these unintended <strong>and</strong> undesirable consequences are to be mitigated.
The key challenges in implementing this policy (which is expected to cost well in excess of £1 billion in
Engl<strong>and</strong> alone by 2008/9) are:
(a) Ensuring the funding follows the passenger
Funding for the scheme is distributed by Government on the basis of st<strong>and</strong>ard government formulae. This
means that a proportion of funding for the English scheme goes to the Scottish Executive (even though their
scheme has been running since September 2002 <strong>and</strong> is fully funded by the Scottish Executive), to the Welsh
Assembly <strong>and</strong> to the Scilly Isl<strong>and</strong>s (which has no bus service). The formulae also does not take account of
the diVering levels of bus use across English local authority areas—this can leave our areas at a disadvantage
(as levels of bus use are higher) <strong>and</strong> led to Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear PTE having to make budget cuts of £3.4 million
in 2006–7 to make up for the eVects of under-funding due to the formulae funding allocation.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 87
The funding allocation problems can be exacerbated in PTE area as the funding for the scheme goes to
their constituent local District Councils who are under no obligation to pass on this funding to the PTEs
(who have the legal duty to provide <strong>and</strong> fund the CT scheme). Further problems have been caused by a series
of orchestrated appeals by operators against the way in which they are reimbursed for the scheme. Appeals
against the PTEs for the current financial year (2006–07) will require additional payments by PTEs to
operators of more than £10 million.
Quality Contracts would dramatically simplify the complexities of funding the CT scheme fairly <strong>and</strong>
eYciently. Under a Quality Contract the requirement for the free concessionary fares scheme would be a
condition of the contract <strong>and</strong> franchise bidders would factor that into their bids. A further simplification
would be to route funding for the scheme direct to the PTEs rather than via the Districts.
(b) Coping with dem<strong>and</strong>
Take-up of the scheme has been in excess of expectations in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the signs are that in Engl<strong>and</strong>
take-up is also likely to be extensive. For example all PTE areas who previously had flat fare concessionary
schemes are reporting 20%–30% increases in use, <strong>and</strong> this may rise further as pass-holders gain a better
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the travel opportunities presented by the bus network. When the scheme goes national
from April 2008 the local authority where the concessionary journey is made will have to reimburse the bus
operator for that journey. This could leave those areas which are particularly attractive for free travel at a
disadvantage. This includes areas which contain seaside resorts, major shopping centres, national parks <strong>and</strong>
other areas of outst<strong>and</strong>ing natural beauty. We doubt whether any formula based on data collected currently
will be able to adequately reflect these ‘honey-pot’ characteristics, <strong>and</strong> believe that specific funding grants
based on the costs incurred by individual authorities would be the best way forward.
(c) The perverse incentive to increase fares
The concessionary fares scheme has created an incentive for operators to increase oV-peak fares as they
are reimbursed for concessionary travel on the basis of a proportion of the oV-peak fare. With fare-paying
bus passengers outside London in decline <strong>and</strong> concessionary use increasing, this incentive becomes greater
over time. There is already considerable evidence that oV-peak fares are rising far faster than inflation. For
example oV-peak fares in PTE areas typically rose by 12% in the year to Summer 2006.
(d) The scope for fraudulent use of passes
When the English local scheme becomes an English national scheme, in April 2008, older <strong>and</strong> disabled
people will be able to use bus services anywhere in Engl<strong>and</strong>. However, given that the national scheme will
be administered locally there are currently 320 local authorities issuing over 100 diVerent styles of pass. A
few of the pass designs don’t even include a photograph. It is unrealistic to expect bus drivers to be able to
recognise <strong>and</strong> authorise bus travel on the basis of so many diVerent types of pass. There is therefore scope
for significant fraud—with fake or duplicated permits from one part of the country being used to get free
bus travel in another part of the country. Every journey with a false permit would be paid for by the taxpayer
via reimbursement to the operators. In the medium term, a family of smartcards could deliver both national
entitlement <strong>and</strong> local enhancements. Scotl<strong>and</strong> is currently introducing such a scheme <strong>and</strong> London has had
a smartcard system in place for more than two years. However, the technical <strong>and</strong> administrative challenges
are such that is not feasible to introduce such a fully operational smartcard system in time for April 2008.
An interim solution would be to reissue local cards (with an element of common national design as well
as photo id <strong>and</strong> other security elements) in time for April 2008 with smartcard facilities already included.
These could be activated later when the administrative <strong>and</strong> “back oYce” systems were in place. Given there
are about 11 million eligible users, even this interim solution would be a significant exercise requiring strong
central co-ordination. However, we believe that such an exercise is feasible. PTEs estimate the cost of the
interim solution is around £50 million <strong>and</strong> an early decision is needed soon from the DfT if an interim
solution is to be in place by April 2008.
(e) <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel for non-statutory groups
The focus on the provision of improvements in concessions for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people should not be
allowed to obscure the important local benefits oVered in many areas using non-statutory powers, where
there is often a sound local case for cheaper fares as part of wider social inclusion policies. PTEs are able
to support child fares <strong>and</strong> those for companions of disabled people unable to travel independently through
non-statutory schemes. These powers are widely used, though it is becoming increasingly diYcult to
maintain these benefits in the face of spiralling costs for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people.

Ev 88 Transport Committee: Evidence
However, PTEs are not allowed to financially support concessionary fares for other excluded groups
(such as the unemployed). PTEs do not have the “wellbeing” powers that other local authorities have to
provide concessionary travel for a wider range of needy groups, such as young people on training schemes
<strong>and</strong> those seeking work. PTEs would welcome the powers to enable such schemes to be used in their areas,
where they provide good value for money <strong>and</strong> are integrated with wider policy objectives.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
Prior to the introduction of the English free local bus scheme some PTEs were already oVering free travel
for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people across all modes (Merseytravel <strong>and</strong> Centro). With the introduction of the
English free local bus scheme other PTEs have extended the scheme to cover light rail (for example on
Manchester Metrolink). pteg believes that although there is clearly an argument to be made for the free
scheme to be multi-modal throughout the UK—unless the Government is prepared to cover the costs (which
appears extremely unlikely) the decision on the extent of the free fare oVer (above <strong>and</strong> beyond the nationally
specified <strong>and</strong> funded minimum) should be determined locally. This is because local circumstances vary—
including in terms of the nature of their local transport network, their socio-economic make-up <strong>and</strong> the
funding priorities of their locally accountable transport authorities. In an area where there are high
concentrations of disadvantaged pensioners <strong>and</strong> the cost of extending the scheme to the local heavy rail
network is aVordable, then this would be (<strong>and</strong> in our areas often is) a policy which the local PTE or transport
authority may decide to adopt. In other areas (such as in the South East) the case for extending the
concession to the commuter rail network would be harder to justify.
The case for local discretion over the extension of the scheme to other modes is amplified by the fact that
some local transport authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs are facing, either now, or in the future—some serious budgetary
challenges in funding the existing m<strong>and</strong>atory bus scheme. If that scheme were to be extended to other
modes—without a Government commitment to ensure that scheme was fully funded—then more local
transport authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs could face a <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> funding crisis. And those already in
diYculty could be faced with having to make even larger cuts in other programmes <strong>and</strong> services in order to
fund an exp<strong>and</strong>ed CT scheme.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Simon Norton (TPT 11)
I am writing to submit evidence into the House of Commons Transport Committee inquiry into ticketing
arrangements. I am coordinator of Transport 2000’s local group covering Cambridgeshire, but this evidence
is being submitted purely in a personal capacity.
This evidence partly overlaps the evidence I gave to the inquiry on fare levels, reflecting the substantial
overlap between the two issues. However I have tried to restrict the evidence I am giving to the issues
described in the terms of reference for the inquiry.
Introduction
1. I welcome the opportunity to submit evidence before this inquiry. In general I support the
Government’s stated aims to develop integrated ticketing. I believe, however, that progress towards these
aims has been very limited, <strong>and</strong> I herewith oVer ideas for remedying this.
2. There are several reasons for developing integrated ticketing:
2.1 To avoid penalising passengers who need to change en route. This is because fare levels tend to be
tapered, so (say) a two mile bus journey from one’s home to the local station plus a 50 mile train
journey would cost significantly more than a 52 mile journey by a single mode.
2.2 To reduce overall time spent in ticket queues at stations <strong>and</strong> on buses by enabling a single
transaction to cover several legs of a journey.
2.3 To minimise the inconvenience to passengers whose routes have been split up or who are making
return journeys where each leg involves a diVerent operator.
2.4 To encourage leisure travel in the countryside, which can make a significant contribution to
keeping rural public transport going <strong>and</strong> which typically involves many changes of vehicle en route.
3. However, the practical use of such integrated ticketing as has emerged has been severely restricted for
the following reasons:
3.1 Commercial bus operators are actually discouraged from arranging integrated ticketing because of
fears, often justified, that they will be seen by the OYce of Fair Trading as being contrary to the
interests of competition.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 89
3.2 While some local authorities have developed integrated tickets covering both supported <strong>and</strong>
commercial bus services in their areas, they are few <strong>and</strong> far between. Furthermore it is even rarer
that they have developed mutual acceptance agreements with their neighbours.
3.3 Publicity about the exact validity of specific integrated tickets is often not available, leaving
passengers to just hope that individual bus drivers or train conductors will accept their tickets.
3.4 Quite often bus drivers <strong>and</strong> rail ticket oYces do not know how to issue certain types of ticket.
3.5 Rarely do rail ticket machines oVer bus add-on options.
4. Here are some examples from my own experience which illustrate the above.
4.1 Shirerider—a Sunday ticket combining train travel with unlimited bus travel in Shropshire,
Worcestershire <strong>and</strong> Herefordshire. I’ve asked for such a ticket five times, <strong>and</strong> not once have I been
given the correct ticket without delay.
4.2 Stagecoach Explorer (issued by Stagecoach in Bedford)—formerly interavailable with Explorers
issued by Arriva Shires <strong>and</strong> Essex, Arriva Fox, <strong>and</strong> Huntingdon <strong>and</strong> District, now no longer so.
4.3 Sunday Rover—formerly interavailable between Sunday buses in the whole of the East of Engl<strong>and</strong>
region plus some adjacent counties. Since then, however, many companies have dropped out but no
publicity has been issued giving definitive information about which ones still participate—indeed I
don’t even know whether the facility still exists. Last time I tried to use it I had diYculty getting
the driver to issue one, <strong>and</strong> several other bus drivers refused to accept it, costing me more than I’d
paid for the ticket to start with. I never got a refund.
4.4 Chiltern Railways OV-Peak Saver from Hertford East to Kidderminster—ticket oYce did
eventually find out how to issue one, but it took so long that I nearly missed the train after the one
I had been aiming for.
4.5 Rail/bus ticket from Finsbury Park via Biggleswade to Potton—ticket oYce denied knowledge of
this one <strong>and</strong> my request for a refund is at the time of writing still pending.
5. The above explains my answers to the first two questions in the terms of reference. I now proceed to
answer all those where I wish to oVer evidence. I use the same numbering as in the terms of reference, eg my
answer to the question numbered 2 is in paragraph 5.2.
5.1 Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent
geographical areas? No
5.2 Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing
systems? No
5.3–5 (on smartcards). I have no evidence to oVer on these questions.
5.6 Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate? See answer to 8 below.
5.7 What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate? Passengers have London
<strong>Travel</strong>watch, Passenger Focus <strong>and</strong> the Bus Appeals Body. I have no evidence to oVer on whether
they are adequate.
5.8 Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well balanced? No, passengers need
a right not to be penalised when they have diYculty getting the ticket they want or inadvertently
breach the conditions of that ticket. The former can apply when
5.8.1 The ticket machine at the relevant station cannot issue the ticket they want (eg when they
already have a ticket for part of the journey <strong>and</strong> need an excess ticket to cover the rest). It
might also be the case that passengers are unable to get the ticket they need because it isn’t
obvious how to do so (I have no idea whether the machines at Cambridge station will issue
Anglia Plus tickets, for example).
5.8.2 The only ticket issuing facilities are separated from their platform by a level crossing which
will close when the train they are after is approaching. (This applied in the case a few years
ago when a couple of girls were run over by a train at Elsenham station.)
5.8.3 The ticket queue is unexpectedly long.
5.8.4 The bus that brings them to the station is running late or makes a very tight connection with
the relevant train.
5.9 Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue? It should be a
commercial decision for them whether the deployment of more revenue protection oYcers is
worthwhile. I do not believe that they should be expected to take extreme measures to ensure 100%
compliance at the possible expense of inconvenience to passengers.
5.10 Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for
concessionary bus travel, adequate? The present scheme in Engl<strong>and</strong> is inadequate because support
is only automatically given for travel within one’s home district, which may not cover all one’s
essential travel needs. The scheme that will come into force in 2008 will be much better. However
I would like to draw attention to one possible problem. Is there a danger that cash strapped local

Ev 90 Transport Committee: Evidence
authorities, especially in unitary areas, might cut local bus services in order to save on the subsidies
they will be providing to concessionary pass holders? This should be considered before the
Government makes any decisions on local government reorganisation or finance. The significance
of unitary status is that it means that the same tier of government will be supporting concessionary
pass holders as will be deciding on service levels for supported bus services.
5.11 Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong>
diVerent geographical areas? I believe that concessionary pass holders living in areas that are very
dependent on rail transport should be entitled to free travel on their local lines, but otherwise I
accept that it may not be desirable to provide unlimited free travel on trains. The scheme coming
into force in 2008 will provide integration across the whole of Engl<strong>and</strong> outside London; I do not
know what provision, if any, will be made for integration between London, the rest of Engl<strong>and</strong>,
Wales, Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>.
6. Let me conclude by making the following recommendations.
6.1 New legislation should be introduced to make it clear that bus operators do have a right to make
interavailability agreements provided that these do not exclude any third operator that may
provide services which might be covered.
6.2 Local transport authorities should have a duty to extend the validity of bus operators’ integrated
tickets to supported services running in the same general area. The same should apply to return
tickets where at least one leg is by supported service.
6.3 Local transport authorities should have a duty to include in their timetable publcity full <strong>and</strong> up to
date details of all integrated ticketing schemes covering all or part of their area. Passengers would
be able to carry such details with them which would help to avoid disputes with bus drivers <strong>and</strong>
train ticket oYces <strong>and</strong> conductors. (Note: at present there is not even a duty to provide timetable
publicity—I believe there should be, but this is presumably beyond the remit of this inquiry.)
6.4 Rail operators should have a duty to develop integrated ticketing, including interavailability
agreements with bus operators who run on parallel routes outside train operating hours or during
hours when cheaper tickets are not accepted on trains.
6.5 Rail operators should be given assistance with adapting ticket machines to issue all relevant tickets,
as well as with providing for any relevant smartcards. Furthermore, in stations that straddle level
crossings, such ticket machines should be available at both sides of the station.
6.6 Penalty fares should not be imposed where the conditions of (e) are not satisfied. Furthermore they
should not apply to people who have legitimate reason to access station platforms for purposes
other than catching trains.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport Investigations Ltd (TIL) (TPT 12)
1. I am the Managing Director of Transport Investigations Ltd (TIL), a small business providing
Revenue Protection support <strong>and</strong> consultancy services for rail operators. I have over 40 years experience in
the rail industry, joining British Rail as a graduate management trainee in 1966, <strong>and</strong> having held a variety
of posts up to privatisation, including responsibility for this activity in the East Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> for the former
Southern Region <strong>and</strong> Network SouthEast. Since privatisation in 1996 I have undertaken a variety of
consultancy roles, primarily in the fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing field. This work has included the development of the
Oyster smartcard system for use on the national rail network for TfL. TIL’s current main clients are TOCs,
DLR <strong>and</strong> TfL, <strong>and</strong> we also do work in Irel<strong>and</strong>. The company has developed unique experience in the revenue
protection field, <strong>and</strong> this covers staV training <strong>and</strong> supply, support work to combat fare evasion, including
debt recovery <strong>and</strong> prosecution, <strong>and</strong> the conduct of fraud or ticket-less travel surveys. Although I have
expertise across the area the Committee is investigating, I intend to focus my contribution on revenue
protection in the rail industry as this is an activity that is often not well understood <strong>and</strong> where
misconceptions can flourish. The purpose of this note is to suggest that the legislative framework is generally
adequate for the protection of rail revenue, but that the practices deployed by operators are often less than
optimal. In particular there is a fairly widespread failure properly to measure the extent <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> the
reasons for fare evasion, <strong>and</strong> therefore to take appropriate action. There is, on the National Rail network,
a common belief in the benefits of closing access at stations <strong>and</strong> installing automatic ticket gates. Such
schemes are costly <strong>and</strong> often a substitute for more creative strategies that might improve customer service
<strong>and</strong> revenue control.
2. Railways <strong>and</strong> other public transport modes have traditionally suVered from revenue shrinkage
through some failures to collect revenue <strong>and</strong> fare evasion. The problem is as old as the industry <strong>and</strong> most
approaches to it are not novel. Customers can be described as either motivated to pay or motivated to evade
their fares, <strong>and</strong> then in turn as active or passive in this regard. Someone who is active <strong>and</strong> motivated to pay
will always try to do so, <strong>and</strong> the ticket sales channels must be optimised to allow that. A passive person will
not make that eVort if the purchase of a ticket is made diYcult or the opportunity to pay is not presented.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 91
Likewise a passive person motivated to evade can be deterred by revenue protection measures, but the active
fare evader will still persist in most circumstances. Research suggests that 80% of the population believe that
travelling without a ticket is a serious oVence <strong>and</strong> one for which others have to pay indirectly. They therefore
fall into the motivated to pay category. For these people the principal need is to oVer eVective ticket purchase
facilities <strong>and</strong> this is the most important feature of any revenue protection policy, with ticket checking
resources aimed primarily at engaging with the other 20%. These people tend to believe that fare evasion is
a victimless crime. Within this group, those most readily controlled will be the passive fare evaders, <strong>and</strong>
policies need to be directed at them. Identifying <strong>and</strong> targeting of resources at this group is essential to a cost
eVective revenue protection strategy, while customer service benefits, such as ease of access <strong>and</strong> walk-oV at
stations should be preserved for the 80% as far as possible.
3. Fare evasion is nevertheless a potentially increasing problem across the rail network. Recent strong
growth in passenger volumes means that the absolute numbers of fare evaders will tend to increase.
Although there are few systematic surveys of ticket-less travel available <strong>and</strong> not many of these are in the
public domain, evidence across a variety of systems <strong>and</strong> operating areas suggest levels of 3—10% of
passenger volume could be unpaid at present, varying by location, time of day <strong>and</strong> journey type. Customer
surveys suggest dissatisfaction by fare paying passengers who see evidence of fraudulent <strong>and</strong> ticket-less
travel, sometimes believing it to be a higher than it may be in reality. Die-hard fare evaders are sometimes
associated with other anti-social behaviour, which must be discouraged as it often detracts from the quality
of the journey for others <strong>and</strong> may depress genuine travel dem<strong>and</strong>.
4. Fare evasion is the primary form of dishonesty to aVect public transport. The fact that it is widespread
is a relevant public interest factor <strong>and</strong> must take account of the general principles covering prosecution for
all oVences of dishonesty. The Law in respect of railway fare evasion means that such oVences involve using
a variety of statutory measures that date back to the 1840’s. This legal framework is nevertheless still sound
<strong>and</strong> is based on commonsense values that make it easy to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> apply. The Regulation of Railways
Acts 1840-1873: “railway” extends to all railways constructed under the powers of any Act of Parliament
<strong>and</strong> intended for the conveyance of passengers in or upon carriages drawn or impelled by the power of steam
or by any other mechanical power; <strong>and</strong> the word “company” included the proprietors for the time being
of any such railway (Section 21 Railway Regulation Act 1840). References in Sections 54-57 of the British
Transport Commission Act 1949 include references to any successor of the British Railways Board.There
is often a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, <strong>and</strong> proceedings under the
Theft Act 1978, or Forgery <strong>and</strong> Counterfeiting Act 1981.
5. Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is usually used for oVences of fare evasion on the
railways <strong>and</strong> for travelling/ attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare <strong>and</strong>
with intent to avoid payment thereof; or having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly <strong>and</strong> wilfully
proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional
distance <strong>and</strong> with intent to avoid payment thereof; or having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a
request from an oYcer of a railway company a false name <strong>and</strong> address. Section 103(a) Railway Clauses
Consolidation Act 1845 covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has
paid his fare. Both Section 5 <strong>and</strong> Section 103(a) are summary only oVences. “Intent to avoid payment” in
Section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due. There
are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate
to use the Section 5 oVence. The Theft Act 1978, especially Sections 2 <strong>and</strong> 3, can be used where there is
evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat oVending, or large loss by the transport authority.
Where tickets have been forged, altered or defaced resulting in a charge under the Forgery <strong>and</strong>
Counterfeiting Act 1981, the matter would have to be referred to Crown Prosecution Service or the Rail
Company will need to engage appropriate legal representation as these are “either or oVences” for which
any person accused may elect to trial by jury.
6. TIL is an Appointed Agency for rail companies to undertake the role of prosecuting oVenders where
the allegation is only a summary matter. This practice was started by British Rail <strong>and</strong> a number of rail
companies also undertake this work in their own right, or may employ others as agents on their behalf, <strong>and</strong>
all have the right of audience in the Magistrates Courts. Persons undertaking these activities are obliged to
consider the Code for Crown Prosecutors <strong>and</strong> the right of individuals to bring private prosecutions (with
certain exceptions) was included under the Prosecution of OVences Act, which set up the CPS. It will review
the case in accordance with the tests contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Should changes be made
to the arrangements for the prosecution of summary oVences, it is essential that the powers of railway
prosecuting agencies are preserved. The process is eVective <strong>and</strong> much less costly than taking up the time of
police, CPS or other legal staV. Ensuring that it can continue will ease the burden of prosecuting oVences
for the CPS at the lower end of the scale <strong>and</strong> give reassurance to the honest, fare paying public majority
that steps are being taken to combat this anti-social activity. Consideration might be given to strengthening
legislation as appropriate.
7. Transport legislation includes a series of oVences which will not be prosecuted by the CPS under
Section 3(2)(a) Prosecution of OVences Act 1985. These include minor cases of fare evasion under the Public
Service Vehicle Regulations <strong>and</strong> similar Acts <strong>and</strong> also proceedings under Part II of the Aviation Security
Act 1982, all cases of a summary oVence being committed on private property.The principal purposes of
transport legislation are to preserve the safety <strong>and</strong> comfort of passengers <strong>and</strong> staV; to prevent acts of

Ev 92 Transport Committee: Evidence
dishonesty by either passengers or staV. Prosecution for contravention of transport legislation will certainly
be in the public interest: where public safety has been placed at risk; where passengers or staV have sustained
loss, damage or personal injury; where serious or widespread disruption <strong>and</strong> inconvenience has been caused
to persons using the transport system. A prosecution may not be required where there is a technical breach
of the law if:there has been no risk to public safety; <strong>and</strong> the oVence resulted from a genuine oversight or
misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing; <strong>and</strong> no injury or loss has been sustained by either passengers or staV. A number of such
cases, initially reported for prosecution, may in practice be settled out of court with the consequent saving
of court time <strong>and</strong> an individual’s reputation. While existing legislation is suYcient for railway inspectors to
be eVective, a significant part of the loss incurred through fare evasion can be attributed to identity theft or
personation (usually giving a false name <strong>and</strong> address). This results in much wasted time <strong>and</strong> costs coupled
with considerable inconvenience <strong>and</strong> distress to the innocent, which could be avoided if legislation were to
permit the photographing of alleged oVenders at the time of detection (beyond what is already available on
the widespread CCTV coverage). Legislation does not, underst<strong>and</strong>ably, give inspectors many rights to
detain people. The ability to check the available databases to confirm identity is also important, <strong>and</strong> the
basic tool here is the Electoral Register. Although there are many not registered to vote, <strong>and</strong> fare evaders
can be uncooperative about proving their identity, as a means of confirming names <strong>and</strong> addresses this can
often be used to protect the innocent. At present transport agencies do not have access to the full register
for this purpose, only the edited version oVered for commercial use, despite Government assurances to the
contrary.
8. The measurement of the eVectiveness of revenue protection systems is always a diYcult area. As
reliable data for most purposes is often scarce to non-existent, much comment on revenue protection is
speculative <strong>and</strong> anecdotal. Reliable evidence available to me comes mainly from urban heavy <strong>and</strong> light rail
networks where there is some systematic study of the problem, but there is little available on rural <strong>and</strong>
intercity networks. Surveys need to be continued on a rolling basis using proper sampling techniques, with
results weighted by revenue <strong>and</strong> fare values, so that a “true” fare evasion rate can be estimated by routes
<strong>and</strong> time periods <strong>and</strong> trends observed. These should be conducted independently to reflect the revenue
protection situation as it is in normal operation, rather than use the in-house staV to measure their own
activity, with the inevitable bias <strong>and</strong> diversion of resource that can result. They can then be used as an
ongoing system to prioritise the use of resources <strong>and</strong> measure the eVectiveness of the system. Monitoring
systems can provide new intelligence <strong>and</strong> some indication of performance at least on a route or area basis.
Individual staV performance can be measured by revenue collected <strong>and</strong> other records of h<strong>and</strong>-held device
use, suitably filtered for actual staV rosters. Feedback to staV on their performance <strong>and</strong> the results of
irregularity reports submitted are seen as essential to encourage motivation.
9. The objective for rail operators is to secure revenue <strong>and</strong> reduce fare-evasion by all practicable means,
up to the point where the overall benefit <strong>and</strong>/or financial return makes further action inappropriate. The
integrity of premium products needs to be protected through eVective on-train ticket inspection. The
security <strong>and</strong> coherence of the rail passenger business can be strengthened through ticket inspection <strong>and</strong>
direct contact with customers. Customers should have the feeling that their honesty <strong>and</strong> compliance is
respected <strong>and</strong> valued. Season tickets are a particularly important product in the commuter market, as the
customer pays money up front <strong>and</strong> the revenue protection risks of daily payment are much reduced.
10. Present revenue protection methods include: on train inspection by conductors <strong>and</strong> other on-train
staV; automatic ticket gates in use at certain stations; intermittent station controls by revenue protection
teams; enforcement action against fraudulent travel by revenue inspectors with follow-up processes;
application of Penalty Fares on services in the London <strong>and</strong> South East area <strong>and</strong> certain other conurbations
<strong>and</strong> on some (but not all) of the light rail systems.
11. EVective revenue protection processes depend upon: making ticket purchase easy <strong>and</strong> designing
tickets/products which incentivise ticket purchase through the appropriate sales channels; exp<strong>and</strong>ing the
range of ticket purchase channels beyond the ticket oYce to ticket vending machines <strong>and</strong> oV-system sales,
<strong>and</strong> especially through the internet; adopting processes which reduce the likelihood of fraudulent activity;
recognising the diVering issues associated with short <strong>and</strong> longer distance journeys; taking actions which
discourage ticket-less travel <strong>and</strong> using enforcement action where necessary to recover revenue <strong>and</strong> deter
those who would commit fraud; monitoring revenue at risk while capturing feedback <strong>and</strong> system intelligence
to continuously improve revenue protection arrangements. Rail operators need to take a more holistic
approach to revenue protection, employing a variety of processes, measures <strong>and</strong> arrangements, tailored to
local circumstances <strong>and</strong> risks, but within a structured framework.
12. DiVering requirements <strong>and</strong> processes are needed for the control of long <strong>and</strong> short distance traYc, <strong>and</strong>
thus a need to harmonise <strong>and</strong> balance systems across stations <strong>and</strong> trains to protect both customer service
st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> revenue. A complete check on all peak short distance flows may not be cost eVective or
practicable, <strong>and</strong> the revenue protection regime needs to reflect that, through the use of suitable deterrents.
A Penalty Fares scheme is a suitable deterrent measure in commuter areas where stations are normally
staVed or vending machines provided <strong>and</strong> ticket issue is not oVered on train. Customers are generally
familiar with the system <strong>and</strong> many are committed to some form of long validity term ticket. The purpose
of the Penalty is not in fact to penalise but to set out rules <strong>and</strong> obligations about pre-travel payment <strong>and</strong> to
allow a ticket checking regime based on spot checks. This in turn allows more flexible access arrangements
than is possible with conventional closed stations where complete ticket checking is attempted. It further

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 93
allows Light rail <strong>and</strong> Commuter services to operate under Driver Only conditions with consequent
reliability, cost <strong>and</strong> performance benefits as there is also no need to resource the train or stations for full
ticket checking. As an example of this, surveys conducted in 2002 showed ticket-less travel rates of 15%
among local passengers on long distance trains in the Wolverhampton—Coventry corridor compared to 6%
on local services. The Centro area Penalty Fares scheme does not apply to longer distance trains, <strong>and</strong> this
tends to make these services more attractive to fare evaders. This evidence suggests that a suitably targeted
Penalty Fares regime can halve the fare evasion rate.
13. Proper processes are also required to follow up unpaid fares, via debt collection, or for irregularities
to proceed to more serious enforcement such as prosecution under the legislation described. This also
requires inspection staV to be trained in PACE <strong>and</strong> SPOE procedures so that they can collect the proper
evidence <strong>and</strong> it can be suitably presented. Feedback to staV on this is important to improve their
performance. All revenue protection back-oYce <strong>and</strong> debt recovery/prosecution processes <strong>and</strong> related work
can be outsourced with the supplier taking some of the risk, <strong>and</strong> thus no net additional costs. While there
has to be a formal process for appeals on Penalty Fares, derived from the legislation, there is less consistency
in the other procedures. There is always a balance to be struck between customer service, deterring genuine
fare evasion <strong>and</strong> maximising revenue. Experience already shows that yield managed train specific tickets
generate a large volume of unpaid fares notices when passengers use the wrong train, with potentially
adverse customer service consequences. These must also be processed properly.
14. The re-use or re-cycling of open or long-dated tickets is considered to be a significant revenue risk,
so the system must ensure they are cancelled. On-train staV must be provided with suitable devices to cancel
tickets which carry some information about the individual <strong>and</strong> date (such equipment is readily available but
often not used). Misuse of this kind is otherwise diYcult to detect but some anecdotal evidence for it
gathered from informal sources suggests that it may be the most significant risk on longer distance services.
Day of travel validity only should apply on tickets for journeys of ' c50 miles with exceptions for known
shorter distance stay away markets such as airports. This is normal practice on urban systems <strong>and</strong>
throughout the London area. Rail operators can take advantage of the “invisible” security arrangements
associated with new ticketing systems, while exploiting new technologies such as Print at Home <strong>and</strong> Mobile
Phone displays with some care.
15. Revenue protection on many longer distance <strong>and</strong> rural services is left largely to conductors (train
managers). Evidence suggests that train conductors may develop their own internal targets or norms for
revenue collected <strong>and</strong> do not breach them. Full ticket checks are often carried out on the first leg of a journey,
but can be spasmodic thereafter. Control of the train doors by conductors regularly inhibits serious revenue
protection activity, particularly where station stops are frequent, <strong>and</strong> where such staV are provided on
suburban services they do little useful revenue control or customer service work. Situations have also been
allowed to develop that are diYcult for on train staV to h<strong>and</strong>le, with heavy flows for short journeys <strong>and</strong> a
lot of revenue between staVed stations is being collected on train. Where ticket oYces <strong>and</strong> other stationbased
ticket issue facilities are provided no discounts should be available on train, as this otherwise
encourages a “pay-when-challenged” culture. Where Penalty Fares are not in force the rail National
Conditions of Carriage address this <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard fares should apply, <strong>and</strong> the fact they are often not has
allowed a situation to develop that can overwhelm on train resources, <strong>and</strong> lead to lost revenue.
16. One current issue in London is the extension to TOCs of the TfL Oyster Pay-as-you-Go (PAYG)
system. One of the primary reasons advanced for their reluctance is a perceived revenue protection risk in
an environment with a number of open stations, in contrast to the gated network of the Underground. The
problem starts with the TOCs own lack of underst<strong>and</strong>ing of their revenue control risks because so little
reliable survey work has been undertaken as to the extent <strong>and</strong> reasons for fare evasion. While there is some
evidence from surveys in the inner London area that fare evasion rates can be high, this can be attributed
to ticket purchase arrangements <strong>and</strong> a lax enforcement regime. The reality, as evidence from the existing
PAYG operation can confirm, is that the system can improve rather then worsen revenue control because
ticket purchase is simplified. While the TOCs have invested in ticket gates at busier stations in the London
area this has tended to concentrate resources at those stations <strong>and</strong> to foster a belief that such equipment is
essential to their revenue control strategy. This approach has been encouraged by the DfT in the franchise
bidding process, where installation of ticket gates is called for.
17. Some local station controls will assist revenue protection on the national rail network, including the
ticket gates at a number of stations, but this will only impact on short distance travel. Ticket gates only
protect a minimum fare <strong>and</strong> can encourage short booking to circumvent them. The technology does not
properly address time or specific train restrictions, <strong>and</strong> does not deal with length of journey, discount
entitlement or class of travel. There is a particular need to check discount entitlement, especially Railcards,
so supplementary or on train checks are still necessary. Gates do not address the forms of fraud commonly
found on longer distance trains such as travel on an incorrect service, railcard misuse, transferred or re-use
of tickets, <strong>and</strong> out-of-class or over-distance travel. Claims that ticket gates improve security <strong>and</strong> reduce
crime <strong>and</strong> v<strong>and</strong>alism at stations are unproven. They may displace such activity to outside the paid area or
to other stations, <strong>and</strong> any measured improvement is more likely to be associated with the provision of more
visible staV or equipment such as CCTV. Modern ticket styles <strong>and</strong> time/ train restrictions, not to mention
luggage etc, do not fit well with gates, <strong>and</strong> many tickets remain outside the scope of automatic operation,
despite the replacement of on-train issues by the latest mobile machine with magnetic stripe tickets. The

Ev 94 Transport Committee: Evidence
magnetic ticket technology now in use was not designed for national rail revenue control purposes <strong>and</strong> does
not necessarily conduct correct checks on long distance tickets or visually cancel tickets. Manually
controlled gates will be much used <strong>and</strong> come to dominate <strong>and</strong> undermine the whole control principle. This
can already be observed at a number of stations, where the manual gate facility is usually under pressure,
is often a cause of poor customer service <strong>and</strong> provides only a cursory ticket check.
18. As there are no reliable estimates of fare evasion or ticket-less travel, the financial justification for
these schemes is not self-evident. Where a proper survey of the level <strong>and</strong> nature of ticket-less travel has been
undertaken, it will be possible better to assess the case for the implementation of any automatic ticket gate
schemes, as these represent a substantial investment <strong>and</strong> have significant ongoing costs. Evidence that such
equipment is guaranteed to reduce ticket-less travel is open to debate. It is inappropriate to extrapolate any
early trends onto all the station’s revenue to show the assumed benefit from gating. In reality revenue may
not in fact change substantially in the longer term, <strong>and</strong> in a comparison of the revenue trends at gated <strong>and</strong>
un-gated stations it can be diYcult to identify significant diVerences. Much of the revenue generated at these
stations is likely to be the mopping up of local fares that are not being adequately controlled on train, <strong>and</strong>
there is no benefit to the longer distance business. Recent surveys in the London area suggest that gates can
reduce local ticket-less travel by 50% but do not eliminate it. The near fully gated system on the London
Underground still has a residual 3% evasion rate.
19. The successful adaptation of ticket gates to deal eVectively with other ticket media such as mobile
phones or paper bar-code recognition is still unproven at this stage, which is a cause of some concern as
these are seen as essential developments in distribution that existing <strong>and</strong> new gating schemes introduced by
a number of TOCs may not be equipped to deal with. Alternatively the process of upgrades may prove costly
or diYcult to progress. This may inhibit the use of new distribution channels which do not create tickets that
conform to current magnetic (or proposed smartcard) st<strong>and</strong>ards. Any moves towards more yield
management systems that specify which train must be used are not well supported by gate technology or
common access control. Some TOCs may be reluctant to h<strong>and</strong>le more customers through manual gates
because of ticket medium compatibility problems or the ability of gate software to make correct validity
assessments on magnetic tickets. There is likely therefore to be a better case to be made for investment in
people on train <strong>and</strong> improved staV performance than in this sort of equipment. At present there is a tendency
among heavy rail operators to invest quite heavily in enforcement through technology that is not necessarily
appropriate to their business while neglecting to spend money on staV <strong>and</strong> their training <strong>and</strong> development
in revenue protection work. This also results in the not unusual spectacle of expensive ticket gates, which
cannot be used in unattended or unsupervised mode, left open for lack of staV or inadequately manned by
contract personnel.
Richard Malins
March 2007
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport Investigations Ltd (TPT 12a)
Revenue Protection on the Railway Network
1. A starting point for any discussion on this topic should be an estimate of the extent <strong>and</strong> nature of fare
evasion on the railway business, to define the problem before deciding on the measures relevant to solving it.
2. The reality is that there is very little accurate evidence on this subject <strong>and</strong> the estimates brought before
the Committee were more speculative than real. It is my belief that most of the quoted figures in the public
domain are based on surveys that are statistically flawed, both in the sampling techniques used <strong>and</strong> in any
weighting (or none) applied to the figures. Some are little more than anecdotal or informed guesswork.
Extrapolation of numbers from station based activities can be misleading, while others do not adequately
take into account diVerences in fare values <strong>and</strong> revenue weights for diVerent types of journey. It is generally
recognised for example that short journeys tend to be more prone to non-payment, but such figures are then
applied across the whole business, particularly to longer distance journeys with higher revenue values.
3. The figures being quoted by ATOC <strong>and</strong> Passenger Focus, of 5–8% of revenue or £400 million, are
estimates without qualification as to how much of this is active fare evasion <strong>and</strong> how much is unpaid travel
caused by ticket retailing failures. There is also likely to be some overstatement due to the lack of revenue
value weighting by journey type. My personal estimate, based on such information as is available to me, is
that although there are places where fare evasion reaches these levels, that figure is not typical of the network
as a whole, while the areas of conspicuous retailing failures are on local services where traYc has outgrown
the ability of the ticketing systems to cope. These do not actually account for the bulk of railway revenue.
4. The degree of confusion about the extent of fare evasion is evident from statements by First Group,
with the Chairman claiming losses on its FCC rail franchise of £40 million, which represents 1 passenger in
6 not paying a fare, while the TOC’s MD told the Committee the loss was around 5% or £15 million. Claims

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 95
that have been made for the extra revenue earned from measures such as ticket barriers are not based on
any objective assessment of the before <strong>and</strong> after eVects over a longer time period. Short term revenue
changes certainly occur but can lead to overstatement of the long term impact.
5. In my business we have developed a statistically sound methodology to support surveys on fare
evasion. While this has been applied in a few cases, in general we have found a lack of interest in the proper
measurement of this important topic. Managers have tended to rely in simplistic solutions to undefined
problems, <strong>and</strong> have actually spent large amounts of money, usually on ticket barriers, in the belief that they
are a proven generator of additional revenue, while not evaluating alternative options, such as the more
intelligent deployment of staV. The station gating agenda has advanced to the point where it appears to be
accepted policy by the DfT, most TOC owning groups <strong>and</strong> consumer bodies. Franchise tenders call for them
<strong>and</strong> bid commitments claim such schemes to be a benefit for passengers.
6. It is my contention that this should be challenged on a number of grounds: that it is not necessarily
cost eVective, is often customer unfriendly <strong>and</strong> that many of the benefits claimed for such equipment are
overstated or misapplied.
7. That is not state that gates are inappropriate in all circumstances. The barrier types used in Britain
were developed for use on urban networks with high volumes of passengers, mostly unencumbered <strong>and</strong>
familiar with the system, such as London Underground where alternative <strong>and</strong> adequate methods of control
are diYcult to envisage. Those used by Eurostar are entirely diVerent, both in their purpose <strong>and</strong> method of
operation, <strong>and</strong> would not be suitable for revenue control of high volumes of traYc. They are only used for
entry checks <strong>and</strong> are linked to the seat reservation system.
8. It is reasonable to accept that there are parts of the National Rail network where circumstances akin to
LUL exist, with such heavy flows of regular users, that gates are an appropriate form of revenue protection.
However there are important contrasts between LUL <strong>and</strong> the NR system in general. LUL achieves a very
high degree of gate compatible tickets (over 99%) such that manual intervention is limited, <strong>and</strong> the high
penetration of Oyster cards in London has made the gates easier <strong>and</strong> faster to use. In Central London the
minimum fare is that most commonly due which improves eVectiveness.
9. At the major stations now gated by TOCs very diVerent circumstances apply. There is high degree of
manual intervention due to the many ticket types that are incompatible with barriers, or not correctly
interpreted by them. Without further checks only the minimum fare at that station is protected. Also they
cannot manage train specific checks, or validate discount entitlement or class of travel. Unlike LUL there
is also no proper re-use or pass-back protection, <strong>and</strong> there is no visual cancellation of tickets. It is therefore
quite unrealistic to assume that such equipment will eliminate fare evasion. At best it will help to enforce
pre-travel ticket purchase (assuming such facilities are adequate), <strong>and</strong> support the mopping up of arriving
revenue, usually from local services where on train or station based ticket selling is inadequate. Many more
users are unfamiliar with gates <strong>and</strong> are encumbered with luggage so the staV providing assistance can be
under continuous pressure. This results in degraded st<strong>and</strong>ards of customer service <strong>and</strong> reduced revenue
control.
10. Such information as I have been able to gather suggests that ticket gates at suburban stations are
eVective to the extent of halving the fare evasion rate. There are still the problems of inconsistent manning
(identified in the Passenger Focus evidence), manual intervention <strong>and</strong> short tickets or multiple passage.
There is also some evidence that this eVectiveness declines with length of journey where the other factors in
fare evasion come into play that the gates do not address. It is reasonable to assert therefore that for longer
journeys (say of an hour or more) they are largely pointless in revenue protection terms as on-train checks
are still needed <strong>and</strong> will be more eVective.
11. Although, in my own evidence, I agreed that most passengers want to see action on fare evasion <strong>and</strong> to
feel their own honesty in purchasing tickets recognised, I do not believe that ticket barriers enjoy widespread
acceptance for this reason. Access to <strong>and</strong> from trains is restricted, often with the closure of secondary
entrances <strong>and</strong> exits, which extends times, congestion is caused <strong>and</strong> many customers find them intimidating
<strong>and</strong> diYcult to use. Meeters <strong>and</strong> greeters <strong>and</strong> those who may wish to use station facilities are deterred from
legitimate use. The overall message is negative <strong>and</strong> unwelcoming, <strong>and</strong> one has only to observe the operation
of barriers at any major station where there are many irregular <strong>and</strong> encumbered users to come to this
conclusion.
12. Another stated benefit is security. Again this may well be true of the suburban station aZicted with
idle youth <strong>and</strong> v<strong>and</strong>alism, but that may be as much due to visible staV as the actual equipment. Plainly it
cannot be true of stations in general since the majority that have acquired secure station status do not have
ticket gates. Also closing oV the platforms at major stations does nothing for security in the other public
areas of the station where much of the crime risk still exists. Restricting access to facilities within a paid area
to ticket holders makes them less frequented, which may not actually enhance security, <strong>and</strong> aVects the
viability <strong>and</strong> attraction of trading outlets.
13. Any notion that ticket barriers contribute to wider security concerns, such as the threats of terrorism,
can be dispelled when it is recalled that the 7/7 bombers entered the system at Luton, with tickets at a
gated station.

Ev 96 Transport Committee: Evidence
14. Penalty Fares, <strong>and</strong> the fairness of their application, have featured in evidence given to the Committee,
<strong>and</strong> I do not propose to debate the appeals process. What is being overlooked is the reason that Penalty
Fares legislation was introduced in the first place. It was to address the inevitable fact that in busy suburban
networks it is impossible to mount fully eVective ticket checks on all journeys, either for reasons of cost or
practicability. The original aim was to rely on a managed level of spot checks, with the intelligent
deployment of staV that is not predictable to the passenger. The concept has parallels in other areas of life,
such as Pay-<strong>and</strong>-Display parking, <strong>and</strong> requires reliable ticket retailing opportunities. This would have
benefits in terms of operating cost <strong>and</strong> preserve easy access at stations as far as possible.
15. A consequence of barrier schemes has been that ticket checks are now concentrated at major stations,
have become predictable to fare evaders <strong>and</strong> at least in commuter networks the on-train presence has been
scaled back due to the need to man the gatelines. They have also tended to demotivate staV as the variety
<strong>and</strong> initiative of the task has been downgraded, while the remaining mobile staV tend to rely on the assumed
eVectiveness of gated stations. Overall therefore it is doubtful whether they are as successful in targeting fare
evasion as is commonly supposed, while increasing the level of check on those who pay their fares anyway.
16. The impracticability of mounting full <strong>and</strong> eVective manual checks at reasonable cost at major stations
was noted in evidence. The Penalty Fares regime, as originally conceived, was designed to avoid the need
for these since checks, whether at stations or on train, were intended to be on a sample not a blanket basis.
The heavy level of resources now deployed at some major stations could certainly be deployed to better eVect
in other ways.
17. Some of the London termini, such as Euston, King’s Cross <strong>and</strong> St Pancras, as at present configured
for InterCity trains, are fairly optimally laid out. They allow train specific manual entry checks when
required, while preserving a walk-oV facility for arriving passengers when a full on board check has taken
place. These sensible arrangements are threatened by proposals for “automated” gatelines that have no logic
in revenue protection terms <strong>and</strong> will cause substantial inconvenience. To impose exit checks with barriers
at such stations, where passengers can at present walk oV unimpeded, is a serious loss of an important
customer amenity.
18. A number of other principal stations have been extensively renovated to an open layout that is easy
for passengers to use <strong>and</strong> attractive in environmental terms. These too are threatened by barrier proposals
that can <strong>and</strong> should be challenged on revenue protection grounds, <strong>and</strong> will significantly detract from the
value of these stations in terms of facilities <strong>and</strong> access. If there are fare collection problems on the local
services at these stations, they need to be quantified <strong>and</strong> other solutions are possible. Penalty Fares can
sometimes assist.
19. The proliferation of ticketing technology like barriers, which requires significant hardware <strong>and</strong>
software integration to be eVective, will inhibit introduction of new ticket formats or media such as
smartcards, print-at-home <strong>and</strong> mobile phones (see Appendix note).
20. Much of the current drift towards “closing” stations (as opposed to maintaining open access) leads
to a situation where they cease to be part of the public realm <strong>and</strong> are a place where people are processed.
The message to customers is authoritarian, in that they can only enter on the operators terms <strong>and</strong> are not
trusted. This is potentially damaging to the railway business, losing a marketing advantage against air travel,
while bus <strong>and</strong> coach users can retain easy access in the public street. It should be noted that nowhere in
Europe (Eurostar excepted) are Inter City type passengers processed through ticket gates.
Appendix Note on Ticket Formats
Visual ticket inspection requires no more than the proper training of staV <strong>and</strong> the provision of simple
equipment to cancel daily tickets. The latter should include a proper coded marking of tickets, such that the
date <strong>and</strong> place of check can be identified, thus reminding the customer how it has been used, <strong>and</strong> allowing
checks to be made of refund claims etc. Many operators fail to do this, with staV using a hole punch or pens.
Gates require tickets in a predefined format <strong>and</strong> carrying machine readable codes that must carry
suYcient information for validity to be accepted or rejected. As most barrier systems control access to a
complete station, validity can only be assessed in relation to any possible journey at that station at the
time/ date.
A number of ticket <strong>and</strong> pass types exist on the rail network that are not gate readable or compatible, due
to their size or the lack of magnetic or other coding. At barriers these have to be inspected manually.
The large format tickets are known as ATB style, similar in some respects to airline tickets <strong>and</strong> those
issued by Eurostar <strong>and</strong> European railways. They were designed as an inclusive travel <strong>and</strong> reservation ticket,
<strong>and</strong> carry more printed information than is possible, or legible, on the credit card size ticket. A number of
rail sales outlets still have the ticket systems designed to issue this format, although there are now machines
that can do something similar on credit card size tickets, usually with a separate reservation ticket. Some
outlets have switched over from ATB to credit card size because of the incidence of ticket barriers.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 97
The gates used on the national rail network, being based on those designed for the London Underground,
only work on the credit card size ticket, <strong>and</strong> can only check fairly basic information from the magnetic stripe.
The only gate design for ATB format is that used by Eurostar, which have a quite diVerent function <strong>and</strong> are
much slower, being linked to the train reservation system so they are actually checking each train in. TOC
gates cannot do that, so there is no prospect of doing a check at stations related to the train used.
We now have Oyster cards in London (<strong>and</strong> the ITSO problem), mobile phones (barcode scanner needed)
<strong>and</strong> print-at-home (like ticketless airline travel bought via the internet) where 2D barcodes are used.
Eurostar <strong>and</strong> European railways for Inter City travel are moving to the latter in place of the current ATB
with magnetic stripe (coding is not just for reading by gates but is to protect against fraudulent ticket
production).
All this means that while ATB may wither away, other ticket types <strong>and</strong> media will come along that are
not gate compatible, or even if they could be, there is a large system development task to get that to happen.
With the multiplicity of uncoordinated gate installations on the TOCs over the past ten years, the evidence
suggests that the integration of new ticket media, even if they are technically machine readable, will not
easily be achieved.
January 2008
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Mr Kevin Chapman (TPT 13)
1. I write this submission as a public transport user in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s conurbation, but I am also a
supporter of the sustainable transport group Transport 2000. I do not drive <strong>and</strong> make the vast majority of
journeys over a mile by bus <strong>and</strong>/or rail. It may be helpful for the committee to have comments regarding
ticketing, revenue protection <strong>and</strong> concessionary fares within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s.
2. Multi-modal ticketing was introduced by the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Passenger Transport Executive (now
Centro) in the 1970’s, with the introduction of “<strong>Travel</strong>card”, valid on bus services operated by WMPTE
<strong>and</strong> the National Bus Company <strong>and</strong> local British Rail services within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County. WMPTE
was amongst the first transport organisations in the UK to introduced integrated ticketing, <strong>and</strong> over the
years concessionary travel schemes for school children, students, the disabled <strong>and</strong> senior citizens have been
included within the integrated ticketing scheme.
3. Integrated ticketing in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County has survived deregulation of bus services in 1986
<strong>and</strong> privatisation of the bus <strong>and</strong> rail industry in the 1990s, although a small number of bus operators do not
participate in the scheme (although they do participate in the concessionary scheme). The scheme is now
marketed by Centro under the “Network West Midl<strong>and</strong>s” banner. The products include an “nNetwork”
ticket (valid on bus, rail <strong>and</strong> “Midl<strong>and</strong> Metro”), “nBus” (valid on buses) “nTrain” (valid on local rail
services) <strong>and</strong> tickets aimed at the leisure market “nDaytripper”, valid at “oV-peak” times <strong>and</strong> an oV-peak
version of the “nNetwork” ticket.
4. The position within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County compares favourably with that outside of the county,
within the Shire counties where no integrated tickets can be purchased. It is possible to buy an “nNetwork”
ticket for an origin station outside of the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s county. This would allow the purchaser to use
connecting bus services within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County to complete their journey, but not a bus service
to their origin station.
5. The major bus operator in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County is <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s (the successor to the
WMPTE bus operation), who operate 95% of the commercial mileage. This is in contrast to the position in
other metropolitan areas where the PTE bus operations were split to enable competition (which has only
happened on trunk corridors), but which has resulted in fragmentation of a former unified network between
two or three operators. Take up of pre-paid tickets has been much greater within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s; the
vast majority of tickets purchased being those designed <strong>and</strong> marketed by, <strong>and</strong> only valid on, <strong>Travel</strong> West
Midl<strong>and</strong>s. The proportion of passengers who pay their fare on the bus is much smaller within the West
Midl<strong>and</strong>s than in other parts of the country.
6. It is possible to buy some integrated tickets, such as a one day version of the “nNetwork” ticket on
bus. As each of the bus operators use diVerent ticketing systems then a “nNetwork” ticket will look diVerent
depending on what operators bus it is purchased on—<strong>and</strong> it will look similar to the operators own one day
ticket (valid on their services only). If the driver or inspector is not aware of the design of ticket then its
validity could be questioned, even though it may be perfectly valid for use on the service concerned.
7. The West Midl<strong>and</strong>s does participate in the “PlusBus” scheme, as do other areas in the country. From
my travels around the country I would comment that promotion <strong>and</strong> operation of the “PlusBus” scheme is
often poor—there is usually a map at the station showing the validity but there will be no sign on
participating bus saying that “PlusBus” tickets are accepted. (Indeed not all operators participate in
“PlusBus”.) I often book train travel on-line, utilising TheTrainLine.com website. If you book your ticket
via TheTrainline then at the time of writing you will not find reference to fares that include a “PlusBus”

Ev 98 Transport Committee: Evidence
element, meaning that in order to make use of these fares you have to go to a station <strong>and</strong> book in person—
<strong>and</strong> may have to pay as a dearer fare. (This is easy for me to do in the Centro area as most stations are staVed
from first to last train, but stations outside the region are either open for a limited time or are unstaVed).
8. Revenue protection is vital, to ensure that fares are collected. The current operator of West Midl<strong>and</strong>s
local services, Central Trains, is monitored by Centro to ensure that fare evasion is minimised, <strong>and</strong> CT can
be fined under a performance regime. When Penalty Fares were introduced onto the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s local
rail network in the mid 1990s ticket barriers were abolished at main stations within Birmingham City Centre.
As a consequence fare evasion shot up—the likelihood of being caught by an Inspector was minimal,
especially as Revenue Protection Inspectors were thin on the ground at that time.
9. After much local controversy Central Trains re-introduced ticket barriers at Birmingham New Street
station. This was only meant to be done on a “temporary” basis; however the operation of the barriers
proved to be so successful at collecting revenue that the New Street barrier has become permanent.
10. However local stations around the region do not have a permanent barrier. Detection of fare evasion
is therefore dependent on travelling Revenue Protection Inspectors, or on the conductor going through the
train to check tickets. There are diVerent powers between these staV; the conductor cannot issue a Penalty
Fare (but will only sell the evader a st<strong>and</strong>ard single or return ticket) but a Revenue Protection Inspector can.
11. There is a case for the introduction of “automatic” barriers at staVed stations as used by the London
Underground <strong>and</strong> by some operators in the South East. However, these will not stop evasion on their own—
it is possible to jump an automatic barrier so it will continue to be necessary to employ mobile Revenue
Protection StaV <strong>and</strong> target them at trains where fare evasion is common (such as those operating in the
evening). If automatic barriers were introduced it would be necessary to reconfigure the layout of stations
where at present you actually have to go onto the station platform to access the ticket oYce.
12. In terms of buses Inspectors have a number of other responsibilities—not just revenue protection.
These include making decisions on the regulation of services, supervision of drivers <strong>and</strong> monitoring the
punctuality of services. Where Inspectors employed by <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s have been working on revenue
protection duties they have done so as part of a team, as part of what is termed a “Gateway” check.
Sometimes the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Police provide assistance, although their role is not to check tickets but to
provide reassurance to passengers, <strong>and</strong> to deal with anyone who comes to their attention (eg if they are
wanted for a criminal oVence).
13. The “Gateway” checks developed as part of a joint initiative between <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the
West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Police called “Operation Safer <strong>Travel</strong>. More information can be found on the website
www.travelwm.co.uk/ost Essentially the Police Safer <strong>Travel</strong> Team operate on an “Intelligence” led basis,
<strong>and</strong> will only work in support of a team of Inspectors if there is intelligence of particular problems on that
route, such as street crime or anti-social behaviour. There have been letters to the local press though
complaining that the Police should not be supporting bus Inspectors <strong>and</strong> that it should be the bus companies
responsibility but the facts speak for themselves; people have been apprehended for serious oVences, or for
failing to answer bail at the “Gateway “ checks, passengers value the assurance that is oVered, <strong>and</strong> as buses
provide a service to the community then it is only appropriate that there should be a Police presence around
the network (much as there is on the railways with the British Transport Police).
14. The initial responsibility for revenue protection lies with the driver. Buses in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s
operate on the principle of “one man operation”—the driver takes fares, inspects passes <strong>and</strong> drives the bus.
Within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s operate an “exact fare system” (inherited from
WMPTE)—other operators give change for cash fares. This again can cause confusion amongst the
unfamiliar user, especially if they do not have the correct change. (It is a regular sight on TWM buses to see
passengers asking other users for change to pay their fare).
15. Drivers often have to deal with people who will not pay their fare, particularly those who attempt to
travel on an out of date ticket or pass. On my regular journeys on the network I have seen drivers sworn at,
verbally abused, <strong>and</strong> intimidated by those who wilfully refuse to pay their fare—even in Birmingham City
Centre in the evening peak. <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s have explained to me previously that the advice for
drivers who are dealing with someone who refuses to pay their fare is to turn the engine oV, park the bus,
<strong>and</strong> not move until the “fare dodger” has left the bus. This of course infuriates other passengers. One thing
the driver is advised not to do under any circumstance is to get out his cab <strong>and</strong> confront the person. This is
to avoid any risk to the driver, especially if the “fare dodger” is aggressive or violent. (It is worth noting that
a number of the people apprehended by the Police at “Gateway” checks have been caught fare dodging.)
16. There have been suggestions locally that conductors should return to the buses. The Birmingham
Mail recently ran a survey of bus users to identify their key concerns. The survey found that safety <strong>and</strong>
security on the network was a major concern, <strong>and</strong> out of 1,290 respondents, 53.5% cited it as a major
problem. 19 45% suggested that conductors should return. 20
19 Birmingham Mail, 8 February 2007.
20 Birmingham Mail, 9 February 2007.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 99
17. However, we now live in a diVerent age to when conductors were commonplace. If conductors were
re-introduced, they would be at risk of anti-social or violent behaviour, or indeed having their takings stolen.
In addition, the primary role of a conductor is to collect revenue, not to act as a Police OYcer or PCSO.
This view is backed up by the union that represents bus drivers, the TGWU; a spokesman was quoted in
the Birmingham Mail as saying:
“I can certainly underst<strong>and</strong> why people want to see the return of conductors because they are a
reassuring presence <strong>and</strong> it is useful to have someone in uniform on the bus. But they can add to
the problem in other ways, such as if someone wants to have a pop at someone in uniform. What
we need is more eVective <strong>and</strong> visible policing.” 21
18. Conductors have been introduced on the Midl<strong>and</strong> Metro light rail system, but that was only following
the discovery that the self-service ticket machines purchased for the stops were faulty. There have been
instances on the Midl<strong>and</strong> Metro where conductors have been the target of anti-social behaviour.
19. There would also be implications for the continued running of some services if conductors were reintroduced.
<strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s employs some 3,300 drivers—adding a conductor to each of their services
would eVectively require another 3,300 staV. Given that bus operators are required to operate services on
a commercial basis under the Transport Act 1985 (except on those which are supported as socially necessary)
compelling bus companies to provide conductors would aVect the viability of services, <strong>and</strong> could lead to
their withdrawal.
20. In terms of concessionary fares, the Centro area has one of the best schemes in the country. This
includes discounted tickets for children <strong>and</strong> students issued by Centro, valid not just for journeys in
connection with the school or college curriculum but for journeys at other times as well, <strong>and</strong> an excellent
senior citizens pass. The senior citizens pass allows holders to use any bus, rail or Metro service free of charge
in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County between 09.30 <strong>and</strong> 23.30 hours on Mondays—Fridays <strong>and</strong> from the
commencement of service until 23.30 hours on Saturdays, Sundays <strong>and</strong> Bank Holidays.
21. However, senior citizens who live outside of the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County do not enjoy the concession
for local rail services, <strong>and</strong> what concessionary fare scheme operates is dependant on the district that you live
in. For example in the district of Warwick senior citizens over 60 enjoy a pass that allows free bus travel for
the whole of Warwickshire after 9.00 a.m.—providing the journey starts or finishes within the County of
Warwickshire. (Holders of Centro senior citizens passes would not be able to travel by bus to the County
of Warwickshire). 22 By contrast, senior citizens of the district of Lichfield in StaVordshire can have a pass
allowing free travel (again for a journey starting or finishing within the boundary of the County
StaVordshire or the City of Stoke-on Trent), but the start time of the pass is 9.30 a.m. The website also
advises passengers that:
“The StaVordshire <strong>and</strong> Stoke-on-Trent concessionary fares scheme partnership reserve the right
to remove peak time free travel if vehicle overcrowding becomes a problem.” 23
22. The concessionary travel scheme available for the disabled within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s seems to be
much more complex, depending on assessments <strong>and</strong> whether local authorities are willing to pay for “Extra
Plus” tickets that allow eligble holders to travel at peak times, <strong>and</strong> it may be something that the committee
may wish to invite organisations representing the disabled to comment on.
23. In terms of “Smart Card” tickets, Centro did experiment with a Smart Card that replaced the senior
citizens pass for holders who lived in Coventry. Whilst this trial proved the benefits of Smart Card ticketing,
the actual technology used was found not be reliable <strong>and</strong> the “Smart” senior citizens passes have been
replaced by the old-style tickets. I underst<strong>and</strong> that Centro is keen to introduce Smart Cards <strong>and</strong> is in
discussion with bus <strong>and</strong> rail operators at the present time.
24. The specification for the new West Midl<strong>and</strong>s rail franchise, which will take over local services within
the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s currently operated by Central Trains, includes a requirement that bidders price a Smart
Card ticketing system that is ITSO compliant as part of their bid. 24
25. I conclude this submission with some recommendations, which the committee may wish to explore
further:
— The Centro area, <strong>and</strong> operating areas of other Passenger Transport Executives are extended from
their 1974 position to cover “<strong>Travel</strong> to Work” areas as they exist today, <strong>and</strong> the validity of their
inter-modal tickets are extended accordingly (in the Centro area this would mean extending its
boundaries to cover the entire West Midl<strong>and</strong>s region, including such places as Hereford,
Worcester, Rugby <strong>and</strong> StaVord).
— All bus operators are required by law to participate in a multi-modal/multi-operator ticketing
scheme (this would require amendments to some of the provisions regarding these in the Transport
Act 2000.
21 Birmingham Mail, 9 February 2007.
22 http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/WDC/Transport!<strong>and</strong>!streets/Public!transport/Fares—x2c—!passes!<strong>and</strong>!permits/
default.htm—6.3.2007
23 http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents—info.php?documentID%531&pageNumber%2—6.3.2007
24 3Stakeholder Briefing Document, West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Franchise, Daft, October 2006, page 8.

Ev 100 Transport Committee: Evidence
— PlusBus should be promoted a whole lot better than it is now. It should be available when booking
tickets on line, <strong>and</strong> it should be clear to users where <strong>and</strong> on what services they can use this ticket.
— A Penalty Fare scheme is introduced to cover buses with similar terms to that which operates on
the rail network, with non-payment resulting in a criminal prosecution. The penalty fare should
be set to a level that would act as a deterrent.
— Rail operators should be made to take revenue protection more seriously. Perhaps the st<strong>and</strong>ards
that Centro have used to make Central Trains raise their performance should be applied across
the entire National Rail Network.
— It is the job of the Police to deal with anti-social behaviour <strong>and</strong> crime on the public transport
network—not operational staV. There should be more resources made available for visible
policing on the bus <strong>and</strong> rail network, to provide reassurance to passengers <strong>and</strong> staV, deter crime
<strong>and</strong> apprehend oVenders.
— The concessionary fares scheme for senior citizens needs st<strong>and</strong>ardisation. The pass should be valid
on all rail services within the issuing authorities boundaries, as well as bus journeys that start or
end in the issuing authorities boundaries. It is nonsensical that a senior citizen who lives in
Stratford can travel on a bus all the way to Birmingham free of charge, but a senior citizen who
lives in Birmingham will find the validity of their Centro pass will end at the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County
boundary.
26. If the committee requires any clarification on the issues I have raised please do not hesitate to contact
me <strong>and</strong> I will be happy to oblige.
March 2007
1. Executive Summary
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from TransAction Resources Ltd (TPT 14)
The ITSO organisation has developed a st<strong>and</strong>ard for interoperable transport ticketing that has been
recognised through its adoption as the basis for ISO 24014-1, the new international st<strong>and</strong>ard for Integrated
Fare Management System architecture.
However, the time has come to move from development to implementation in a timely fashion, <strong>and</strong> this
raises the question of funding <strong>and</strong> the business case. It is extremely diYcult to drive the adoption of new
technology if the business case is not suYciently robust. Organisations are reluctant to invest precious funds
without some projected return that may be quantified.
The ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard includes a stored value e-purse that, if activated, has the potential to deliver a future
income stream to ITSO <strong>and</strong> its members. This revenue may be used to strengthen the business case
significantly <strong>and</strong> to oVset the costs of implementation.
It is recommended that a policy be adopted which recognises, <strong>and</strong> allows for, this future potential in a
way that does not detract from the delivery of the ENCTS within the required timeframes. As the e-purse
is already in the technology platform there should be no apparent conflict.
It will also be critical that a suYciently secure ITSO compliant chip is chosen, unlike the Oyster card <strong>and</strong>
the Scottish Entitlement card, to allow the adequate protection of cardholder funds in the future. The cost
of these chips has fallen significantly in recent years <strong>and</strong> they are now much more aVordable.
2. Introduction
TransAction Resources is a specialist consultancy, founded in 1994, which operates in the field of
electronic payments <strong>and</strong> loyalty. Our client base consists of large retailers <strong>and</strong> merchants in many countries
<strong>and</strong> also the Victorian <strong>and</strong> Federal governments in Australia. We have people based in both Australia <strong>and</strong>
the United Kingdom.
Of particular relevance to this inquiry, is our experience gained during work for the Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Authority (TTA), a state Government Business Enterprise which has responsibility for implementing the
New <strong>Ticketing</strong> Solution for trams, buses <strong>and</strong> trains (both rural <strong>and</strong> metropolitan) across the state of
Victoria. A contactless smartcard, br<strong>and</strong>ed “myki”, will be piloted during 2007 <strong>and</strong> will replace an existing
paper ticket system.
We have been involved in the development <strong>and</strong> implementation of a Payments Strategy <strong>and</strong> a Retail
Strategy for the TTA which will contribute to minimising their costs, generating some income, <strong>and</strong>
encouraging take-up <strong>and</strong> usage by the travelling public.
As a consequence of this experience, we have been closely studying the UK transport market, with a
specific focus upon ITSO, its present status, <strong>and</strong> potential opportunities.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 101
Also in the transport sector, we have done some work in relation to the proposed EU implementation of
an interoperable road user charging system that would allow heavy goods vehicles, <strong>and</strong> later motorists, to
travel across the EU Member States using a single electronic “tolling” device. Our work related to the
payments <strong>and</strong> clearing requirements of such a system, <strong>and</strong> how these might best be implemented.
3. Responses To Questions
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
The ITSO organisation has done an excellent job to develop <strong>and</strong> deliver an interoperable technology
st<strong>and</strong>ard that has the potential to operate across the UK, <strong>and</strong> possibly internationally as well. To achieve
widespread implementation in a timely manner, however, suYcient funding is required.
The UK approach has been to encourage local authorities <strong>and</strong> transport executives to implement local
programmes <strong>and</strong> to establish their own business case for doing so. The initial costs of implementing a
smartcard based transit system are high <strong>and</strong> economies of scale are reduced if a fragmented approach is
taken. Funding is often not available for large scale card issuing, on-vehicle <strong>and</strong> on-station equipment <strong>and</strong>
its installation, plus associated implementation <strong>and</strong> transition costs.
If a means can be found to generate a future income stream from ITSO transit smartcards, then the
business case becomes easier to establish <strong>and</strong> a projected return on investment may be quantified.
The ITSO technology platform includes a secure e-purse, which can store value <strong>and</strong> can be used to make
payments for travel, <strong>and</strong> potentially to make payments for other non-transit products <strong>and</strong> services.
Merchants accepting electronic forms of payment such as credit <strong>and</strong> debit cards pay fees for each
transaction. This would allow the ITSO organisation, <strong>and</strong> its members, to generate a future income stream
to oVset the cost of implementation.
It is clearly understood that the short term priority will be the delivery of the ENCTS <strong>and</strong> that other
projects must not interfere with, or divert resources from, achieving this goal. However the basic platform
for a future e-purse already exists in the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard <strong>and</strong> therefore, provided a suYciently secure chip is
chosen, there is no need for this future potential to impact upon ENCTS delivery in any way.
Indeed, if the organisations charged with implementing ENCTS underst<strong>and</strong> that a future income stream
is available to them, they may be encouraged to invest in this project much more readily than if that potential
is denied them.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
In addition to the Oyster card in London, <strong>and</strong> the ITSO smartcard in Scotl<strong>and</strong>, it is also worth considering
the Octopus programme in Hong Kong. The Octopus transit smartcard is now also used for non-transit
payments <strong>and</strong> is widely held <strong>and</strong> used by the travelling public.
The Oyster card in London has been successful for TfL as a transit card but they failed in their later
attempt to exploit the commercial potential of their e-purse. This was largely due to the fact that the Oyster
card makes use of a Mifare 4K chip which is not suYciently secure for a general payments instrument. The
announced Barclays project to add an Oyster chip to a Visa contactless payment card is the end result of a
decision to select a particular technology platform that was suitable for the transit objectives but limited
beyond that scope. At the time that TfL <strong>and</strong> their partners made that selection, they were not even
contemplating any future applications beyond transit. It is also the case that the cost of more secure chips
has fallen dramatically in the intervening years so they are now much more aVordable.
In Scotl<strong>and</strong>, a concession ITSO-compliant smartcard has been issued, but the required equipment to read
<strong>and</strong> process these cards on board vehicles has not been purchased or installed. Consequently the smartcard
benefits have largely not been realised <strong>and</strong> the concession card is being used as a “flash card” to identify
passengers entitled to receive a concession. The Scottish card is also a Mifare 4K card <strong>and</strong> would not be
considered secure enough to implement an e-purse in the future.
Other Issues
It is noteworthy that the International St<strong>and</strong>ards Organisation has adopted the ITSO conceptual
framework as the basis for its new st<strong>and</strong>ard for Integrated Fare Management System architecture (ISO
24014-1). This ensures that the UK transport system <strong>and</strong> the ENCTS will be compliant with international
st<strong>and</strong>ards when selecting ITSO as the platform for future interoperable ticketing systems.
This may open up the possibility of pan-European interoperable ticketing in the future which would be
in line with current European transport policy. The Calypso transit technology used by many European
cities is both ITSO <strong>and</strong> ISO 24014 compliant.

Ev 102 Transport Committee: Evidence
4. Recommendations
— Adopt a policy that will allow for the future potential of an income stream to be generated from
the activation of the e-purse on ITSO cards provided that this does not in any way interfere with,
or delay, the required delivery of ENCTS.
— Ensure that the card technology platform chosen for the implementation of ENCTS is suYciently
secure to adequately protect the funds of the cardholder.
— Seek to achieve a long term position whereby the ITSO transit technology platform becomes selffunding
to some degree.
— Undertake a Requirements Study to evaluate <strong>and</strong> document the issues <strong>and</strong> preliminary economics
of an implementation of the ITSO e-purse. This study must be structured to ensure no impact upon
ENCTS delivery.
7 March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest (TPT 15)
The South West Public Transport Users’ Forum (SWPTUF) was established in 2001 to promote the
interests of public transport users in the South West of Engl<strong>and</strong> government region (comprising the counties
of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset <strong>and</strong> Wiltshire <strong>and</strong> the unitary authorities of Bath
<strong>and</strong> North East Somerset, Bournemouth, Bristol, North Somerset, Plymouth, Poole, South
Gloucestershire, Swindon <strong>and</strong> Torbay)—the Forum became a Community Interest Company, limited by
guarantee, in August 2005. SWPTUF, which is a social enterprise company, acts as an advocate for
passengers to lobby for the improvement of public transport in the region <strong>and</strong> works closely with the South
West Regional Assembly—with the dissolution of the former Rail Passengers Committee for Western
Engl<strong>and</strong> in July 2005, SWPTUF is now the sole representative body for public transport users throughout
the South West Engl<strong>and</strong> region. SWPTUF adopted <strong>Travel</strong>Watch SouthWest as its trading name in June
2006.
Scope of Memor<strong>and</strong>um <strong>and</strong> Recommended Action
1. Only the concession fares aspect of the inquiry are addressed. Only points 10 & 11 in the Terms of
Reference/Call for Evidence are considered.
2. Point 10. Is the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill adequate? Only if Clause 8 in the Bill, that allows Orders
to extend to modes other than bus <strong>and</strong> Clause 10 that has Orders that could create an UK wide scheme,
have those Orders activated quickly. Government is to be congratulated for setting up the framework that
could create an “adequate” concession fares scheme.
3. Point 11. Are schemes suYciently integrated across modes <strong>and</strong> geographic areas? No, the same
solution as above is needed.
4. Clause 8 Orders should be used to deliver extension to all local tracked modes but in the interim should
be used quickly to create a pilot on the 50 Community Railways; cost estimate £3 to £7.2 million.
5. The “practicalities of mutual recognition, including funding” (Explanatory Notes to the Bill—Note
27) should be addressed positively <strong>and</strong> urgently to allow Clause 10 Orders to be activated.
Executive Summary
6. Current <strong>and</strong> post-2008 concession fare schemes are largely UK exchequer funded (Paragraphs 11 to
14). A largely UK funded scheme should oVer broadly similar benefits to residents of <strong>and</strong> visitors to all four
“areas” of the UK. From April 2007 UK residents in Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> will have UK Exchequer funded
“out of area” concession travel in the Republic of Irel<strong>and</strong>. Other UK citizens will not be allowed concession
travel in all parts of UK (15 to 19). An UK wide scheme is needed.
7. In many areas local rail oVers the better or only public transport option (20 to 26). Whilst concessions
on local rail are allowed for 46% of the population, examples are given of a full fare 36 minute return rail
journey with many options of stay length at the destination but where the free bus alternative is 225 minutes
return trip for a 36 minute stay. The local authority concerned makes a 50% “profit” on the concession fares
element of its RSG but refuse to spend 4% of that on including local rail. Local tracked modes (27 <strong>and</strong> 28)
are part of concession schemes in some areas but the post-2008 situation will still deny their use to visiting
pass holders. An UK wide mode integrated scheme is needed.
8. Clause 10 of the Bill could allow an UK wide scheme but resolution of the “practicalities of mutual
recognition, including funding” will be exacerbated by the inclusion/exclusion of diVerent modes in diVerent
localities (29 to 34). Clause 8 should be activated to avoid this exacerbation.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 103
9. Abstraction (35) is measured at 46% from local rail to free bus. Community Rail Development Strategy
targets are being threatened by abstraction caused by concession fares policy. Government policy needs
“joining-up” (36 to 39). Extension to Community Railways (40 to 43) would cost between £3m <strong>and</strong> £7.2m,
about 0.5% of the cost of bus concessions. Extension to all local rail would be far less than the £250 million
quoted by DfT (44 to 47).
10. An UK wide bus <strong>and</strong> local tracked modes scheme for residents <strong>and</strong> visitors is proposed NOT long
distance across UK travel. (Paragraphs 48 <strong>and</strong> 49).
UK Funded Scheme
11. The current patchwork of concession fares schemes is very largely UK funded. In Engl<strong>and</strong> funding is
channelled via Local Authorities but they are 75% funded from central government via Rate Support Grant.
Government describe the additions to the basic bus schemes as locally funded but people not enjoying above
statutory minimum schemes are likely to feel that they have paid for 75% of the additions enjoyed by others
but not themselves.
12. The Scottish <strong>and</strong> Welsh schemes are funded at aggregate level in those jurisdictions. The two
Community Railways soon to oVer concession fares in Wales are being funded by the Welsh Assembly
Government not Local Authorities. WAG has no revenue raising powers <strong>and</strong> uses UK Exchequer money.
The same is true of Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>. NI’s scheme is funded via the Department for Regional Development
at province level from UK Exchequer funds.
13. In some areas pensioners see some of their national taxes passed back to their Local Authorities via
RSG with an element for spending on concession fares. That element is not always fully spent on concession
fares (see paragraph 23) but those pensioners are denied an “adequate” scheme with above minimum
entitlement that is available elsewhere. They resent all the more paying 75% of schemes elsewhere that oVer
greater benefit for others.
14. A largely UK funded scheme should oVer broadly similar benefits across the UK, to both residents
of an area <strong>and</strong> visitors to that area.
Integration Across different Geographic Areas
(a) Cross Boundary <strong>Travel</strong>
15. On the isl<strong>and</strong> of Irel<strong>and</strong> concession cross boundary travel between Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Republic
of Irel<strong>and</strong> is already allowed to the first cross border destination in both countries. This could be a model
for the Engl<strong>and</strong>/Wales <strong>and</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>/Scotl<strong>and</strong> borders.
16. From April 2007 free concession travel anywhere in RoI <strong>and</strong> NI will be allowed by all pass holders
on the isl<strong>and</strong>. The DRD Press Release of 16 February 2007 says, “Under the terms of the new Scheme, each
government will pay for the free travel within its own borders.” (Reciprocal funding?). As the NI concession
scheme is funded from UK Exchequer, the UK Exchequer (one way or another) will be funding the scheme.
(b) “Out of Area” <strong>Travel</strong> (eg English not allowed concessions in Wales)
17. Whilst “Out of Area” concession travel will be UK funded for NI (but not GB) citizens in RoI, NI
citizens won’t enjoy the same in other parts of the UK. Similarly residents of Great Britain will not enjoy
“Out of Area” travel in NI. Is it acceptable that UK funding has been found for “Out of Area” concession
travel for part of the UK population (NI) for concession travel “abroad” but not for all UK residents to
enjoy “Out of Area” travel within UK?
18. The <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill in parliament now oVers at Clause 10 a potential way forward.
Orders could be made to allow mutual recognition of concession passes across the four “areas” of UK, but
only when the “practicalities of mutual recognition, including funding” (Explanatory Notes to the Bill—
note 27) have been resolved. The magazine Transit (23 February 2007—page 5) reported hopes that
resolution between Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> may be possible. Wales <strong>and</strong> NI were not mentioned in the report.
This would only apply to bus concession travel.
19. An UK wide scheme is required for a largely UK Exchequer funded scheme.
Integration Across Different Modes <strong>and</strong> RSG Funding for Concession Fares
20. In some rural areas the remnant of the railway left after Beeching often survived because the local
rail/road/river/bridge geography made bus replacement impractical. If concession travel on such railways is
denied, concession eligible passengers are denied equity with people on reasonable bus routes <strong>and</strong> empty oV
peak seats on such trains are wasted.

Ev 104 Transport Committee: Evidence
21. One such line is the Tamar Valley Line. Appendix 1 demonstrates that for stations on TVL the
journey times by bus to Plymouth are between double <strong>and</strong> six times the train journey time from the diVerent
stations. The operating days <strong>and</strong> hours of the train are also superior. The (singular) AM Peak train can have
over 50% st<strong>and</strong>ing, being a casualty of the First Great Western capacity fiasco. However, oV peak trains do
have empty seats.
22. Appendix 1 shows that Bere Ferres in particular eVectively doesn’t have a same day return bus service
to Plymouth (225 minute return bus journey for 36-minute stay in Plymouth). Despite this West Devon
Borough Council <strong>and</strong> Caradon Council (on the Cornish part of TVL) don’t add TVL to their respective
concession schemes.
23. The concession fares element in RSG is estimated at Appendix 2 <strong>and</strong> cross checks with the
government’s claim of national spend. Appendix 3 estimates that the distribution of RSG gives WDBC
£810,000 pa (in 2006–07) for concession fares. Whilst not ring fenced to concession fares this is the amount
that WDBC would lose from RSG if the function (Clause 9 of Bill) moved to County or National level.
WDBC estimate the 2006–07 out-turn (appeals by operators were dismissed or withdrawn) at £392,323. The
bulk of the “underspend” is largely beyond WDBC’s control. The bus network is sparse <strong>and</strong> the
opportunities for bus travel are limited. However, the outcome is that WDBC make a “profit” of £418k pa
on concession fares. WDBC do not agree with the author’s estimate of their £810k from RSG for concession
fares. They say, “WDBC is unable to identify any evidence of RSG being received prior to 2006–07 for
concession fares”. This is hard to reconcile with the notes to Appendix 2 that detail various government
additions to RSG since 1989–1990 for concession fares <strong>and</strong> what other authorities accept
24. Appendix 6 has the author’s estimate of £34.6k pa for a free concession scheme on TVL (Appendix
7 has split between 2 Councils). The author has tried (but failed) to persuade WDBC that £14.4k pa (less
than 4%) of their £418k pa “profit”’ in their RSG for bus concessions should be spent on concessions for
TVL. This would allow Bere Peninsula pensioners to enjoy concession travel (not eVectively available by
bus) to Plymouth that they are paying for via national taxation.
25. WDBC is not misappropriating this £0.4m as RSG is a general grant <strong>and</strong> doesn’t have to be spent on
concession fares. Clause 9 of the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill allows an order to move the concession fares
function (<strong>and</strong> RSG) from District to County or National level. If this happens WDBC could be £0.4m net
worse oV. There is an element of self destruction in WDBC’s refusal to oVer an “adequate” scheme to its
residents on the Bere Peninsula but UK Exchequer money intended for concession fares is not being used
in that way. An UK-wide bus <strong>and</strong> local tracked modes scheme is needed. Appendix 4 shows that 46% of the
UK population have mode integration but not all Local Authorities can be relied upon to deliver this,
despite adequate funding. Appendix 3 compares RSG <strong>and</strong> Out-Turn budgets for the Devonwide
Partnership as well as for WDBC, the 8 authorities between them show a “profit” of £5.7 million in 2006–07.
WDBC may not be the only authority denying an “adequate” mode integrated scheme despite having the
funding.
26. Appendix 1 looked at relative rail/bus services on a branch line that is Community Rail designated.
Many small rail stations on the mainline also oVer the better (only) options to larger towns/cities than bus.
Appendix 8 quantifies a few examples. The results are similar to Appendix 1.
27. This “mode equity” issue is not confined to rural areas. Latest government guidance on applying for
funding for LRT/Tram schemes says that application should not be made unless integration with the local
bus network is planned <strong>and</strong> deliverable. This makes good sense. When the Tyne & Wear Metro first opened
(before bus deregulation) bus services were curtailed to feed the Metro. Presumably the latest entreaty on
integration could see a better public transport overall but with some reduction in the level of “competing/
abstracting” bus service. In such circumstances it is not reasonable to say to concession passengers that they
are denied concession travel on part of the integrated system (the tram) <strong>and</strong> have to use a now reduced
bus service.
28. Happily (see Appendix 4) all the current light rail <strong>and</strong> tram systems in UK oVer free concession travel
except in one case where a £8 annual card has to be purchased to enjoy free travel. In these areas the local
heavy rail system is also seen as part of an integrated whole <strong>and</strong> broadly the same concession is oVered on
local heavy rail in those areas as for light rail/tram. An “adequate” concession scheme would regard each
local public transport system as an integrated whole.
Inter-action of Integration between Geographic Areas <strong>and</strong> Integration Across Modes
29. Depending on what Orders from the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill are activated there could be interaction
between the issues <strong>and</strong> problems of diVerent area <strong>and</strong> diVerent mode coverage of concession fares
schemes. With no Orders activated non-residents of a <strong>Travel</strong> Concession Authority visiting a TCA within
their own “area” of UK, will be allowed free bus travel <strong>and</strong> denied concession travel on local tracked modes,
that is available to resident pass holders. This makes it more diYcult to deal with the “practicalities of
mutual recognition, including funding”.
30. In a largely UK funded scheme these practicalities must be solved across the UK

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 105
31. In RoI <strong>and</strong> NI both schemes allow free bus <strong>and</strong> tracked mode travel. Hence their “mutual
recognition” has been aided by both schemes covering the same modes, thus not producing an inter-action
between area <strong>and</strong> mode.
32. Activating the Orders in Clause 10 of the Bill could produce the UK wide scheme required of a largely
UK funded scheme, but can only happen when the “practicalities of mutual recognition, including funding”
have been resolved. Resolution is exacerbated by this inter-action between diVerent areas <strong>and</strong> diVerent
modes. Clause 8 in the Bill allows an Order to add other modes to the Engl<strong>and</strong> wide bus scheme. These
Orders must be activated <strong>and</strong> similar action is needed the other three areas of UK. This needs to be done
for local heavy rail, light rail, trams <strong>and</strong> underground railways (the local tracked modes) to facilitate the
activation of Clause 10 Orders.
33. If only (see paragraph 18) Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> achieve “mutual recognition” we would have the
unfair, confusing <strong>and</strong> hard to enforce situation of pass holders from Birmingham <strong>and</strong> Glasgow allowed free
bus travel in the UK capital but its denial to residents of CardiV <strong>and</strong> Belfast. The residents of Belfast may
be doubly confused, as they would be allowed free bus travel in Dublin in RoI. But this is compounded by
mode diVerence. The pensioner from Birmingham will enjoy free local rail <strong>and</strong> tram travel at home but will
not be allowed this in London. The person from Glasgow has a flat fare on local rail <strong>and</strong> underground but
will pay full fare on London’s tube <strong>and</strong> local rail. The Londoner will expect free use Glasgow underground
but not get it
34. Together Clauses 8 <strong>and</strong> 10 oVer the potential framework for an “adequate” mode integrated UK wide
scheme that is “fit for purpose” for a largely UK funded scheme.
Abstraction
35. There appears to be no UK wide inclusive research but Report 179 from the Scottish Executive’s
Development Department looking at the eVect of the free (previously half) bus fares said:
“A significant switch from rail to bus was measured by on train surveys on routes in the Lothians
<strong>and</strong> Strathclyde where bus was oVered as a free fare alternative.”
They found between 19% <strong>and</strong> 66% pensioner abstraction on diVerent lines, averaging at 46%.
There is no reason to suppose that similar abstraction isn’t happening in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales.
Indeed the motivation for the WAG extension of concession fares to the Conwy Valley
Community Railway is abstraction, but the author is not aware of any quantification.
Community Railway Development Strategy
36. This is government policy for about 50 lines that include low frequency rural branch lines with less
than 150 train-miles on a weekday (measured at publication of CRDS) to lines with 30 times that service
level, about 10 of which enjoy the concessions at Appendix 4. Three quantified targets were set. One seeks
to double revenue <strong>and</strong> another to halve subsidy per passengers. As subsidy is fixed for the term of a franchise,
this amounts to doubling passengers. Doubling passengers need not be the same as doubling revenue. Fares
could be put up to increase revenue but the introduction of concession fares to CRs would generate
passengers that would not be compensated to the TOC (“no better oV-no worse oV” doctrine) <strong>and</strong> increase
passengers without increasing revenue.
37. The abstraction of revenue paying CR passengers who are over 60 years old but attracted to bus when
the half fare scheme on buses became free fare (see paragraph 35) will have worked against the revenue
target. This may be disguised by other increases in revenue. A concession scheme for TVL would generate
concession passengers amounting to about 12.8% of the total passengers on TVL, leading to an 11.3%
reduction in subsidy per passenger, against the target of 50% reduction. (see Appendix 7.)
Joined-Up Government
38. The government CRDS <strong>and</strong> policy on concession fares (unless the Order created by Clause 8 is
activated for CRs) are working against each other. If this were intended, accusations of “closure by stealth”
of CRs would be hard to rebut. If this is an “unintended consequence”, it can be easily rectified by activating
Clause 8 to include CRs in the Engl<strong>and</strong> wide scheme.
39. This could be a pilot to test implementation before extension to other local heavy railways.
Pilot Extension to Heavy Rail on Community Railways
40. This is happening in Wales already for two CRs (see paragraph 12) <strong>and</strong> is funded from the UK
Exchequer. Appendix 6 has the author’s estimate for extending concession fares to TVL <strong>and</strong> all 50 CRs. The
cost for all 50 CRs would be between £3 million <strong>and</strong> £7.2 million, about 0.5% of the cost of bus concessions.
The usual purpose of a pilot may be negated by the two pilots in Wales <strong>and</strong> the existence of concession fares
on local rail for 46% of the population. The “pilot” suggested here is more by way of a “phased
implementation” to all local rail not setting any conditions on that extension. Permanent extension to just

Ev 106 Transport Committee: Evidence
CRs would not be acceptable. In Devon <strong>and</strong> Cornwall most branch lines have CR designation but the
Paignton/Newton Abbot line with 7 long distance <strong>and</strong> 21 local services per weekday is denied CR status
because of longer distance trains. It is still predominately a local railway <strong>and</strong> should enjoy concession fares
within integrated local transport. Appendix 8 gives examples of where train is much the better or the only
eVective public transport option from smaller stations on the mainline served by local trains. These cannot
be designated CR but are part of the local public transport network.
41. About 20% of CRs already enjoy concession fares, an “adequate” <strong>and</strong> equitable UK scheme would
not deny application of concession fares to the other 80% of CRs or ignore the fact that 100% of pass holders
in NI enjoy free rail travel.
42. There are some empty seats oV peak on CRs <strong>and</strong> the Secretary of State objected to CRs carrying
“fresh air”. In some areas CRs oVer a better public transport option than bus.
43. There are no arguments against extending concession fares to CRs, except cost <strong>and</strong> that cost is
very low.
Extension to all Local Heavy Rail <strong>Travel</strong>—Cost <strong>and</strong> Definition
44. A pilot extension to CR is suggested above but extension to all local heavy rail should happen <strong>and</strong>
need not be expensive. It is realised that this inquiry is not concerned with fare levels. However, there remains
a perception that local rail travel is more expensive than bus.
45. This could deter the acceptance of local heavy rail as aVordable in a concession scheme. Appendix 5
dispels that misconception <strong>and</strong> shows that for oV peak rail journeys less than 27 miles are usually cheaper
than bus at national level data. Six examples of branch lines in Devon & Cornwall show savings on an oV
peak return journey of between £1.50 <strong>and</strong> £3 on five of the six branch lines <strong>and</strong> an extra cost of 80p on
one line.
46. For the debate in the Lords DfT estimated extension to local rail at £250 million. Much of this would
not be “new public money” as 46% (see Appendix 4) of the population already have this benefit <strong>and</strong> those
areas represent the busier local lines. Also the abstraction to bus will be partially reversed <strong>and</strong> savings made
on bus reimbursement, reducing the net cost of extension to local rail. The author has requested from DfT
the detail of their estimate of £250 million but awaits an answer.
47. The authorities in Appendix 4 manage to define local rail. There should be no trouble with definition
in areas still to add local rail.
An UK Wide Concession Scheme for Local Bus <strong>and</strong> Local Tracked Modes of Public Transport NOT
Long Distance Across UK <strong>Travel</strong>
48. There is a half fare concession scheme for long distance express coach travel <strong>and</strong> the £20 seniors
railcard for 33% discount on rail travel, that makes economic sense for long distance rail travel, if not local
rail travel. The cost of extending free concession travel to long distance coach <strong>and</strong> rail travel would be high
<strong>and</strong> these are not essential local journeys that pass holders need to make.
49. Extension to tracked modes is only proposed for local journeys, but for both residents <strong>and</strong> visitors
to an area.
APPENDIX 1
COMPARISON OF BUS AND TRAIN JOURNEYS FROM VILLAGES ON TAMAR VALLEY
LINE TO PLYMOUTH
(See also Appendix 8 for non-branch line examples).
Source: All data taken from <strong>Travel</strong>ine on 10 February 2007. Based on departure from village after 0930
(as this is start time for statutory concession scheme) <strong>and</strong> return from Plymouth after 1200 for Monday 12
February, except where indicated. Times in minutes.
Journey Bus Time Train Time BT/TT Bus Changes Notes
From Gunnislake 96/119 45 2.39 1 or 2 A, B, C
To Gunnislake 78/93 45 1.90 1 or 2 A, B, C, D
From Calstock 104/112 33 3.27 2 or 3 A, B, C
To Calstock 88/102 33 2.88 1 or 2 A, B, C, D
From Bere Alston 92/98 24 3.96 2 A, B, C

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 107
Journey Bus Time Train Time BT/TT Bus Changes Notes
To Bere Alston 87/97 24 3.83 1 or 2 A, B, C, D
From Bere Ferres none 19 N/A N/A C, E
From Bere Ferres 109 19 5.73 2 B, C, E
To Bere Ferres 96 18 5.33 1 C, D, F, G
Notes
A. Max/Min Bus Times from diVerent options oVered by <strong>Travel</strong>ine
B. Where Bus Changes more than 1, the 2nd or 3rd changes may save a little time but are unlikely to be
made by passengers. All bus journeys have at least one change in Tavistock or Callington
C. All trains are direct, no changes
D. Some return journey times by bus depend on 5 minute change at Tavistock or Callington, that, with
buses experiencing congestion coming out of Plymouth, may not be robust
E. Only AM bus service is 0915, so potentially not qualifying for 0930 statutory start of bus concession
scheme. The 0915 bus journey time is shown in the 2nd “From Bere Ferres” row in the table
F. The only return by bus that is possible on the same day requires a 5 minute change at Tavistock, which,
given note D, may force cautious passengers to leave Plymouth on the bus to Tavistock that runs 20
minutes earlier. If so the journey time becomes 116 minutes <strong>and</strong> BT/TT 6.44.
G. The inbound journey arrives at 1104, the only same day return departure option is at 1200 (or 1140 for
the more cautious). Hence the maximum time in Plymouth would be 56 (or 36) minutes
Ratio of Bus to Train Journey Time (BT/TT)
The fourth column in the table shows how many times slower the bus (taking the average between the
fastest <strong>and</strong> slowest time) is compared to the train. It ranges from just less than double (1.90) for the journey
To Gunnislake from Plymouth to six times (5.73 or 6.44 –see Note F) for the From Bere Ferres journey.
Comparison of Operating Times <strong>and</strong> Days
Buses from Callington <strong>and</strong> Tavistock to Plymouth operate seven days per week but buses from
Gunnislake, Calstock, Bere Alston <strong>and</strong> Bere Ferres do not operate on Sundays (but Gunnislake has a
summer Sunday service). The train does run on Sundays. The train starts earlier than the local buses but as
the statutory concession scheme start is 0930, this is not relevant. However, the train also operates a few
hours later than the last local buses.
Comparison of length of stay in Plymouth options from Bere Ferres
The 205 (or 225, see Note F) minute return journey by bus from Bere Ferres to Plymouth allows 56 (or
36—see Note G) minutes stay in Plymouth. The return journey time by train of 36 minutes allows many
options of length of stay in Plymouth. Using the first three trains to Plymouth after 0930 <strong>and</strong> the first three
PM return trains allows stays of, 145, 187, 210, 312, 326 or 428 minutes in Plymouth.
APPENDIX 2
CONCESSION FARES ELEMENT IN RSG
The element of concession fares grant from central government to local government is contained within
RSG but not specifically identified. Local government has complained that the (unidentified) quantum is
insuYcient. The validity of that claim would depend on the quantum. An estimate of that quantum is
therefore required. Table One below makes this estimate.
Concession fares element within RSG was last specifically identified in 1989–1990 at £296.9 million. After
that it was subsumed into the EPCS part of RSG. Three specific quantified additions for concession fares
have been made since 1989–1990 <strong>and</strong> are identified in Table One.
Bus fares <strong>and</strong> hence the cost of concession fares to local government has risen since 1989–1990, but the
level of increase is not separately quantified within RSG. The key assumption in Table One (Note b) is that
the % increase in the concession fares element subsumed within EPCS is the same as the overall per cent
increase in EPCS. Table One uses that assumption <strong>and</strong> the specific additions for concession fares but takes
care (Notes c, e, g <strong>and</strong> i) not to “double count” the eVect of those additions.

Ev 108 Transport Committee: Evidence
Table one
Year 1 2 3 4
1990–91 3891.0(a) 296.9 296.9
2000–01 5700.8 46.5 435.0(b) 435.0
2001–02 5960.7(c) 4.6 454.8 508.8(d)
2002–03 6269.4 4.2(e) 530.3(f) 530.3
2003–04 7015.7(g) 11.9 593.4 643.4(h)
2005–06 7299.7 3.3(I) 664.6(j) 664.6
2006–07 1014.6(k)(l)
Years
Not all years shown, but they can be provided if required.
Columns
1. Control total for EPCS –district level services (£ million).
2. % increase in Column 1from Column 1 in row above.
3. Estimated concession fares content of Column 1 (£ million).
4. Total estimated concession fares in RSG (£ million).
Notes
(a) Includes £296.9 million for concession fares from GRE in 1989–1990 when last separately
identified.
(b) Assume that growth in concession fares element same as overall growth, apply Column 2 to
Column 3 in row above to estimate this year’s Column 3.
(c) Excluding £54 million specifically added to Column 1 for start of half fares scheme, to calculate
valid per centage increase in base EPCS to use to derive Column 2.
(d) The same £54 million added back to Column 3 to derive Column 4.
(e) Based on £6014.7 total for 2001–02 for Column 1.
(f) Apply Column 2 in 2002–03 to Column 4 in 2001–02.
(g) Excluding £50 million specifically added to Column 1 for men allowed in scheme from 60!, to
calculate valid % increase in base EPCS to use to derive Column 2.
(h) The same £50 million added back to Column 3 to derive Column 4.
(i) Based on £7,065.7 total in 2003–04.
(j) Apply Column 2 in 2005–06 to Column 4 in 2003–04.
(k) £350 million added specifically for free fares scheme. Author not aware for Column 1 for 2006–07,
so £350 million added to Column 4 in 2005–06, so actual value of Column 4 in 2006–07 would
be higher.
(l) Government claim that they spend £1 billion on concession fares, hence cross checks.
APPENDIX 3
DISTRIBUTION TO DEVON TCAS OF CONCESSION FARES ELEMENT OF RSG
AND 2006–07 OUT-TURN BUDGETS
Appendix 2 quantifies the element of RSG that is there for concession fares. This Appendix estimates the
distribution of that element for concession fares to the <strong>Travel</strong> Concession Authorities in Devon.
This element is within the EPCS FSS fund <strong>and</strong> is distributed according to the formula used for that part
of RSG. This was revised for the addition of the £350 million for free fares. The allocation of the total
concession fares money in RSG can be estimated by applying each TCAs % of the £350 million to the
£1,014.6 million from Appendix 2.
The share of the £350 million for each TCA is taken from Table 2.3 of a September 2005 report to the
Devon Concession Partnership supplied to the author by its Chairperson <strong>and</strong> Corporate Director at WDBC
Share of £350 million Share of Con Fares
Extra for free fares element in RSG
Authority/Group £m Share as % £m
Plymouth 2.03 0.58 5.88
East Devon 0.65 0.19 1.93
Torbay 1.28 0.37 3.75
Exeter 0.70 0.20 2.03
Mid Devon 0.37 0.11 1.12

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 109
Share of £350 million Share of Con Fares
Extra for free fares element in RSG
Authority/Group £m Share as % £m
North Devon 0.60 0.17 1.72
South Hams 0.44 0.13 1.32
Teignbridge 0.79 0.23 2.33
Torridge 0.40 0.11 1.12
West Devon 0.28 0.08 0.81
Devon
Partnership 4.86 1.39 14.10 (1)
Devon 7.54 2.15 21.81
(1) Plymouth <strong>and</strong> East Devon are not part of Devon Partnership.
Ring Fenced?
The element for concession fares is not ring fenced to concession fares. However, if the non-Unitary
Authorities lose the function to County Councils or all of the authorities above lose the function to national
level (Clause 9 of <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill), they will lose the amounts of RSG shown above.
2006–07 RSG <strong>and</strong> Forecast Out-turn Budgets (Mid-February Forecasts)
Authority/Group RSG Out-Turn “Profit”
West Devon Borough Council £0.81 million £0.39 million £0.42 million
Devon Partnership £14.10 million £8.41 million £5.69 million
APPENDIX 4
CONCESSION SCHEMES THAT OFFER FREE OR LOW FLAT FARE ON TRACKED MODES
OF LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Authority Mode Fare
Engl<strong>and</strong>
London Local rail, Tube, DLR <strong>and</strong> Tram Free
West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Local rail <strong>and</strong> Tram Free
Greater Manchester Local rail <strong>and</strong> Tram Free
South Yorkshire Local rail <strong>and</strong> Tram Free
Merseyside Local rail Free
Tyne & Wear Local rail 50p flat fare
Metro Free with £8 “Gold Card”
West Yorkshire Local rail 35p flat fare
Nottingham City Tram Free
Nottinghamshire County Tram Free but half fare
1600–1800
Blackpool Tram Free
Milton Keynes Local rail 35p flat fare
Isle of Wight Local rail Free
Scotl<strong>and</strong>
Strathclyde Local rail <strong>and</strong> Glasgow Tube 40p flat fare
Edinburgh Local rail 50p flat fare
Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>
Whole of province Local rail Free
Wales
110 people living in the Dolwyddelan area can use their bus pass on the Conwy Valley Line, as, until
recently, they had no daytime bus service.
The Welsh Assembly Government are to trial free concession fares on Conwy Valley Line <strong>and</strong>
Borderl<strong>and</strong>s Line, possibly followed by another three Community Railways.

Ev 110 Transport Committee: Evidence
Population Covered by Free or Low Flat Fare Schemes
Engl<strong>and</strong> 46%, Scotl<strong>and</strong> 53%, NI 100%, Wales (currently) under 1% <strong>and</strong> UK 46%.
Other Schemes
Some local authorities oVer 50% discount on local rail; others oVer a discount on the purchase of the £20
Seniors Railcard that oVers 33% discount on local <strong>and</strong> national rail fares.
Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>
From April 2007 NI pass holders will have free travel on buses, trains <strong>and</strong> trams in the Republic of
Irel<strong>and</strong>.
Community Railways
About 10 of the 50 CRs enjoy the concessions above.
National data—Barry Doe
APPENDIX 5
BUS AND TRAIN FARES—AUGUST 2006
Barry Doe is a respected independent consultant with a special interest in fares. He writes in Railway
Journals under the heading of “Faredealer”. He conducts surveys of bus <strong>and</strong> rail fares over the years
comparing rates per mile for singles, peak returns <strong>and</strong> oV peak returns. The quote below is from his latest
(August 2005) published survey.
“The tables here show that for all bar the 27-mile journeys there are always bus operators charging
more—sometimes significantly more—than rail, especially for oV-peak returns.”
Since the concession scheme is oV peak, this quote is particularly relevant.
Devon <strong>and</strong> Cornwall Data
The author compared bus <strong>and</strong> train fares on some Devon <strong>and</strong> Cornwall branch lines. As the statutory
concession scheme is oV peak, the appropriate oV peak fares were used. Often on longer bus trips or ones
requiring a change of bus, the bus operators oV peak day ticket was cheapest, if so it was used. Prices in £
Journey Cheapest OV Peak Fare DiVerence (% saving on bus
fare)
Bus Train
Bere Alston/Plymouth 6.00 3.50 2.50 (42%)
Falmouth/Truro 4.00 2.50 1.50 (38%)
Newquay/Par 6.00 3.50 2.50 (42%)
Barnstaple/Exeter 6.00 3.00 3.00 (50%)
Exmouth/Exeter Central 4.80 3.00 1.80 (38%)
Looe/Liskeard 2.20 3.00 "0.80 ("36%)
The first five examples have large group operators running the equivalent bus service. The last example
is operated by Western Greyhound (Small Operator of the Year Award winner for last two years). The local
data confirms the Barry Doe national data. The reimbursement process does not rely solely on published
ticket prices but they are a major determinant of the compensation that is paid to operators.
It would appear both at national <strong>and</strong> local level that savings could be made if a concession pass holder
travelled by local train rather than bus. The % savings above are significant <strong>and</strong> the average saving per pass
holder switching to CR from bus for the CRs above is £1.75. This figure may seem high compared to average
bus fares but the journeys here are the longer, higher fare local journeys.
APPENDIX 6
COST OF CONCESSION FARES ON TVL AND ALL COMMUNITY RAILWAYS
Data at aggregate level for CRs is not availble to the author The government’s Community Rail
Development Strategy has no data on overall passenger numbers, average fare or % of passengers who are
pensioners using CRs. These three items of data are needed to make an estimate of the cost of extending
concession fares to CRs. The author has used what data is available to him to make an estimate.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 111
For the Tamar Valley Line the last year of the Wessex franchise produced 111k passengers (single
passenger trips), of whom 15.8% were over 60 <strong>and</strong> yielded £213k in fares revenue. Concession eligible
passengers would include some groups other than pensioners <strong>and</strong> using 16% would yield 17,760 journeys,
rounding up to 18K should produce a conservative estimate. The average fare is £1.92, so reimbursement to
the TOC if those journeys were free would be £34.6k pa. (£14.4k of which falls on WDBC—see Appendix 7)
Grossing this to the 50 CRs should obviously not be done by multiplying the TVL cost by 50 as the CRs
vary in length (<strong>and</strong> therefore average fare) <strong>and</strong> use level. The train-miles operated on a CR will reflect
frequency of the trains, which should crudely reflect use level <strong>and</strong> the mileage element should reflect journey
length/average fare. It is assumed that the % of pensioners in the population across the 50 CRs is not too
dissimilar to that of TVL. The only other estimate of the cost of concession fares on CRs known to the
author is from TAITH for the Conwy Valley Line <strong>and</strong> the Welsh section of the Borderline. The CVL figure
was £57k.
The author deduced the train-miles for each CR at the time of publication of CRDS. To test the idea that
the cost of concession fares could be proportional to train-miles the value of CVL/TVL is 2.29 for trainmiles
<strong>and</strong> 1.65 for the cost of concession reimbursement. The figures will never be exactly equal as any two
CRs will have slightly diVerent % pensioners, diVerent alternative bus services, access to stations etc. but
both values being within 0.35 around a value of two lends some support to the hypothesis. Without better
data an alternative estimate is not possible but a range can be put on the estimate by using CVL <strong>and</strong> TVL
separately as well as combined. The 50,420 train-miles used are for one day from the Mon/Fri timetable at
the time of CRDS publication.
TVL Estimate £34.6k x (50420/240) % £7.2 million.
CVL Estimate £57.0k x (50420/550) % £5.2 million.
Combined Estimate £91.6k x (50420/790) % £5.9m
Hence, the central estimate would be taken as £5.9 million but the range should be borne in mind.
However, this central estimate is likely to be an over estimate of the total “new public money” needed, for
two reasons.
1. If concession fares are oVered on CRs there will be some transfer of concession use from bus to CR.
Appendix 5 shows that local rail fares are cheaper than bus in most cases. Thus the total reimbursement to
bus <strong>and</strong> CR operators should show a net reduction
2. About 20% of CRs are located in areas identified in Appendix 4 <strong>and</strong> already enjoy concession fares.
Expenditure here would not be “new public money”.
Quantifying the eVect of these two factors is not easy <strong>and</strong> the result should be viewed with caution. If the
use level of the 20% of CRs already having concession fares were that of the average CR, the “new money”
central estimate would be closer to £4.8 million. Appendix 5 shows that for Devon & Cornwall CRs the
average saving to the concession budgets for each pass holder switching from bus to CR is £1.75. Lack of
data makes an estimate of the likely level of bus to CR switching diYcult but a switch of one million journeys
pa from bus to the 50 CRs would reduce the “new money” bill to only just over £3 million. Paragraph 35
shows that transfer levels can be high (46%) when measured in the other direction.
Share of Costs
APPENDIX 7
SHARE OF TVL CONCESSION COST BETWEEN CARADON AND WDBC AND
GENERATION OF PASSENGERS
The total estimate (Appendix 6) of the cost of free concession fares on TVL of £34.6k pa is based on all
18k concession passengers. If all CRs are included in an UK wide local bus <strong>and</strong> local tracked mode scheme,
all 18k (plus uncompensated generated use) passengers would be eligible for concession travel. If this doesn’t
occur quickly <strong>and</strong> Caradon <strong>and</strong> WDBC can be persuaded to make a local ’add on’ of TVL, the share of the
cost between the two would be of interest.
Some of the 18k concession passengers are leisure travellers from Plymouth <strong>and</strong> beyond but the majority
are residents along TVL. A conservative estimate is made by assuming that all 18k concession passengers
are from the two council’s areas. The passenger split overall Caradon:WDBC is 55:45 <strong>and</strong> is assumed the
same for concession use. The oV-peak day return fare from Gunnislake <strong>and</strong> Calstock (in Caradon) are the
same at £4.00. Bere Alston <strong>and</strong> Bere Ferres (in WDBC) have the same oV-peak return at £3.50.
Caradon costs should exceed WDBC costs by a factor of (55/45)x(400/350)%1.4
Caradon cost £34.6k x (1.4/2.4)%£20.2k
WDBC cost £34.6k x (1.0/2.4)%£14.4k

Ev 112 Transport Committee: Evidence
Generation of Passengers
TRL publish a document, The dem<strong>and</strong> for public transport: a practical guide that is the “bible” for
elasticities. Chapter 6 deals with fare elasticity. It shows that fares elasticity is higher for oV peak <strong>and</strong> leisure
use. There is a long-term eVect that is larger than the “short run” elasticity. Table 6.55 pulls together the
findings from many studies <strong>and</strong> for “Suburban rail—UK—oV-peak—short run” quotes a mean across
studies of –0.79. This means that a 100% fare reduction (free fares) would generate 79% more passengers.
Applying this to the 18k concession passengers on TVL means that (0.79x18k) 14.2k extra concession
passengers would use TVL. This amounts to (14.2/111) 12.8% extra passengers over the whole passenger
base of 111k. The CRDS has a target to reduce subsidy per passenger by 50%, increasing the denominator
in that equation by 12.8% will reduce the target by 11.3%, a worthwhile contribution towards the 50% target.
This is based on a “short run” elasticity <strong>and</strong> will produce more eVect in the long term.
APPENDIX 8
COMPARISON OF TRAIN AND BUS JOURNEYS FROM SETTLEMENTS ON RAIL LINES
OTHER THAN CRs
Source. <strong>Travel</strong>ine for 28 February 2007 post-0930 journeys checked on 27 February.
Appendix 1 made the same comparisons from a stations/settlements on a branch line that was designated
CR. Small stations on mainlines (that cannot be CR designated) often oVer a vital public transport link to
larger towns/cities <strong>and</strong> some of those are mentioned below. As with TVL the train is often a far better <strong>and</strong>
sometimes the only reasonable alternative. There is a “double whammy” eVect at Whimple <strong>and</strong> Lostwithiel,
where bus services to the destinations mentioned have been requested from the local authority but they have
declined to subsidise such services as a train alternative exists.
AvoncliV to Bath
Hourly train to Bath taking 15 minutes. Original settlement <strong>and</strong> railway station in valley bottom. Steep
hills <strong>and</strong> narrow lanes to newer part of settlement. Only upper part of AvoncliV served by bus. Half-mile
steep uphill walk from Old Peoples Apartments to bus stop. Bus every two hours <strong>and</strong> takes 30 minutes to
Bath.
Dunbridge (Station now renamed Mottisfont <strong>and</strong> Dunbridge) to Romsey
Trains at 1200 <strong>and</strong> 1300 taking six minutes to Romsey, with three return options. A bus at 0919 (before
0930), then no bus till 1553 without a same day return.
St Germans to Plymouth <strong>and</strong> Liskeard
Train journey to Plymouth takes 18 minutes. One bus option to Plymouth is possible with a change of
bus <strong>and</strong> takes 75 minutes but there is no same day return bus. In the Liskeard direction the train journey
takes 12 minutes. There is one bus option to Liskeard taking 65 minutes with a change of bus but no same
day return by bus.
Kemble to Swindon <strong>and</strong> Gloucester
Hourly train to Swindon (16 minutes) <strong>and</strong> Gloucester (35 minutes). Two changes of bus in both directions
to both destinations are needed. The only eVective return bus trip to Swindon would need 284 minutes (32
by rail) for a 79-minute stay. The only eVective return bus trip to Gloucester takes 258 minutes (70 by train)
<strong>and</strong> yields 105 minutes in Gloucester.
Whimple to Axminster <strong>and</strong> Exeter
Train service two-hourly with some additional trains. 22 minutes to Axminster <strong>and</strong> 16 to Exeter Central.
Only eVective return by bus to Axminster takes 269 minutes (44 by train) with one change of bus for a 98minute
stay. To Exeter there are two eVective returns by bus, both with one change each way. They take
198 or 176 minutes (32 by train).

Lostwithiel to Liskeard
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 113
Train takes 18 minutes <strong>and</strong> National Express 500 service connects the two. There is no bus service.
Other Examples
There will be many other examples.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from North-East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable (NECTAR) (TPT 16)
General Points
The answers to all the sets of questions vary according to:
(i) which mode of transport is considered, <strong>and</strong>
(ii) whether the viewpoint is that of the passenger or of the service-provider.
Our response tries to consider conditions on buses <strong>and</strong> on trains from both viewpoints wherever possible.
Specific Questions as Posed
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated (a) across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> (b) between diVerent
geographical areas?
(a) No, not even in the London area, although it is better there than in most places. Oyster cards are
not (yet) valid on several local rail services within the TfL area. In the provinces, the term
“integration” is variously defined: some rail companies oVer flat-fare add-ons for bus use at
destination, but this does not help those whose rail-journeys are prefaced by a bus ride. PTEs do
better on this than towns <strong>and</strong> cities without PTEs: for instance, Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear oVers
“TransFares” on bus or metro for those changing modes as part of their journey, <strong>and</strong> Merseyside
has Day Rover tickets for useon buses, trains <strong>and</strong> ferries. Apart from isolated examples such as
these, little is done, particularly in non-PTE areas, to allow passengers using two buses for one
journey to take one ticket rather than re-booking on the second bus.
Nowhere in continental Europe expects anything like this. In fact, bus tickets as such are flat-fare
<strong>and</strong> valid for a stated period of time, without being confined to one bus journey or (where relevant)
one mode of travel. Yet, in principle, integrated ticketing is (in our view, anyway) vital if public
transport is to attract more people to use it—<strong>and</strong> in theory its introduction should cost very little.
As public transport providers are hopelessly fragmented, however, aiming to maximise profits
rather than to carry more people, ticket integration is diYcult to introduce, especially if operators
see it as a potential loss of revenue in the short term.
(b) It depends if this means “one <strong>and</strong> the same ticket may take a passenger through a series of bus/
rail/bus changes over a long distance” or “facilities in one conurbation match/diVer from those
oVered in another”. Thus, in the North-East region, through-ticketing allows transfer from
“heavy” rail to Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear metro, though this does not always receive the publicity that it
should: but no such through ticketing exists any-where in Tees-side. There are even cases of buses
that run as one route <strong>and</strong> then regularly change their identity to another route, in central Stockton
or Middlesbrough: but no passengers travelling along parts of both these routes, <strong>and</strong> on the same
bus, are ever allowed to book a through ticket when first they board the vehicles.
The only circumstances in which any form of consistency between diVerent areas occurs are those
of free OAP travel, except that, until 2008, such travel may only be in the pass-holder’s local area.
For those not entitled to OAP rates, however, it is notable that fares-levels on bus <strong>and</strong> train have
risen far further than have motoring costs, both perceived <strong>and</strong> actual. This alone must discourage
many from changing from car use to buses <strong>and</strong>/or trains.
[See also answers to Questions 10 <strong>and</strong> 11]

Ev 114 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
We know of no Government strategy whatever for developing such integration, though we think that
there needs to be one.
Use of Smart Card Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smart-card technologies (a) adequately <strong>and</strong> (b) appropriately?
(a) It is virtually impossible for bus or rail users to answer this question in any meaningful sense, apart
from pointing out that, as we see it, the answer is “no”.
Costs must, inevitably, be borne by the operators, who are often involved in damage-limitation
exercises rather than in aggressive marketing of their services. Modest though the extra costs may
be, the element of risk seems too often to rule out innovations of this sort, though it is pleasing to
note a few forthcoming exceptions in the north Lancashire <strong>and</strong> Cheshire areas. The diYculties may
be more imagined than real, in that smart-card technology eases the task of allocating fare income
between operators <strong>and</strong> modes, but there is always the possibility of machine failure, <strong>and</strong>, on buses,
the ensuing inability of a passenger to pay in cash instead <strong>and</strong>/or of a driver to decide how much
money to take for his/her part of the journey.
(b) It follows from the previous answer that this part, too, gets a thumbs-down in most cases. For bususers
forced to wait outside a loading bus for several minutes, often in wind <strong>and</strong> rain, because
tickets must be bought individually <strong>and</strong> often after a lengthy discussion of the exact destination
<strong>and</strong> the fare payable, improvements are vital, <strong>and</strong> could include oV-bus sales of booklets of readypriced
tickets (cf the carnet system in Paris <strong>and</strong> elsewhere), as well as variations on the London
Oyster card system. Carnets could also help for local rail journeys. both to avoid waits at busy
station booking-oYces <strong>and</strong> to speed up the checking/selling of these fares <strong>and</strong> others by train
conductors, especially at peak periods when trains are crowded.
From the ticket-inspecting angle, however, smart-carding seems to present potential problems,
particularly on buses, unless each inspector has very sophisticated <strong>and</strong> reliable checking
machinery. We have recently read of trouble even with some Oyster cards: nothing mechanical is
immune from defects, however rarely they occur.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
It would be nice to think that it does, but without more inside information we cannot usefully judge.
However, we think it well worth pointing out that, for passengers, a “smart card” needs to be easy to use,
trustworthy (not recording transactions unknown to its holder, for instance), <strong>and</strong> of a format that clearly
shows the holder <strong>and</strong> any inspecting staV what has been charged, for what journey, <strong>and</strong> at what time.
5. What can be learned from the experience of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>, where smart-card
technology is already in place?
That, given a political will, <strong>and</strong> a willingness to see public transport of all types as a public service, not a
profiteering exercise, a smart-card system can bring considerable benefit to all—quicker bus-loading, easier
payment-methods, fewer booking-oYce staV in some instances, <strong>and</strong> smooth transfer between travel modes
regardless of the order <strong>and</strong> the length of each stage of a complex journey. If the use of a smart card is also
shown to save the passenger money, compared to the previous method involving paper tickets <strong>and</strong> frequent
recourse to h<strong>and</strong>ling cash on starting each stage of a journey, so much the better for all concerned. Yet, in
the North-East, even comparatively predictable schools traYc, on buses laid on specifically for it, still has
to queue up morning <strong>and</strong> evening ro pay a single fare—a procedure that must be persuading the next
generation to avoid buses like the plague once they have left school.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket-inspectors function appropriate?
It would help all concerned, we think, if the full, up-to-date nature of this legal framework were clarified
<strong>and</strong> publicised to all who use <strong>and</strong> operate buses, trams <strong>and</strong> trains. For instance, some of the small print
regarding reduced rail fares booked aboard trains is confusing. Those boarding at unstaVed stations can
claim every discount that any rail operator oVers; but, if they have boarded at a station that has had a
booking-oYce open at the time, their entitlement is much reduced. A passenger has more to think about
when catching a train than booking-oYce facilities at his/her starting-station; many train-conductors
recognise this <strong>and</strong> use discretion in issuing reduced-rate tickets from staVed stations. If a rule of this sort

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 115
were to be firmly applied, a vital corollary would be that the operator provided adequately-staVed bookingoYces,
to avoid more than the very shortest ticket-queues no matter how busy the lines were. Without such
a commitment, enforcing limits on what a train-conductor can issue from staVed stations is tantamount to
punishing some of the travelling public for the shortcomings of the service-provider, <strong>and</strong> is to be deplored.
By the same token, however, operators of rail <strong>and</strong> bus services need to see that all who travel pay their
due fare. This means than the fare-structures are simple enough to allow passengers to underst<strong>and</strong> them
readily, <strong>and</strong> fare-collectors to sell tickets to all who need them, even when unstaVed stations are close
together, <strong>and</strong> numbers using each one are comparatively high. Similar points apply to bus operations in that
ticket-issue methods should minimise the length of a queue outside a vehicle at busy stops, especially those
in town centres. Again, a carnet approach is a largely-untried but very simple way to achieve this.
7. (a) What appeals mechanisms exist for passengers?
Without better knowledge of what these mechanisms are, it is diYcult to answer this. ”Conditions of
Carriage” notices are rarely found on bus-stop poles, or even at some rail stations. The recent demise of
regional Rail Users’ Consultative Committees has made it more diYcult for rail travellers to find out that
such appeals are possible at all, never mind to decide where best to address them.
(b) Are they adequate?
A fortiori, no. It in any case depends on the nature of the complaint, <strong>and</strong> the character <strong>and</strong> persistence of
the person who wishes to make it.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket-inspectors well-balanced?
Here again, generalised comment borders on the futile. Conditions of work vary between bus, local train,
tram, metro, <strong>and</strong> longer-distance rail services. There are awkward customers, <strong>and</strong> there are (some) awkward
inspectors, but it is reassuring that, increasingly nowadays, staV training on all modes of travel emphasises
how best to h<strong>and</strong>le passengers whose tickets are invalid or mis-issued, to avoid conflict <strong>and</strong> to maintain basic
human respect—in both directions.
This is easier aspired to than attained; <strong>and</strong> the eVorts <strong>and</strong> patience required of inspection staV are
considerable, as well as frequently under-estimated by some of the travelling public. On buses, particularly,
where a passenger is causing trouble for whatever reason, the steps needed for an inspector to gain oYcial
back-up are prohibitively cumbersome <strong>and</strong> time-consuming. Bus operators do not like their buses being held
up for several minutes or more, even for a police reinforcement to arrive. Neither, it must be said, do other
passengers, who in such circumstances simply wish to continue their journey to its end, <strong>and</strong> then to leave
the vehicle rapidly.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
This is yet another case where generalisation is virtually impossible. Some operators have at times been
guilty of over-kill (eg in central Manchester, at Oxford Road station, then at Piccadilly station, half a mile
further on, for those who have to change trains there in a hurry). With better application of discretion <strong>and</strong>
experienced judgement, this has eased oV recently. As stated earlier, there is always the potential conflict
between seeing, especially at busy times, that all passengers pay their fare, <strong>and</strong> annoying the majority who
have done so by asking them repeatedly to prove this. Mainly, this is a rail problem, since few buses permit
non-payers to get far beyond the driver’s cab-side. But cf points made about bus fare-collection in Questions
1, 3, 5 <strong>and</strong> 6 passim. The apparently-irreconcilable aims of making public transport attractive enough to
tempt car-users to change to it, <strong>and</strong> of seeing that all pay what they are supposed to pay, can become far
more attainable, we feel, if there are more carnet facilities on every type of public transport—<strong>and</strong> we make
no apology for repeating this point yet again here.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
In short, no. The free travel for OAPs <strong>and</strong> the disabled, welcome though it is to its users, has caused
financial problems at various points: the bus operators quote a nominal average ’fare’ for each free ticket
issued, <strong>and</strong> a local council, evidently, has to compensate the bus operators accordingly. Not all councils have
adequate finance to do this, evidently, <strong>and</strong> have to decide, rightly or wrongly, to reduce the levels of
“maintained” bus services, particularly in evenings when buses are few <strong>and</strong> far between anyway. It looks to
us as though much greater funding-levels are required than are now made available, <strong>and</strong> that the problem
will get worse in 2008, when the scheme goes nation-wide.

Ev 116 Transport Committee: Evidence
That this free travel is not oVered on comparable rail services does not help. To attract the elderly out of
private cars, especially in these times of enhanced concern over CO2 emissions <strong>and</strong> road congestion problems
arising from 33 million cars across the country. the whole range of public transport must be made far more
attractive, <strong>and</strong> extensive—<strong>and</strong> that includes financially attractive, too. In Tees-side, for instance, local rail
services are far quicker, mile for mile, than the corresponding bus services, even those marketed as ”express”.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> fares should be extended to rail as well, <strong>and</strong> adequate compensation paid, from much higher
levels of grant to local authorities <strong>and</strong>/or transport operators. The present unwritten law that bus competes
with train, or even that one bus operator competes with another over the same terrain, needs to be set aside
in favour of co-operation among all operators, so that users may use <strong>and</strong> change between one or the other,
as need <strong>and</strong> preference dictates. (And that applies at all levels, not just that of OAP free travel.)
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
As our answers to other questions will confirm, the answer here, once more, is ”no”.
The whole concessionary fare system needs a complete overhaul, to iron out anomalies, <strong>and</strong> to be fair to
all users <strong>and</strong> operators across the whole public transport spectrum. It must also be simple enough for all to
grasp quickly, no matter how rarely they travel. Once that is done, it needs a vigorous <strong>and</strong> nation-wide relaunch,
together with a continuing publicity policy at as many transport outlets as is humanly possible—
i.e. every bus stop <strong>and</strong> every station as a minimum—since even the few quasi-integrated bus/tram schemes
now in existence are diYcult to find out about, as if they had to comply with the OYcial Secrets Act.
Idealistic though these new measures may seem to be, they are the very least needed if public transport
ticketing is to become “integrated”. And no oYcial body with responsibility for buses or trains should ever
forget that, in today’s conditions, a steady <strong>and</strong> lasting increase in public transport use, in all its modes, is
the only way forward for us all.
March 2007
Executive Summary
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from PA Consulting Group (TPT 17)
The key points that we make in this submission are as follows:
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
— Integrated ticketing is not necessarily a panacea in terms of passenger experience though it does
have a significant role to play.
— The Government does not currently have suYcient control over ticketing on all modes of transport
to implement true interoperability.
— <strong>Ticketing</strong> asset replacement <strong>and</strong> uptake incentives/m<strong>and</strong>ates drive business cases for technology
adoption <strong>and</strong> the case is diYcult to make in isolation <strong>and</strong> in the short term.
— ITSO is capable of meeting the needs of operators <strong>and</strong> passengers, as are some other systems,
though there must be interoperability between solutions if the benefits are to be delivered.
— The more control over ticketing that a single entity has, the more manageable integration becomes
though the risk on monopolistic supply increases.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
— The disincentives to travelling without a ticket are not suYciently strong or consistently applied.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy
— The precise strategy is not clear.
— Integration across modes <strong>and</strong> geographies will be important to enable easy movement across local
authority boundaries <strong>and</strong> operators <strong>and</strong> simpler governance of the concessionary fare scheme
would enhance its chances of success.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 117
— Smartcards could provide the basis for a realistic implementation of the national concessionary
fares strategy <strong>and</strong> ITSO would provide a robust <strong>and</strong> secure technological platform for this
implementation <strong>and</strong> its integration with other schemes.
Introduction to PA
1. PA Consulting Group is extremely well placed to provide evidence <strong>and</strong> insight for the Transport Select
Committee on ticketing on public transport given our history, independence, experience, <strong>and</strong> subjectmatter
experts.
2. PA is a leading management, systems <strong>and</strong> technology consultancy with a unique commitment to the
integration of these capabilities. Established 60 years ago, <strong>and</strong> operating world-wide from around 50 oYces
in 20 countries, PA draws on the knowledge <strong>and</strong> experience of over 3,000 employees, whose skills span the
initial generation of ideas <strong>and</strong> insights all the way through to detailed implementation.
3. PA is independent of all hardware <strong>and</strong> software suppliers, <strong>and</strong> is committed to remaining so. Our
technical advice to our clients is therefore independent <strong>and</strong> untainted by any possibility of commercial bias.
4. PA is one of the leading consultancies in ticketing on public transport <strong>and</strong> specifically smartcards. Our
work includes consulting for Government Departments on ITSO; advice to private-sector organisations on
business cases; feasibility <strong>and</strong> operational deployment for smartcard schemes; <strong>and</strong> the integration of
proprietary technology alongside open-specification schemes in transport.
5. Our consultants are subject-matter experts in the ticketing on public transport environment <strong>and</strong> come
from a variety of backgrounds, including government departments <strong>and</strong> financial institutions through to
private sector transport operators <strong>and</strong> providers of proprietary smartcard technology. Specifically, our
response to this has included experts in rail retail, ticketing systems, transport economics <strong>and</strong> smartcard
technology.
Response to Specific Questions
Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas?
6. There is a diVerence between integration per se <strong>and</strong> the ability to integrate. Our view is that passengers
do not necessarily want or need integrated ticketing in every case (eg, point-to-point or single-operator
journeys) <strong>and</strong> there are some situations where customers benefit from a lack of integration (for example,
being able to choose products where using a single operator has some financial benefit over <strong>and</strong> above an
integrated product).
7. The ability to integrate is however sometimes lacking, but this raises the question of why the ability is
not there. Technical integration is almost always possible rather it is the commercial will <strong>and</strong> business benefit
that tends to limit the ability to integrate. Commercial blockages will tend to be eliminated when there is a
business benefit to all parties.
8. There are good examples of integrated ticketing where it is in the best interests of the operators to
integrate (for example, the London <strong>Travel</strong>card agreement) but where there is limited business benefit in
completing integration it is unlikely to happen. This is compounded when integration involves expensive
technology developments.
Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
9. <strong>Ticketing</strong> systems themselves (ie, the physical hardware <strong>and</strong> software) are primarily the responsibility
of the transport operator). The way that they interact with each other is often however influenced or specified
by larger bodies. The conflict here is that the Government (through its departments) does not have absolute
control over very many of the systems. Traditional rail retail systems are specified by Rail Settlement Plan,
London ticketing is determined by Transport for London <strong>and</strong> non-franchised bus operations are largely selfdetermined
(albeit with supply market dynamics at play).
10. The main involvement of the Government directly is via the Department for Transport’s ability to
specify non-traditional retail systems in new franchises (eg, ITSO-specification smartcard ticketing).
11. By definition, therefore, any Government strategy for the integration of ticketing systems when it only
has direct control over one of the modes will be diYcult to implement <strong>and</strong> enforce.
12. A more relevant issue is therefore how the Government can be more active in ensuring that
deployment of the likes of ITSO compliant systems—in particular across bus operators in a deregulated <strong>and</strong>
competitive marketplace.

Ev 118 Transport Committee: Evidence
Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
13. A commercial entity will take up new systems <strong>and</strong> product oVerings that are appropriate to its
commercial success. There is nothing, in our opinion, to suggest that the industry has not considered the
commercial viability of modern smartcard technologies. Specifically, we have worked on a number of
business cases to evaluate precisely this on behalf of parts of the industry.
14. A more relevant issue is perhaps a question as to why there are generally not business cases for the
adoption of smartcard technology. In our experience, we have seen that the business case for smartcard
technology is generally made on the back of two things—technological refresh <strong>and</strong> uptake profile.
15. Firstly, when all the ticketing assets of an organisation are being replaced, the marginal cost of
including a smartcard ticketing system are small in comparison with the cost of the replacement of the
ticketing assets themselves. The problem with this in the transport industry is that ticketing assets tend to
last for a long time, sometimes because of integration requirements. Changes to systems to retrofit smartcard
ticketing are necessarily expensive. In particular, the rail franchising systems makes investment in such
systems diYcult outside the franchise renewal process.
16. Secondly, the update profile is an important factor in consideration as this determines how quickly
non-smartcard ticketing systems can be removed. Leaving systems in side-by-side without m<strong>and</strong>ating or
incentivising a change in customer behaviour leaves the necessity for two systems to run in parallel, thus
adding a cost without removing one.
17. Amending these two restrictions would lead to a faster uptake in smartcard ticketing technologies.
Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
18. ITSO is, as are other schemes, capable of catering for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> public service
providers.
19. That ITSO specification schemes have not been implemented for all passengers <strong>and</strong> all travel
providers suggests that it is not the only alternative to meet the needs of specific passengers, particularly in
a closed geographic environment, <strong>and</strong> travel operators.
20. This however raises the question as to what needs would be catered for by ITSO specification schemes
over <strong>and</strong> above non-ITSO specification schemes.
21. The first point is that we have yet to see a significant impact on passengers based on the specification
of a scheme. Passengers are most influenced by the ticketing proposition <strong>and</strong> usability, which should not be
aVected by the specification used to build a system.
22. In terms of travel providers, this is not necessarily clear-cut as diVerent scheme types will have
diVerent advantages for diVerent reasons. Proprietary schemes can provide benefits to their operators <strong>and</strong>
users, just as open-specification schemes can. The same applies for the disbenefits.
23. An open-specification scheme allows more theoretical choice down-stream with components <strong>and</strong>
exp<strong>and</strong>ability <strong>and</strong> discourages monopoly supply but requires separate systems integration eVort whereas a
proprietary scheme allows a thinner client function to start with but increases barriers for competitor entry
longer-term <strong>and</strong> can push prices up for system changes. The ability to achieve inter-operability on a large
scale without absolute control over all the participating schemes necessitates an open specification.
What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
24. The main lesson to be learned from these experiences is that where there is a single entity in control
of, <strong>and</strong> responsible for, ticketing technology (whether a public body, or private entity) there is much more
likelihood that a system will be implemented. This factor has helped to reduce the commercial blockages
referred to in the answer to the first question. One size doesn’t necessarily fit all with smartcard schemes,
but if passenger choice & flexibility is a goal then must be within a business, commercial & technological
framework that enables interoperability.

Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
25. We do not wish to express a view on the legal framework for ticket inspectors.
What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 119
26. We do not wish to express a view on the appropriateness of appeal mechanisms for passengers.
Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
27. We do not wish to express a view on the rights of passengers versus the powers of ticket inspectors.
Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
28. A commercial entity will protect its revenue when it is appropriate to its commercial success. There
is nothing, in our opinion, to suggest that operators have not considered the commercial viability of revenue
protection activity.
29. It is therefore our opinion that operators generally have an appropriate level of cover based upon the
risk <strong>and</strong> benefit. This does not mean that all revenue is necessarily protected, rather, that which is eYcient
to protect is protected. The level of eYciency will by definition be distorted where there is shared revenue
risk, or in the extreme case where the operator takes no revenue risk, there is not likely to be any protection
(nor is there usually any expectation of such).
30. A larger issue is that of the adequacy of the measures than can be taken. Specifically in this area,
penalty fares on rail are felt to be inadequate to disincentivise ticketless travel. The disincentive for ticketless
travel needs to be considered in terms of both the expected value rather than the actual value (value of the
penalty x the probability of being caught). The current expected value of penalty fare does not constitute a
suYcient disincentive relative to the likely price of travel. We would therefore recommend a full economic
analysis to determine the precise expected value of the penalty fare versus which would better inform this
debate.
Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus travel,
adequate?
31. It is not immediately apparent what the Government’s strategy is for the deployment of a
concessionary fares scheme, however if it is as per the Bill currently before Parliament then our view is that
an open specification scheme will assist significantly in the realisation of the benefits likely to arise from the
end-position allowed for in the Bill. Our concern is over the degree to which progress will occur if there isn’t
a nationwide scheme implemented quickly (as this is likely to embed interim solutions, thus reducing the
impetus for improvements).
Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
32. As with ticketing integration, concessionary fares do not necessarily need to be integrated in all
circumstances. In terms of customer proposition however, integration can help, especially in a bus
environment when local authority boundaries can be crossed mid-journey. The Scottish model is a good
example of making the proposition simple for the customer. The ITSO specification also oVers a good
technological solution for this. The commercial models still need to be refined if funding comes in via local
authorities. As per the question above on lessons from Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> London, if a single entity was to control
the scheme, then the commercial blockages would become much less significant, <strong>and</strong> integration across
modes <strong>and</strong> boundaries will significantly simplify the customer proposition.
March 2007

Ev 120 Transport Committee: Evidence
About The Trainline
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Trainline.com Ltd (TPT 18)
1. The Trainline is the UK’s leading rail ticket retailer <strong>and</strong> information provider. We currently sell just
over six per cent of the UK’s surface train tickets by number of journeys, through a dedicated website <strong>and</strong>
call centres <strong>and</strong> an associated fulfilment/distribution function.
2. The company was founded in 1997, initially as an online sales mechanism for Virgin Trains, but since
2002 has been independently owned by private investors <strong>and</strong> has no preferential relationship with any of
the UK’s Train Operating Companies (TOCs).
3. In addition to its br<strong>and</strong>ed website at www.thetrainline.com, the company works with the majority of
Train Operating Companies (TOCs) to provide the IT infrastructure for their online ticketing services, <strong>and</strong>
also provides ticketing direct to a number of large companies, public sector organisations <strong>and</strong> service
providers in the travel sector (eg Barclays, BT, the MoD <strong>and</strong> Carlson Wagonlit <strong>Travel</strong>).
4. The Trainline also provides a number of Oyster Cards to our business customers in London <strong>and</strong>
welcomes the recent news that TOCs have agreed to work with Transport for London to roll out Oyster
across the London rail networks.
5. We are at the forefront of the market in delivery of new methods of ticketing <strong>and</strong> are engaged in the
development of new technology to improve customer experience <strong>and</strong> reduce TOC costs in this respect. For
example, we are currently developing “airline-style” ticketing in collaboration with Virgin Trains <strong>and</strong>
supports calls for increased simplicity. In addition, we are currently developing innovations along the lines
of “smart ticketing”—including use of mobile technology, smartcards <strong>and</strong> print at home e-tickets.
6. As a specialist ticketing provider, our response to this inquiry focuses on questions 1 to 5 regarding
ticketing arrangements.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas?
7. No. The modal ticketing systems in the UK do not generally work well together when compared with
those in other European countries. Diverse ticket fulfillment methods <strong>and</strong> the lack of data lie behind poor
integration across modes, a situation exacerbated by the optional nature of integrated ticketing between
modes in the UK.
8. Universally accepted methods of ticket fulfillment, data <strong>and</strong> a legal requirement to be part of an
Integrated Fares Management System are the primary requirements for large-scale adoption of integrated
ticketing in the UK.
Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
9. The Trainline has concerns about the adequacy of the Government’s strategy for improving the degree
of integration. Experience around the world indicates that for integrated ticketing to be used extensively by
the travelling public, both the tickets <strong>and</strong> related information must be widely available for the diVerent
modes concerned. This requires an open approach to the availability of data, which is a pre-requisite to the
wider adoption of integrated ticketing. The take-up of integrated ticketing in the UK could therefore be
enhanced if the licensing of public transport services were to go h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with an obligation to make
timetable, routing <strong>and</strong> fares information available directly to the public <strong>and</strong> indirectly though other carriers
<strong>and</strong> ticket retailers in the transport industry. The provision of timetable <strong>and</strong> ticketing information should
be m<strong>and</strong>ated to be in the st<strong>and</strong>ardised formats already agreed by the transport industry according to ISO/
FDIS 24014-1 (international St<strong>and</strong>ard for Public Transport Interoperable Fare Management Systems).
10. Interoperable fare management systems can exist co-operatively together—but a Common
Requirement Specification for Interoperability (CRSI) is needed for them to collectively operate in an
integrated manner. DfT should tender for <strong>and</strong> implement such a CRSI (compliant with ISO 24014) <strong>and</strong>
pump-prime an independent cross-transport organisation to have responsibility for this activity which
would have the necessary integrated transport vision. Combining this organisation with ITSO (Integrated
Transport Smartcard Organisation) would have the added benefits of being able to manage the security
necessary for smartcard fulfillment, which is likely to be the universally accepted fulfillment method for
transport tickets across multiple modes.

The Use of Smartcard Technologies
Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 121
11. The adoption of the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) specification by the DfT
for public transport operators in the UK is very much to be welcomed, since it is an internationally
recognised open specification which allows the implementation of Integrated Fares Management systems
<strong>and</strong> the common acceptance of smartcard fulfilment across multiple modes.
12. It is also appropriate that the DfT is seeking to implement convergence with the earlier Oyster system
<strong>and</strong> conversion of other proprietary systems in English cities. These actions considerably increase the
likelihood of successful integrated transport provision in the UK in the next decade <strong>and</strong> encourage retailers
<strong>and</strong> product owners to participate in multi-mode integrated ticketing. Our view is that, from a technical
implementation perspective, two years represents a realistic time frame for ITSO convergence with the
London Oyster scheme, <strong>and</strong> that both organisations should be encouraged by Government to deliver this
desirable objective.
13. In the rail industry, a relatively rapid adoption of season tickets on smartcards could have a significant
impact on ticket oYce <strong>and</strong> self-service transactions at stations, which has to be balanced against the benefit
to customers. The introduction of multi-journey <strong>and</strong> other new products will also have an impact on station
transaction volumes. It is likely that the use of smartcards will also be encouraged by the use of loyalty-type
features oVered to cardholders.
14. The consequences of the reductions in transaction volumes by up to 60% at stations should be
addressed in policy terms by the DfT in order not to delay smartcard adoption by existing rail franchisees.
The DfT should also consider the eVect of current regulations <strong>and</strong> agreements on the take-up of innovative
customer-service options so that regulatory concerns do not slow smartcard adoption. For example,
customers will be less likely to purchase tickets at stations, even though station queuing times often represent
franchise commitments. Related franchise terms may therefore need to be altered to take this into account.
Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
15. Yes. It is our opinion that, with the notable exception of Oyster within the Transport for London area
(examined above) the ITSO specification covers all existing UK transport tickets <strong>and</strong> also allows the
creation of new, innovative products. It is, however, essential that ITSO remains independent of product
owners <strong>and</strong> transport operators.
What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
16. Oyster “Pay as you go”, together with zonal pricing, are attractive to passengers in London <strong>and</strong> the
desire from passengers to extend these features to London rail services <strong>and</strong> beyond would indicate that
similar products using ITSO Stored <strong>Travel</strong> Rights <strong>and</strong> Charge To Account will be equally popular. This in
itself could lead to a major simplification of rail ticketing products over a relatively short period of time
following the introduction of smartcards.
17. A growth in dem<strong>and</strong>-managed fare products is likely to happen h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with product
simplification. Adequate measures to protect passengers from unintentionally large changes in fares through
the combined eVects of product simplification <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>-management should be considered by DfT.
18. It is also clear from both the London scheme <strong>and</strong> the Scottish scheme that the infrastructure cost <strong>and</strong>
project complexity for implementing smartcard readers is a significant concern for transport operators <strong>and</strong>
is a one-time expenditure which does not fit easily into current franchise <strong>and</strong> carrier contractual
arrangements. DfT should provide a lead in establishing a financing mechanism for this capital investment
that allows it to be managed away from the balance sheets of the transport operators through a facility
independent of both government <strong>and</strong> operator.
19. The changes to distribution strategy brought about by the introduction of smartcards elsewhere has
generally resulted in improved customer perception of the transport network <strong>and</strong> increased patronage. It is
recommended that DfT undertake further studies on the likelihood <strong>and</strong> consequences of a relatively rapid
step-change in passenger volumes.
Conclusions
20. We believe that improving ticketing arrangements across all modes of public transport in the UK
plays a vital role in encouraging take up of public transport, particularly multi modal use—as well as making
the best use of the capacity available. These are important goals <strong>and</strong> objectives if the UK is to reduce its
dependency on road use <strong>and</strong> motoring.

Ev 122 Transport Committee: Evidence
21. To ensure that a more joined up ticketing system is rolled out in the UK, the Government needs to
have a much clearer strategy in place—<strong>and</strong> then ensure that it maximises opportunities such as franchise
negotiations to challenge transport operators to improve <strong>and</strong> upgrade ticketing arrangements <strong>and</strong> systems.
22. The Government also needs to review its approach to the availability of data. This is a key issue <strong>and</strong>
we suggest that the licensing of public transport services should also include obligations that make timetable,
routing <strong>and</strong> fares information directly available to the public <strong>and</strong> indirectly available though other carriers
<strong>and</strong> ticket retailers in the transport industry.
23. We would be happy to explain our views in more detail should the committee wish.
March 2007
Further memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Trainline.com Ltd (TPT 18a)
Inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport
As you may be aware, the Trainline.com is one of the key outlets for online ticket sales, both through our
own website www.thetrainline.com <strong>and</strong> the “white label” sites we provide for many of the major TOCs. We
submitted the attached evidence to the committee in respect of your inquiry into ticketing on public
transport <strong>and</strong> have been following the evidence sessions with interest.
Since we submitted our evidence, there have been two significant developments at the Trainline in relation
to smartcard technology which we are now in a position to share <strong>and</strong> hope will be of interest as you reflect
on the recent evidence given to the Transport Select Committee. These were briefly flagged by your colleague
Clive EVord MP at the session on 12 December <strong>and</strong> I have set them out in further detail below so you have
the full picture.
Firstly, we are confident that our innovative smartcard software, developed from one of our oYces based
in Scotl<strong>and</strong>, would allow us to operate the full compliant ITSO system on the same physical smartcard as
the full London Oyster system without making any amendments at all to the existing gates <strong>and</strong> systems.
Clearly to take this forward in practice would require the agreement of TfL <strong>and</strong> Transys, but we believe this
approach could not only deliver substantial financial savings to Government <strong>and</strong> the rail industry, but also
oVer the UK rail customer the opportunity to have both functionalities on one card without risk that they
are going to technically conflict. This project is moving very quickly so I would welcome the opportunity to
meet with you in the New Year <strong>and</strong> provide a further update on our proposals.
The second point I wanted to highlight relates to the availability of online fare to the public. You may
recall that Clive EVord MP highlighted the little-known derogation within the existing rail legislation <strong>and</strong>
its implementation through the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement Agreement which allows Train Operators to only
oVer certain tickets through restricted channels, for example their own websites. This derogation has the
eVect of distorting the market as far as the customer is concerned, because in order to be able to buy the
cheapest tickets, the customer would have to visit every website or call multiple call centres, contrary to the
widely available access <strong>and</strong> fare simplicity intended in the Rail White Paper—we are implementing the
indsutry fare-simplification changes from May 2008.
For example, take the journey from York to Portsmouth. It is possible to buy tickets at several prices
online for this journey, but for a discounted NXEC-only ticket for York to London, the customer can only
buy from NXEC’s website because it uses the DfT derogation to ensure that it cannot be sold elsewhere.
Similarly, for a “Megatrain” ticket on the service from London to Portsmouth, the customer can only buy
this from the Stagecoach SouthWest website. This situation will get significantly worse as smart ticketing is
introduced because, in our view, TOCs will use this derogation over a wider range of tickets.
In our view, an impartial national retailer (such as Trainline) should have access to all train operating
companies fares, providing a one-stop shop for a customer to simply <strong>and</strong> easily purchase the cheapest ticket
for their entire journey from their favourite retailer.
We are of course also in the process of briefing the Department for Transport on our plans, <strong>and</strong> given
that your committee will also be considering the Rail White Paper in the New Year, I would very much
welcome the opportunity to meet with you <strong>and</strong> brief you further. To this end I will if I may, get in touch
with your oYce in the New Year to see if it is possible to arrange a meeting with you in January.
Jeremy Acklam
The Trainline
21 December 2007

Executive Summary
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transaction Systems Ltd, (TranSys) (TPT 19)
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 123
— Transaction Systems Limited, (TranSys) is the consortium that designed, developed, maintains
<strong>and</strong> operates the Oyster smartcard transport ticketing system in London under the terms of the 17
year PFI PRESTIGE services contract that was signed in 1998.
— PRESTIGE has been an undisputed success. 7.6 million journeys every working day are made
using Oyster.
— From the passenger perspective, smartcards can deliver increased convenience <strong>and</strong> flexibility.
— For the operator, smartcards can reduce costs of ticket selling, improve security through reduced
cash-h<strong>and</strong>ling <strong>and</strong> provide better usage information.
— The experience of London shows that smartcard technology works <strong>and</strong> can help to reduce
passenger congestion <strong>and</strong> fraud. Savings from reduced fraud are extremely diYcult to estimate
accurately <strong>and</strong> depend upon the extent to which the operator wishes to operate a closed system.
However, the experience with gating on London Underground shows that revenue growth
immediately following introduction of the gates averaged about 10%.
— With the right policy direction from Government, TranSys believes an economically-viable
integrated smartcard ticketing system across Transport for London (TfL), National Rail <strong>and</strong> other
transport modes is achievable.
— For the bulk of passenger mass transit journeys in the UK, a smartcard ticketing system is the best
way forward for enabling operator integration <strong>and</strong> delivering benefits to the passenger.
Introduction
The TranSys consortium provides, maintains <strong>and</strong> operates the Oyster smartcard transport ticketing
system in London under the terms of the 17-year PFI PRESTIGE services contract that was signed in 1998.
The principal partners of the TranSys consortium are Cubic Transportation Systems (CTS) <strong>and</strong> Electronic
Data Systems (EDS) who are responsible, respectively, for asset provision <strong>and</strong> operational services. Fujitsu
<strong>and</strong> WS Atkins are also minor shareholders in the consortium.
The PRESTIGE-Oyster system is designed to be multi-modal <strong>and</strong> smartcards work across London’s
Tube, Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway (DLR), tram, <strong>and</strong> bus network, as well as on specified national rail services.
Users with travelcards (daily, weekly or monthly) can also travel on rail services within the Greater London
area in all the zones for which they have validity on their card.
The National Audit OYce report on Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations published
in July 2006 stated “The project was developed to time <strong>and</strong> to budget <strong>and</strong> has won several awards, such as
the New Statesman “Modernising Government” award (2004), the MCA award for technology innovation
<strong>and</strong> the PFI best Transport Award”.
The Oyster smartcard has been an unqualified success since its launch in 2002, <strong>and</strong> the Oyster card is used
by more passengers each day than any other smartcard system in Europe.
TranSys will be working closely with TfL over the coming months <strong>and</strong> years to achieve the shared vision
of integrated smartcard-based ticketing within the Greater London Authority (GLA) area.
TranSys’ responses to the Transport Select Committee’s questions are set out below, following the same
numbering as set out in the Committee’s terms of reference.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
1.1 No. However, the arrangements in London show that integration is possible across modes
(Underground, tram, buses, light rail, <strong>and</strong> specified national rail services) when there is a will to achieve it.
1.2 At present, the extent of ticketing integration varies within diVerent geographical areas, between
diVerent geographical areas, <strong>and</strong> across diVerent modes of transport. National rail tickets are integrated
between overground/mainline stations <strong>and</strong> through magnetic stripe tickets with London Underground.
1.3 However, outside of the London Oysterised area there is little integration with local bus services in
diVerent geographical areas, or with other forms of transport (light rail, metro). Customers are baZed <strong>and</strong>
irritated at the disjointedness of ticketing policy <strong>and</strong> possibly discouraged from using public transport by
the need to queue <strong>and</strong> purchase more than one ticket on multi modal journeys. If the government wishes to
encourage the use of public transport, whether it be bus or rail, to reduce car usage <strong>and</strong> meet energy <strong>and</strong>
emissions targets it needs to enable public transport with “a convenience factor”—get in <strong>and</strong> go—<strong>and</strong> then
provide the service <strong>and</strong> capacity necessary.

Ev 124 Transport Committee: Evidence
1.4 The term “integrated ticketing” needs to be commonly understood by <strong>and</strong> from a passenger’s
perspective. TranSys’ experience in London tells us that passengers want:
(a) Convenience—one ticket covers all modes of travel—easily purchased without queuing from a
wide range of retail <strong>and</strong> other channels that suit the passengers’ preference.
(b) Value—the ticketing system will succeed if it provides best value, i.e. discounts, capping or loyalty
benefits without the passenger having to be an expert in ticketing <strong>and</strong> fare rules. These benefits are
most eVectively delivered by a smartcard system with “pay-as-you-go” capability that “caps” a
passenger’s fare to be equivalent to a best value fare.
(c) Security—the ticketing system <strong>and</strong> the supporting infrastructure must be trusted by the passenger,
particularly so where the passengers “stored value money” of a “pay-as-you-go” capability is
concerned.
(d) Non-intrusive—anonymous if the passenger so chooses.
(e) Equipment that works—reliable <strong>and</strong> user-friendly.
1.5 The term “integrated ticketing” also needs to be understood from a policy maker’s perspective.
Issues to be addressed include: what is the scope in terms of the modes of travel? Which operators are to be
included from day one <strong>and</strong> what might be added at a later date? Who will have control during
implementation to ensure that resolution of emerging issues <strong>and</strong> who will manage change over time?
1.6 At present, data on National Rail travel usage is derived from manually conducted twice annual
passenger count surveys which are used basically for revenue allocation. These are inaccurate, ineYcient,
partial <strong>and</strong> expensive. An integrated smartcard ticketing system would transform this for policy makers <strong>and</strong>
oVer real benefits:
— real <strong>and</strong> accurate data on usage <strong>and</strong> time of usage, assisting with dem<strong>and</strong> management planning
<strong>and</strong> the planning of service frequency; <strong>and</strong>
— data on origin <strong>and</strong> destination of journeys, which can be very useful in optimising capacity
planning <strong>and</strong> thereby reducing energy <strong>and</strong> carbon emissions.
Integration in London
1.7 Within London, ticketing has become highly integrated (a single ticket for Underground, bus, DLR,
<strong>and</strong> tram services). The present gap in London is for those passengers travelling to London on national rail
tickets, especially from south London <strong>and</strong> from the wider South East region. Although the system is not
fully integrated, the introduction of national rail zoned fares within London <strong>and</strong> the outline agreement in
January 2007 of TOCs operating in London to accept Oyster PAYG will integrate the London transport
system even further. It has not yet been determined by transport operators <strong>and</strong> transport specifiers (PTEs,
Department for Transport) how far this ticketing integration will extend beyond Greater London Authority
(GLA) boundaries. The Department for Transport is due to approve shortly the extent to which the Mayor
of London will be granted powers to specify rail services <strong>and</strong> potentially fares in areas beyond the Greater
London boundary.
1.8 The transport pressures in London are unique. About 70 per cent of all rail journeys in Britain either
start or finish in London. The PRESTIGE contract was designed to ensure that London has a ticketing
system that enables it to cope with heavy peak traYc loads. The Oyster smartcard system is an example of
an integrated ticketing system that can h<strong>and</strong>le thous<strong>and</strong>s of passengers every minute <strong>and</strong> millions of
passengers each day, <strong>and</strong> which allows Londoners to travel around the Capital on diVerent modes with
greater ease.
1.9 Transport for London’s T2025 document anticipates that the predicted employment <strong>and</strong> population
growth in London will result in a 30% increase in public transport passenger km travelled in the morning
peak by 2025. 25 The speed of the Oyster smartcard allows 40 people a minute to pass through a ticket barrier,
which is critical at times of peak passenger flow through busy stations.
1.10 An integrated ticketing system would need to recognise the particular conditions in London if it was
to be compatible with London’s system <strong>and</strong> not cause delays <strong>and</strong> blockages at mainline terminals <strong>and</strong> major
interchanges throughout London. It must be able to safely, speedily <strong>and</strong> faultlessly h<strong>and</strong>le thous<strong>and</strong>s of
passengers arriving at a station within a short time (eg due to simultaneous peak hour train arrivals on
several platforms, which may unload several thous<strong>and</strong> people in a couple of minutes).
1.11 The further roll-out of Oyster Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) to national rail services in London raises
the proposition of how far integration should extend out of London to a commuter’s journey starting
point—for example, onto local bus services in the Home Counties. This is a matter for transport policy <strong>and</strong>
delivery authorities to consider.
25 Transport 2025: Transport Challenges for a growing city, Transport for London, June 2006.

Integration Nationally
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 125
1.12 Nationally, there are significant structural, legal <strong>and</strong> commercial barriers to ticketing integration.
1.13 Barriers on the rail network include:
(a) The fact that the TOCs carry the revenue risk within the franchise agreement <strong>and</strong> therefore any
change to ticketing or fares policy (whosoever makes it) is seen as a potential risk to their business.
(b) An integrated ticketing system requires a level of cooperation <strong>and</strong> sharing that is culturally diYcult
for a competition-based industry focused on short to medium term profit maximising, particularly
if it requires any significant capital investment with a longer payback period than the duration of
the franchise.
(c) As a consequence of the value of the franchise agreements they are caught by the European
mergers <strong>and</strong> competition rules. Since the TOC owning groups are mostly also major UK bus
operators, they can be reluctant to integrate fully national rail <strong>and</strong> local bus services in order to
avoid the possibility of being regarded as having exploited a dominant position.
(d) The diVering characteristics of each TOC (traditionally characterised as London <strong>and</strong> South East
(LSE), Intercity, <strong>and</strong> Regional) is a barrier to integration. There is a strong <strong>and</strong> positive business
case for those franchisees for LSE TOCs, where there is heavy usage <strong>and</strong> where overcrowding is
an issue. But “pay-as-you-go” from a stored value on the card has little benefit from a passenger’s
perspective for Intercity services where the average fare value is over £20. Passengers will not want
to tie up cash to pay Intercity fare levels from a stored value. Conversely, in regional TOCs the
fare paid by the passenger is only c25% of the real cost of providing the service (eg Arriva Trains
Wales or Northern franchise) <strong>and</strong> in these cases the value of an integrated system is a function of
the importance of an integrated system with local bus services.
(e) Who is, or will be, the customer with the vision to drive it forward?
1.14 On the bus network, the barriers to integration include:
(a) the de-regulation of bus services outside of London <strong>and</strong> the multiplicity of small operators mean
it is diYcult to deliver a national integrated system unless it is m<strong>and</strong>ated at the outset as part of
an operators’ licence—this may be possible through the intervention of PTEs; <strong>and</strong>
(b) Nationally integrated ticketing will be low on the agenda for the multitude of small local bus
operators because they will be reluctant to pay for the infrastructure cost associated with a
National system.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 No, TranSys does not believe that the current strategies being pursued will result in a National
integrated ticketing system in the short to mid term that truly benefit both regular mass transit passengers
<strong>and</strong> operators.
2.2 The current strategies are:
— to m<strong>and</strong>ate ITSO compliant cards on national rail in franchise agreements <strong>and</strong> require bidders to
submit bids for smartcard schemes;
— TranSys is not aware of any policy on buses other than to m<strong>and</strong>ate ITSO cards; <strong>and</strong>
— integration of London into a national scheme will be by requiring TfL to accept ITSO cards.
2.3 TranSys believes this will not deliver an integrated ticketing system because:
— A national integrated ticketing system is an achievable but very complex system—the ticket
medium (smartcard) or ITSO specification used on the card is only a small element in that system.
Other key features of a successful integrated system are base data, ticket logic <strong>and</strong> fares tables,
revenue allocation protocols, inter-device <strong>and</strong> device-to-communications processing
communications protocols, security protocols, comprehensive business rules <strong>and</strong> operational
rules, data outputs <strong>and</strong> formats, system <strong>and</strong> equipment redundancy, disaster recovery
arrangements, maintenance <strong>and</strong> service levels <strong>and</strong> device availability.
— The ITSO specification is “permissive” (allowing diVering solutions <strong>and</strong> options) rather than
“definitive” (providing a measurable <strong>and</strong> defined envelope of parameters or performance). It is
therefore capable of being met by a number of diVerent interpretations.
— By allowing multiple operators to develop smartcard solutions within franchises there is the danger
that they develop ITSO compliant solutions that meet their franchise obligation but do not
consider a national perspective as part of the delivery <strong>and</strong> are therefore unlikely to be an integrated
solution. The worst outcome would be a passenger taking a journey from (for example) Brighton
to Birmingham that requires 3 separate smartcards.
— Following the franchise replacement route will mean that a totally integrated ticketing system will
not be available until late in the next decade.

Ev 126 Transport Committee: Evidence
— Multiple operators with their own solutions will require multiple back oYce environments all with
potentially diVerent security arrangements <strong>and</strong> information protocols. Management of all of these
facilities <strong>and</strong> ensuring that they all access <strong>and</strong> use the same fares information <strong>and</strong> revenue
allocation rules will be an operational nightmare.
2.4 For success, our experience in London shows that you must have:
— a robust <strong>and</strong> knowledgeable client with vision, empowerment <strong>and</strong> clear objectives;
— a contract that provides incentives to meet the project objectives;
— a single systems integrator; <strong>and</strong>
— a chosen supplier with proven experience of similar applications which minimises the risks in
the project.
2.5 The chance of delivering an integrated system without a systems integrator is virtually non existent.
2.6 Given that the ITSO specification is subject to interpretation <strong>and</strong> may be met in diVerent ways it is
vital that there is a single customer with the power to make decisions on security arrangements,
interpretation of the specification, communications protocols <strong>and</strong> so forth. This customer must have an
intelligent vision of what is required <strong>and</strong> a full underst<strong>and</strong>ing of all of the implications of any changes from
an end user <strong>and</strong> an operator’s perspective. This customer must have the respect of all of the operators.
2.7 TranSys believes that the Rail Settlement Plan (RSP) should serve as the “customer” for a national
integrated ticketing system. They have the respect of the rail operators, they have managed ticketing
integration across the national rail network through magnetic tickets, <strong>and</strong> they have a full underst<strong>and</strong>ing
of all the operational issues.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 There has so far been limited take up of smartcard technologies outside of London. Take-up has been
patchy <strong>and</strong> has been on a small scale eg for bus services in Chester, bus services in Cumbria, bus services in
Southampton, <strong>and</strong> concessionary bus fares in Cornwall <strong>and</strong> in Mid SuVolk. In some places, smartcards have
been taken up, but these have been for local non-transport services such as libraries <strong>and</strong> leisure facilities (eg
SheYeld, Cambridgeshire, Bolton, <strong>and</strong> Bracknell Forest). Southampton has taken up smartcards for bus
services, proof of age, <strong>and</strong> for NHS organ donor registrations. At present, smartcard technologies have not
been taken up or delivered successfully in big UK cities or in the Home Counties on a scale anywhere near
that of PRESTIGE.
3.2 The experience of London has shown that some train operating companies (TOCs) have been slow
to take-up these cards (although the TOCs have recently agreed to accept an oVer from Transport for
London to install Oyster PAYG equipment). The TOCs have had concerns about revenue sharing <strong>and</strong>
allocation, <strong>and</strong> about the capital cost of system-wide installation. The barriers to the take-up are set out in
paragraphs 1.13 <strong>and</strong> 1.14.
3.3 The PRESTIGE-Oyster system in London is the largest commercial based ticketing system in the
UK. The system h<strong>and</strong>les 36 million passengers a week. It is a system that is durable, eYcient, fast, <strong>and</strong> has
equipped TfL with unprecedented levels of relevant <strong>and</strong> reliable data on journey <strong>and</strong> sales trends which they
can use to plan accurately future services.
3.4 The Scottish Executive is commissioning the first large scale implementation of an ITSO compliant
smartcard. The scheme is for concessionary travel on Scotl<strong>and</strong>’s public transport for elderly <strong>and</strong> disabled
citizens across Scotl<strong>and</strong>. It is currently undergoing a live test in the Shetl<strong>and</strong> Isl<strong>and</strong>s.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
4.1 The Government has for some time m<strong>and</strong>ated the use of the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard for smartcard ticketing
when specifying contractual arrangements. ITSO was created to facilitate smartcard transport ticketing
inter-operability “from L<strong>and</strong>’s End to John O’Groats”.
4.2 The ITSO specification covers:
— Cards;
— Points-of-sale/service;
— Back oYce systems;
— Data formats <strong>and</strong> transfer protocols; <strong>and</strong>
— End-to-end security architecture.
The ITSO specification does not cover:
— Paper, magnetic or bar code ticketing;
— Business logic <strong>and</strong> rules; <strong>and</strong>

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 127
— Back oYce systems such as fraud analysis, financial reconciliation <strong>and</strong> settlement, although some
of these issues are now being addressed under the association of ITSO licensed operators.
4.3 TranSys supports the objectives of ITSO, which oVer the prospect of greater convenience for
passengers. TranSys has contributed to the development of the ITSO system <strong>and</strong> London’s Oyster card
equipment can be made to be compatible with the ITSO system, although this will be at a significant
financial cost.
4.4 However, there is no fully functional intermodal (rail) ITSO card system in place yet <strong>and</strong> the system
is somewhat unproven, particularly in a rail environment. In our view the most important objective is to
enable interoperability for as many travellers who require it as possible at the lowest cost. A high proportion
of all UK rail journeys are either wholly within or start or end in London. In addition, a very high proportion
of the heavy rail journeys that start or end in London involve a journey segment on Transport for London’s
bus or Underground services. Therefore the biggest issue to be addressed is interoperability between
National Rail <strong>and</strong> Transport for London (ie Oyster).
4.5 Passengers <strong>and</strong> transport operators in London will be keen that an ITSO card is suitable for use in
the high density high performance London transport environment. This is important not only because 70%
of all rail journeys start or finish in London, but also because of the need to keep London moving.
4.6 Beyond London, the next strongest c<strong>and</strong>idates for integrated ticketing are (1) travel in <strong>and</strong> around
the major UK cities <strong>and</strong> large towns, <strong>and</strong> (2) some extension of Oyster into the Home Counties. This is based
on the relative volumes of passenger transport use in dense urban areas, <strong>and</strong> the ability to enlarge the Oyster
catchment. Our comments in para 2.4 apply, to ensure delivery of such initiatives.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
5.1 TranSys can only provide an answer in relation to London.
5.2 The experience in London shows that smartcard technologies work <strong>and</strong> are popular with customers.
7.6 million journeys a day are made using Oyster, allowing passengers to use five diVerent modes of transport
on a single ticket. 80% of all journeys on London’s Underground <strong>and</strong> buses are paid by Oyster card. This
is by far the largest smartcard scheme fully operational in the UK <strong>and</strong> is one of the largest in the world.
5.3 Smartcard transaction performance times are extremely important—the shorter the transaction time,
the higher the first time read reliability will be <strong>and</strong> the higher the validation throughput will be. Fast, reliable
Oyster transactions have helped increase passenger flows through Underground ticket gates <strong>and</strong> helped to
reduce Bus boarding time, which in turn, has helped to reduce congestion <strong>and</strong> helped to deliver timetable
eYciencies.
5.4 The key lessons from London are:
— That smartcard technology works. It works reliably when the system is well specified, designed <strong>and</strong>
maintained by a competent, experienced, system integrator <strong>and</strong> hardware provider. It is low risk.
— Agree a specification <strong>and</strong> don’t change it.
— Set clear business goals.
— PFI contracts can work eYciently between Government, Operators <strong>and</strong> Contractors with
appropriate risk sharing.
— A phased roll-out ensured the system was suYciently tested (from both a technical <strong>and</strong> a customer
perspective), facilitating the introduction of the smartcard in a way that did not inconvenience or
disadvantage the customer.
— Passengers like it. Almost 10 million cards have been issued since 2002.
5.5 Passengers like it because:
— Cards can be issued <strong>and</strong> renewed more conveniently, not only from ticket oYces but also at retail
outlets, by phone, over the internet or by auto-load i.e. once issued with a card passengers never
need to visit a ticket oYce again.
— The system provides peace of mind that it will always charge the equivalent of a “best fare” for the
journey taken i.e. end-to-end journey discounts, daily, weekly <strong>and</strong> monthly capping options.
— No need to carry money or have the correct change.
— No need to underst<strong>and</strong> complex fare tables.
— The card can be kept in a purse or wallet <strong>and</strong> does not need to be inserted in a slot to be read.
— The system can provide security against loss or theft, if the card is personalised <strong>and</strong> registered with
the operator.
5.6 Transport Operators like it, because:
— It provides more comprehensive data on revenue <strong>and</strong> usage by time of day, origin <strong>and</strong> destination,
class of travel etc.

Ev 128 Transport Committee: Evidence
— It facilitates better service planning <strong>and</strong> optimisation.
— It reduces operating costs in certain circumstances.
— Stolen or fraudulent cards can be hot-listed <strong>and</strong> prevented from use.
— It enables accurate apportionment of revenue between diVerent operators <strong>and</strong> modes of transport.
— The smartcard increases passenger flows through gated stations <strong>and</strong> on buses.
— It enables Local Authorities to provide concessionary travel to students <strong>and</strong> pensioners etc <strong>and</strong> to
obtain accurate usage information as a basis for reimbursing transport operators.
— Reducing cash transactions <strong>and</strong> increasing electronic payment methods can achieve significant
savings. (Cash h<strong>and</strong>ling is costly <strong>and</strong> more open to fraud). Reduced cash h<strong>and</strong>ling also provides
better security, particularly for bus operators.
— Businesses can be incentivised to provide employee passes for business use, <strong>and</strong> receive monthly,
itemised billing.
— Smartcards provide opportunities for non-transport related, secondary revenue generation e.g.
combined travel <strong>and</strong> theatre / sports admission tickets, parking, congestion charging payment, etc.
5.7 It has taken political leadership from Transport for London (with the oVer to fund the installation
of Oyster PAYG equipment) to get the TOCs operating in London to accept Oyster PAYG on their services.
This shows the importance of having a centralising, co-ordinating integrator.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
TranSys is not qualified to respond to these questions.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
The extent of fare evasion is extremely diYcult to quantify <strong>and</strong> the incremental business case for gating
additional stations cannot always be made within the duration of a franchise. A national integrated ticketing
system would perhaps enable better revenue capture overall by the extension of gating to more stations as
a result of a longer term holistic view being taken rather than an incremental business case for each station.
Clearly on trams <strong>and</strong> buses it is not cost eVective or it is physically impossible to provide suitable automatic
entry <strong>and</strong> exit gates <strong>and</strong> in these circumstances revenue protection personnel need to be employed, but there
are limitations as to their capabilities to restrict fare evasion during the morning <strong>and</strong> evening peaks.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
TranSys is not qualified to respond to these questions.
March 2007
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from TranSys (TPT 19a)
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster—Technical Implementation <strong>and</strong> Issues
Introduction
The PRESTIGE Project contract was signed on 14 August 1998 after years of investigatory trials <strong>and</strong>
negotiations. ITSO was formed in December 1998 to develop a specification for an interoperable smartcard.
ITSO comprises authorities <strong>and</strong> operators of each public transport sector, as well as system <strong>and</strong> equipment
suppliers <strong>and</strong> is supported by the Department of Transport (DfT). Its primary objectives are to:
— Develop a specification for an interoperable public transport smartcard across the UK.
— Encourage implementation of the specification.

— Ensure the confidentiality of data for each party.
— Provide open st<strong>and</strong>ards to parties wishing to conform to the specification.
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster Differences
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 129
ITSO is designed to meet the needs of all UK transport operators <strong>and</strong> Public Transport Executives (PTEs)
without particular emphasis of any one aspect. Oyster is designed explicitly to meet the needs of TfL with
performance optimised around the associated business operations. DiVerent methods are employed by
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster in how ticketing functions are delivered:
— ITSO joins multiple discrete schemes (Scotl<strong>and</strong>, Cheshire etc) via centralised security management
whereas Oyster operates as a single overall scheme.
— ITSO is decentralised with multiple card <strong>and</strong> product issuers <strong>and</strong> service operators with the
associated databases. Oyster operates a single, consolidated scheme database.
— ITSO Ltd m<strong>and</strong>ates the security scheme to be applied by ITSO scheme operators, including the
supply of the security service <strong>and</strong> secure modules (but does not take any financial liability).
TranSys bears the card security fraud risk for Oyster <strong>and</strong> uses TranSys designed solutions.
— ITSO supports multiple smart card technologies. Oyster cards are currently only issued using a
single technology, although the installed readers are capable of being upgraded to read more.
— ITSO supports a wide range of ticketing products, including singles, returns, reserved seats,
travelcards, loyalty products <strong>and</strong> a stored value purse. Oyster currently supports zonal travelcards
(including the Freedom Pass concession) <strong>and</strong> the Pay As You Go “ePurse” product.
— In ITSO responsibility for managing the operating software <strong>and</strong> scheme updates is devolved to the
schemes who may have to bear the costs for other schemes/PTEs to accommodate any changes
required. Oyster scheme updates are controlled through TranSys, who are responsible for
managing the system including the end devices.
— ITSO was created explicitly to be an open st<strong>and</strong>ard. Oyster is not designed as an open st<strong>and</strong>ard,
due to the fraud liabilities represented by the TranSys PFI model. Information has been restricted
to partners integrating Oyster in conjunction with TranSys.
— ITSO modifications are processed through a Technical Committee of respective experts (drawn
from the ITSO membership) prior to agreement by the wider membership, then DfT <strong>and</strong> finally
ITSO Management Board. Oyster updates are designed <strong>and</strong> managed by TranSys, in conjunction
with TfL.
— Settlement <strong>and</strong> Clearing is outside of the ITSO specification. Oyster supports Settlement <strong>and</strong>
Clearing as part of the scheme design.
As a consequence of these diVerences, there are a number of significant challenges presented by the
integration of ITSO on Prestige:
— ITSO card processing takes significantly longer than for Oyster cards, due to the additional data
stored (for full accountability) <strong>and</strong> security module use.
— The prevention of transaction loss requires end-to-end acknowledgement of data transfers.
— Larger ITSO transaction sizes (for full accountability) <strong>and</strong> additional operating data required to
support the ITSO functions require greater communication b<strong>and</strong>width <strong>and</strong> storage capacity
within the system.
— Additional data transfer will aVect operational processes (eg bus driver sign-on times).
— TranSys is unable to underwrite performance across all ITSO card types as it cannot control the
performance characteristics of cards that are ITSO certified. It is only reasonably possible for
TranSys to underwrite performance for an agreed subset of ITSO card types issued on an agreed
retailing basis.
— The ITSO Specification is continually evolving, creating a constantly moving baseline that needs
to be managed <strong>and</strong> assessed.
ITSO on PRESTIGE
The objective of the ITSO on PRESTIGE (IOP) Project is the “acceptance of ITSO-compliant smartcards
with a limited range of products by PRESTIGE Validation Devices to make them able to accept ITSO
cards”.
A Variation Notice to the existing <strong>Ticketing</strong> Services Contract (TSC) was issued by TfL to TranSys. It
specifies the need for a Design Study that would enable TTL <strong>and</strong> the Department for Transport (DfT) to
authorise the implementation of the IOP Project.

Ev 130 Transport Committee: Evidence
The Design Study comprises three stages:
— Stage One—Scoping Study (completed).
— Stage Two—Requirements Analysis (completed 26 ).
— Stage Three—Programme Definition <strong>and</strong> Firm Fixed Price Proposal (work-in-progress).
Key Requirement
The overarching statement of requirements is that, “Operationally, there must be no degradation to the
current Oyster service as a result of the implementation of ITSO on PRESTIGE”:
— Operations include passenger gate throughput transaction times, bus driver sign-on times, fares
revisions, <strong>and</strong> the provision of (management) reports, as specified in the TSC.
— Degradation refers to all performance measures cited in the TSC (no relief will be given to the terms
of the current TSC), the ability of TfL to deliver the Oyster service, <strong>and</strong> the availability of the
Oyster service.
— Oyster Service refers to current provision under the TSC or any addenda thereto made by previous
variations to the PRESTIGE contract; there will be no adverse aVect on the TSC.
— Implementation relates to any <strong>and</strong> all interfaces between ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster on PRESTIGE.
The following key requirements in addition to the above from the Variation Notice were derived. The
system must:
— deliver a passenger experience similar to that of Oyster, where possible;
— be fully ITSO certified;
— support all ITSO card types <strong>and</strong> relevant product types;
— provide ITSO card read / validation performance of less than 750 milliseconds;
— operationally support ITSO Hotlists <strong>and</strong> Action Lists;
— fully implement TfL’s existing magnetic ticket business rules applied to ITSO cards; <strong>and</strong>
— provide support for revenue control activities, including passback protection.
IOP will provide an ITSO Operating service in that it will accept ITSO products presented on a smartcard,
without providing product retailing functionality to TfL.
Implementation Solution
The End Stage Two Report included various options to meet the requirements. Option 2 was selected for
the Stage Three activities. This option is full replacement of the PRESTIGE readers <strong>and</strong> the functional
capability to support ITSO Hot Lists <strong>and</strong> Action Lists as well as facilitating staV Customer Service
assistance <strong>and</strong> providing Passengers access to information on their ITSO cards.
The following technical solutions will be required to implement ITSO on PRESTIGE:
— Provision of TfL ITSO back oYce (purchase <strong>and</strong> integration) <strong>and</strong> associated ITSO infrastructure
enhancements.
— Upgrade the card readers (hardware <strong>and</strong> software) to provide the required card performance <strong>and</strong>
to include the ITSO Security Access Module (ISAM).
— Upgrade Ticket OYce Machines (software) to read <strong>and</strong> display ITSO card contents to enable
ticket oYce personnel to determine whether or not passengers have the correct products with
which to travel in “Oysterl<strong>and</strong>”.
— Upgrade Patron Operated Machines (software) to read <strong>and</strong> display ITSO card contents to enable
passengers to determine whether they have the correct products on their ITSO cards with which
to travel in “Oysterl<strong>and</strong>”.
— Provide the functionality (hardware <strong>and</strong> software) for ITSO data to be retrieved from the memory
of a failed card reader to ensure no transaction data is lost.
November 2007
26 The results of the requirements analyses are presented in the ITSO on PRESTIGE Project—Design Study: End Stage
Two Report.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 131
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) (TPT 20)
A. Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
What train operators are doing today
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>. Comprehensive through ticketing is already provided between passenger train
operators on the National Rail network as well as integrated ticketing with metro <strong>and</strong> light rail systems,
buses, ferries <strong>and</strong> visitor attractions. Train Operators are obliged as a condition of their Passenger Licences,
to participate in through ticketing arrangements covering most station to station journeys in the country.
Integrated ticketing is delivered through the Rail Settlement Plan, run by ATOC, which produces fares,
timetable data <strong>and</strong> other sales information for train operators, <strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>les the allocation of rail revenue
between them. RSP is responsible overall for the annual allocation of £4.8bn of rail revenue.
<strong>Ticketing</strong> Systems. The cost to train operators <strong>and</strong> agencies of providing information <strong>and</strong> ticketing
services to passengers nationally is £400 million pa, <strong>and</strong> the approach has been to develop systems that
provide better facilities for passengers but also that reduce the costs of the railway through lower
transaction costs.
Train operators have invested heavily in new ticketing systems <strong>and</strong> the last of the older BR machines are
being withdrawn this month. The new systems are PC based, with capacity for h<strong>and</strong>ling integrated ticketing
using magnetic encoding, while some are also capable of writing to Oyster cards as well. The machines have
taken advantage of latest developments in the retail sector, so costs have been contained <strong>and</strong> the machines
are both reliable <strong>and</strong> flexible in terms of future ticketing developments.
There has been a significant shift away from sales at stations to on-line <strong>and</strong> call centre bookings, with
tickets delivered by post or collected through Ticket on Departure machines at stations, just like the systems
used by airlines. Ticket on Departure sales are now responsible for £300 million of revenue, compared with
zero five years ago <strong>and</strong> form a significant method of distribution for a number of long distance train
operators.
Passengers’ Views. The National Passenger Survey (NPS) sample showed 18% of passengers travelling on
season tickets, 35% booking in advance <strong>and</strong> 31% buying their tickets on the day of travel at the ticket oYce.
12% use a ticket machine, or pay on the train. More than 50% of passengers are already using tickets
purchased before travelling, <strong>and</strong> this is expected to increase with a rapid switch to on-line or telephone
bookings.
The National Passenger Survey also shows that 65% of passengers were satisfied or very satisfied with
ticketing facilities at stations, while 19% were dissatisfied (16% were neither). Similar results apply to
advance bookings by phone, with 59% satisfied or very satisfied, <strong>and</strong> 18% thinking the service was poor or
very poor. The percentage of satisfied long distance passengers however, was much higher, at 79%, with only
9% dissatisfied.
These figures demonstrate the need for improvement which is being actively tackled by train operators
with investment in new equipment, systems <strong>and</strong> training, as described below.
Future Developments
Drivers of Change. Rail ticketing is changing rapidly for six principal reasons:
— Passengers’ expectations are rising in line with their experience with other service providers such
as airlines.
— The technical development of ticket machines, smartcards, on-line ticketing <strong>and</strong> mobile phone
technology.
— The need to reduce the cost of selling rail travel.
— The commercial benefits of increasing sales.
— Growth in passenger numbers <strong>and</strong> the limitations of facilities at stations.
— Government e-commerce initiatives.
The result is a virtuous circle in which ATOC can both make ticketing easier for passengers <strong>and</strong> cheaper
for operators, so helping to hold down the costs of the railway <strong>and</strong> improve service for the customer.
Increasingly, passengers are looking to be able to serve themselves through on-line travel purchases or
mobile phones, rather than queueing at stations. Paper ticketing will decline, as will the dem<strong>and</strong> for ticket
purchase at stations or on trains.
The pace of change is going to accelerate rapidly over the next five years, <strong>and</strong> in particular, more people
will be turning to smartcard ticketing linked to mobile phones, so that additional travel can be purchased
on line, or by text, or through paypoint outlets such as convenience stores or banks.

Ev 132 Transport Committee: Evidence
Range of Requirements. Smartcards will have the greatest benefit in urban areas, where the need for
integrated ticketing is highest. Electronic ticketing <strong>and</strong> ticketing via mobile phone is a passenger requirement
for longer distance or less frequent journeys. It also means that a better service can be provided for
passengers using smaller stations that are unstaVed, without needing equipment that is expensive <strong>and</strong> prone
to v<strong>and</strong>alism.
The issues for the future are the pace of change, the costs involved <strong>and</strong> the best way of continuing to
provide a good st<strong>and</strong>ard of service at a cost that is aVordable, for the reducing number of passengers that
will be buying paper tickets at stations.
ATOC’s Commitment. ATOC is committed to developing more flexible, consumer-led ticketing, making
use of new technology which allows both improvements for passengers <strong>and</strong> a reduction in the unit costs of
its provision. To support this, train operators have formed an Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> Group <strong>and</strong> produce a
regular good practice guide for onward travel. The driving force is the commercial benefits of making
information <strong>and</strong> access to the railway easier for potential customers. It is about providing what the majority
of passengers want, rather than just the development of integrated ticketing.
B. General Questions Raised by the Committee
1. Changes in statutory provisions over the past decade have enabled local authorities <strong>and</strong> other transport
providers to create integrated ticketing schemes. But is it working?
ATOC has developed integrated ticketing further <strong>and</strong> faster than any other transport operator. RSP
operates by far the largest UK Interoperable Fare Management System—ISO 24014-1—<strong>and</strong> has done so
over more than 10 years. Through tickets from National Rail stations are issued to:
— Plusbus to local bus destinations in 195 towns <strong>and</strong> cities throughout Great Britain, from 270
National Rail stations.
— Other bus/tram links: 410 links, including light rail systems.
— Airports: Through ticketing is in place to 29 airports using including bus or metro connections
where necessary.
— London Underground: Tickets priced on a zonal basis within Greater London, for rail/tube
journeys. Add-on tube/DLR tickets are available from National Rail stations to Underground
stations.
— Leisure attractions: 48 destinations such as Alton Towers <strong>and</strong> London Sightseeing tours, as well
as eight heritage railways.
— Shipping Links to: Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Channel Isl<strong>and</strong>s, Scottish Isl<strong>and</strong>s, Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>,
Irel<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> France <strong>and</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s (by sea).
— Rail Rovers: National, regional <strong>and</strong> line rover or ranger tickets. Some of these include bus <strong>and</strong>
heritage rail services. (eg North York Moors Moorslink train/bus network).
PTEs: Train operators also work with PTEs to provide multi-mode tickets within their areas.
European Railways: International tickets are no longer h<strong>and</strong>led at National Rail stations, but, as with
airlines, can be booked at agencies or on line.
Plusbus <strong>and</strong> other bus/rail through ticketing already allows multi mode journeys to be made with a single
transaction. Example: Oxford (Banbury Road) to Brighton (Saltdean) can be made with a ticket covering the
bus to Oxford station, train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, train to Brighton <strong>and</strong> bus from Brighton
station to Saltdean. Such tickets are not only accepted by all the operators concerned, but are encoded to
operate the barriers at main line stations <strong>and</strong> on the Underground. Plusbus is run by Journey Solutions, a
partnership between bus <strong>and</strong> rail operators, including ATOC <strong>and</strong> the Confederation of Passenger
Transport. It will be extended to a further 21 towns <strong>and</strong> cities in May, increasing the total to 216.
85% of rail journeys are made on one train, <strong>and</strong> 15% involve a change of train at some stage during the
journey. (In Scotl<strong>and</strong>, only 11% of journeys involve a change of train). Plusbus ticket sales are running at
a level 45% higher than a year ago, although the total number sold since April 2006 is relatively low at 60,000
tickets. Given this growth rate, advertising <strong>and</strong> extension of the number of destinations covered, further
substantial growth is expected.
Frequent <strong>and</strong> short notice changes in bus timetables are a practical constraint in providing supporting
travel information to passengers although they do not normally aVect integrated ticketing. A process more
aligned to railway timetable change dates (which are set by European timetabling considerations) may help
to improve the reliability of information to passengers.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 133
2. The use of smart-card technologies for ticketing on public transport is closely linked to the creation of
integrated ticketing strategies, <strong>and</strong> the Government supports ITSO. Is progress happening quickly enough, <strong>and</strong>
are the best possible systems being put in place?
ITSO. We do not believe that progress has been rapid enough to keep pace with technological change.
Whilst good work has been done by ITSO in setting st<strong>and</strong>ards, the organization is small <strong>and</strong> has been slow
to define st<strong>and</strong>ards. Whilst ITSO has addressed the question of technical st<strong>and</strong>ards, it has not proved to be
an eVective forum for managing the delivery of integrated ticketing, dealing with its commercial implications
or for sustaining the systems against the background of rapidly changing technology.
ATOC (Rail Settlement Plan) has taken the lead in delivering ITSO obligations on the National Rail
network <strong>and</strong> is ready to provide central “back oYce” functions to reduce the costs of its roll-out. As a result
of this, ATOC would be well placed to be the customer for a properly resourced national integrated ticketing
system. Once ITSO compliance has been established, we would expect the spread of smartcard ticketing to
be very rapid, primarily in metropolitan areas.
Oyster. Train operators already accept travelcards on Oyster on National Rail services. 70 of the 330
stations within Greater London already have gates capable of reading Oyster. Additional ticket issuing
machines have been procured to support the sale of Oyster. 15% of National Rail journeys within London
are already on Oyster.
Train operators are committed to making Oyster Pay as you Go tickets available to their customers as
well, <strong>and</strong> ATOC has accepted the Mayor’s oVer to fund the capital cost of ticket validators at stations. In
preparation for accepting Pay as you Go on the rail network, TOCs introduced zonalised rail fares in
January. Oyster Pay as you Go will be extended to Silverlink Metro services from November this year, to
Chiltern <strong>and</strong> c2c services as soon as possible, <strong>and</strong> to First Capital Connect <strong>and</strong> South West Trains from 2009.
Moving beyond that to accepting Oyster Pay as you Go tickets throughout Greater London requires
heavy investment in additional equipment <strong>and</strong> measures to deal with ticketless travel on a network that
operates more stations in London than the Underground.
National Rail covers a wide variety of services, interurban, commuter <strong>and</strong> local, <strong>and</strong> customers’ ticketing
needs are diVerent. Many are single-mode journeys <strong>and</strong> many would not benefit from smartcard ticketing.
Separating the transaction <strong>and</strong> the ticket will allow passengers to chose the combination that suits them best.
They may chose to buy the ticket on line, via telesales, or by text, <strong>and</strong> then print their own ticket, use a Ticket
on Delivery machine or a smartcard top-up, for example.
3. The Committee will look at the commitment of transport providers to collect due revenue, <strong>and</strong> will also
examine the balance between the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the duties of ticket inspection teams
No data is collected nationally on loss of revenue, but it is assessed as representing some £400 million, or
about 8% of revenue, of which about 60% represents ticketless travel (the rest representing travel with a
ticket that is not valid for the train or class of travel).
Revenue protection is relatively straightforward <strong>and</strong> generally well managed on long distance services.
On local <strong>and</strong> commuter services, revenue collection is aVected by three key factors:
— The time between frequent stops which may restrict the Conductor’s ability to collect fares.
— The cost of ticket inspection <strong>and</strong> fare collection.
— The risk of assaults on staV engaged in revenue protection, which has led to the deployment of Rail
Enforcement OYcers at stations <strong>and</strong> on trains.
The move towards e-ticketing <strong>and</strong> smartcard will clearly help to overcome the first two of these issues.
The level of revenue protection is variable on local <strong>and</strong> commuter services but the revenue risk of adequate
fare collection is with train operators, in whose commercial interest it is to collect the money. 100% checks
are not attainable so the deterrent value of penalty fares <strong>and</strong> the risk of prosecution are important incentives
to ticket purchase.
There sometimes appears to be a reluctance to prosecute for ticket fraud, <strong>and</strong> where prosecutions are
made, it sometimes appears that sentences given reflect a view that ticket fraud is not a serious crime.
Guidelines could be given on both prosecution <strong>and</strong> on sentencing which better reflected the serious nature
of the oVence.
7,397 ticket fraud oVences were recorded by British Transport Police in 2005/06, of which 4,415 (60%)
were detected. The number of oVences recorded represents less than 1% of the 1.075bn journeys made on
the National Rail network.

Ev 134 Transport Committee: Evidence
C. Specific Questions Raised by the Committee
Integrated ticketing
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
A high level of integration has been established by train operators, as set out above. Integration is
particularly needed in urban areas, <strong>and</strong> requires proper contractual relationships <strong>and</strong> a sound legal basis,
consolidating the block exemption by the OYce of Fair Trading which underpins bus/rail ticketing.
Continuing referrals of train operators to the Competition Commission where short-listed bidders also
operate buses in the area do not help to build confidence.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Government has been the driving force behind Transport Direct, the key to providing information about
integrated journeys, <strong>and</strong> has supported ITSO, but the strategy on integrated ticketing has so far been led by
train operators through ATOC, <strong>and</strong> in the case of Plusbus, in partnership with bus operators through
Journey Solutions.
The railway has been criticized over the complexity of its fares structure <strong>and</strong> is working hard to simplify
it. From the beginning of March, the National Rail Enquiry Service web journey planner has simplified
displays to give passengers much better information on the cheapest tickets available for the journey they
want to make. However, integrated ticketing adds to that complexity, <strong>and</strong> this is being addressed through
simple add-on fares such as Plusbus <strong>and</strong> the use of smartcard technology.
The use of smartcard technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Yes. Commercial pressures are driving a rapid take-up of new ticketing technologies. Train operators
have devoted substantial resources to accepting Oyster travelcards in London (<strong>and</strong> are now moving to
accept Pay as you Go as well). TOCs have been in the forefront of the development of e-ticketing <strong>and</strong>
permission to travel by mobile phone. ATOC has been part of ITSO from the outset.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
Yes, ITSO is comprehensive, but in practice is likely to be more widely used for frequently made local
journeys than for long distance travel or infrequent trips.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
The lessons learned from London are that of the need for a national st<strong>and</strong>ard, <strong>and</strong> that when specified it
should be capable of use by all operators involved, rather than requiring the retrofitting a system designed
for a diVerent purpose. The second lesson is that smartcards require simple fare structures.
Revenue protection <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
Yes. They work within the Penalty Fares Rules 2002, established by the Department for Transport under
the Penalty Fares Regulations, 1994 <strong>and</strong> s.130 of the Railways Act, 1993. They are applied to:
— Southeastern (inner suburban area only).
— Southern (inner suburban area only).
— South West Trains (inner suburban area only).
— First Capital Connect (Bedford to Redhill only).
— One (most routes other than paytrain lines).
— c2c Ltd (all routes).
— First Great Western (West Drayton to Paddington <strong>and</strong> branches only).
— Central Trains (Birmingham area only).
— Chiltern Railways (all routes).
— Northern (Leeds area only).

7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 135
Appeals against penalty fares notices can be made to the Independent Penalty Fares Advisory Service.
Further appeals are possible to Passenger Focus or London <strong>Travel</strong>watch <strong>and</strong> the Department for Transport
which approves <strong>and</strong> regulates penalty fares schemes.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
They are strictly controlled through the Penalty Fares Rules with appeals to IPFAS as described above.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
In general, yes, but there is room for improvement. (See 3 above).
<strong>Concessionary</strong> fares—the right strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
It looks only at one mode <strong>and</strong> does not consider rail services. However, we have no evidence that
concessionary bus fares have had any eVect on the rising dem<strong>and</strong> for rail services.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
No. Bus <strong>and</strong> rail concessions are not considered together by central or local Government. Most rail
concessionary fares schemes are “commercial” <strong>and</strong> designed to improve net revenue by segmenting the
market <strong>and</strong> encouraging travel at oV peak times. Most local authority concessionary schemes are based on
social need, but are provided on bus only, <strong>and</strong> the minimum st<strong>and</strong>ard under the Transport Act, 2000 does
not apply to rail. If extended to rail services, a national concessionary or free fare scheme would need careful
thought, as it would erode or replace the current commercial schemes, <strong>and</strong> this would aVect the costs of
introduction.
March 2007
Joint memor<strong>and</strong>um from Stockport College <strong>and</strong> Stockport Primary Care Trust (TPT 21)
1. This evidence is compiled by Dr Peter Hayward, <strong>Travel</strong> Plan Adviser, Stockport College, <strong>and</strong> Mary
Brooks, Health Promotion Adviser—Transport <strong>and</strong> Greenspace, Stockport Primary Care Trust, <strong>and</strong> is
submitted on behalf of our respective organisations.
2. Stockport College is a major provider of further, higher <strong>and</strong> work-based education <strong>and</strong> services
operating from two campuses in Stockport. There are currently some 9000 enrolled students <strong>and</strong> 600 staV,
drawn from Greater Manchester, Cheshire <strong>and</strong> Derbyshire.
3. Stockport PCT is responsible for primary care services <strong>and</strong> a wide range of community services within
its designated area. Around 1,200 staV, most of whom are part-time, are directly employed. The
administrative headquarters is located in central Stockport but services are delivered through a number of
local health centres. Local research has indicated that travel <strong>and</strong> access problems can be a deterrent for some
sections of the community.
4. Collectively, the two organisations generate significant travel dem<strong>and</strong> both locally <strong>and</strong> regionally, <strong>and</strong>
the comments which follow reflect feedback from users <strong>and</strong> illustrate real problems encountered by staV,
students, patients, support workers <strong>and</strong> visitors.
5. Our evidence for the most part follows the framework of questions set out in the Call for Evidence.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
There is no doubt that cross-border travellers are often at a significant disadvantage, especially when a
change of mode—or even same mode transfer (eg bus-bus)—is required. Through tickets are often not
available <strong>and</strong> operator <strong>and</strong>/or local authority discounts for concessionary travellers are restricted. In some
areas, services are provided by more than one operator dependent on time of day: for those working shifts
or unsocial hours, even a simple return ticket may not be valid for both legs of the journey. Rules applicable
to diVerent products can vary <strong>and</strong> often have diVerent time or boundary restrictions. Representing a large

Ev 136 Transport Committee: Evidence
number of students, a particular problem is the lack of validity of young-persons railcards for local journeys
before 09.30. Overall, the net result is a high level of confusion which is a deterrent to choice of public
transport.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
For the average traveller, there is little evidence to suggest that the Government has any strategy at all,
<strong>and</strong> certainly in the Stockport area, there has been no visible progress. There is nothing inherently wrong
with having a number of operators, but without a comprehensive integrated approach to service planning,
routes, frequencies <strong>and</strong> ticketing, passenger numbers will continue to decline. Locally, this might logically
be addressed through the SEMMMS strategy (Southeast Manchester Multi-Modal Study) but real progress
seems painfully slow <strong>and</strong> largely road-orientated. Until the Government requires local action in addition to
fine words, we fear that nothing will actually happen.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Smart card technology has been available <strong>and</strong> in use for many years but transport operators for the most
part seem to be very slow in taking this—literally—on-board. One particular issue which aVects many of
our students <strong>and</strong> staV is the total lack of flexible tickets suitable for part-timers. Operators seem reluctant
to even consider some form of carnet system (eg valid for 10 journeys within a month) claiming to be waiting
for smart-card introduction. But progress locally seems to be non-existent. The same principle is relevant
to encourage flexibility in choice of mode. Car drivers may not actually require use of a car every day, but
there is no real incentive to encourage use of public transport on, say, one or two days per week. Similarly,
in good weather, some staV <strong>and</strong> students may choose to walk or cycle, but would value the opportunity for
flexible use of public transport when needed.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
The objectives of the ITSO project are laudable but at this stage it is not clear whether restrictions will
still apply—for example in respect of advance purchase discount tickets. It must also cater fully for the needs
of part-timers <strong>and</strong> to promote modal choice <strong>and</strong> needs to be suYciently flexible to cater for pay-when-youtravel
needs.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
“Oyster” appears to be working well in the London area, but its success is in part a reflection of the
integrated approach to public transport as a whole <strong>and</strong> in particular the widespread availability <strong>and</strong> validity
of zonal tickets for all modes. The obvious first extension is to promote, or preferably require, a similar
approach in PTE areas by extending the powers of PTEs. Zones should reflect natural catchment areas <strong>and</strong>
not be artificially restricted by arbitrary administrative boundaries.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
We do not feel qualified to comment on this issue.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Again, we do not feel able to comment in any detail, but as a matter of principle, operating companies
should be more willing to accept full responsibility when they are at fault <strong>and</strong> not hide behind the small print.
There should also be an obligation for a company to make reasonable arrangements to assist str<strong>and</strong>ed
passengers, which should include making arrangements with an alternative operator. There also needs to
be a clear <strong>and</strong> consistent mechanism for redress when the failure of one company aVects onward travel by
another—eg missed connections. A major consequence of the current system of semi-independent operators
is the endemic culture of blaming someone else: it is always the customer who suVers.

8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
We do not feel able to comment.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 137
No! There is widespread evidence of fares evasion, especially on the rail network. Sometimes this is
deliberate but at other times unavoidable. On occasion I have travelled half-way across the country having
boarded a train at an unstaVed station <strong>and</strong> not had my fare collected. On short journeys, loss of revenue
must be huge. See for example survey results at www.dronfieldstation.org.uk All major stations <strong>and</strong> all
stations on busy routes should be protected by automatic ticket gates backed up by station staV both to
assist passengers <strong>and</strong> to protect revenue. One problem in this regard is the diVering priorities of those
responsible for station management <strong>and</strong> the needs of all the operators. For example, a station managed by
a long-distance operator may not see a need for ticket gates but they could be crucial for a local operator
sharing facilities.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Existing arrangements suVer from the same cross-boundary problems as highlighted above: diVerent
rules, diVerent times, artificial boundaries. Extension of the 60! fares scheme for buses nationally next year
should go some way towards reducing anomalies but examples of diVerent validity times also need to be
addressed. Extension to local train services should also be considered, especially in rural areas where rail
may be the only practicable mode of public transport.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
This issue is covered in the comments above. Again, the simple answer is “No”.
Additional Comments
1. We very much welcome the Transport Committee’s intention to address the issue of <strong>Ticketing</strong> which
raises many day-to-day practical problems for our respective organisations <strong>and</strong> for those wishing to benefit
from our services. Outside London, public transport usage, especially of buses has declined consistently in
the last 20 years <strong>and</strong> has been matched by a general decline in services <strong>and</strong> travel opportunities. The overall
result has been the huge rise in private car usage leading to the familiar problems of congestion, urban
pollution <strong>and</strong> delay. Inflexibility of ticketing is an important contributory factor.
2. We believe that much more could be done within organisations to promote <strong>and</strong> facilitate public
transport use, for example, taking advantage of salary sacrifice schemes <strong>and</strong> the discounts sometimes oVered
by operators for in-house ticket sales. The Government should be both setting an example <strong>and</strong> increasing
incentives for both employers <strong>and</strong> employees to participate in such schemes. However, as commented above,
flexibility is at present a crucial missing element, especially for part-timers. With many employers also
considering the opportunities for flexi-time, home-working or tele-working, this is likely to be much more
important in the future.
3. Thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee. We would be happy to exp<strong>and</strong>
on any of the points above if more information were required.
March 2007
Introduction <strong>and</strong> Summary
Summary
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Help the Aged (TPT 22)
— Free national bus travel for older people will help us take an important step forward in making
public transport accessible to older people.
— Whilst we have welcomed the plans for free national bus provision, Help the Aged believes that
there is a need for flexibility in provision of concessionary fares by local authorities.
— Help the Aged want local authorities to oVer alternative concessions (eg tokens for taxis) for those
who cannot use, or do not have access to, bus services.

Ev 138 Transport Committee: Evidence
— The Department for Transport should be providing guidance for local authorities on how to oVer
a flexible system of concessionary fares.
— Help the Aged would like to see provision made in the Government’s Bill for concessionary passes
to be used for community transport in areas where the bus service is inadequate <strong>and</strong> for those who
are unable to use public transport due to disabilities.
Introduction
Transport has a fundamental impact on older people’s lives <strong>and</strong> access to safe, accessible, reliable <strong>and</strong>
aVordable transport for older people is a key concern for Help the Aged. Public transport is vital to older
people. It is a lifeline to friends <strong>and</strong> family but it also helps people to stay active <strong>and</strong> independent. If it was
free to travel more people would enjoy a richer old age.
“Everyone in the country should have a free bus pass. We are very lucky to have such a good scheme
in London” Male, Aylesbury Estate, London.
“I have to go shopping nearly every day—I just can’t carry it all for the week” Female, London.
“Let’s face it, you wouldn’t go out, you’d just stay in if you didn’t have one (Freedom pass)”. Female,
Tulse Hill.
One in five older people live in poverty, <strong>and</strong> those on low incomes depend on cheaper public transport. Yet
older people face indirect discrimination in its design <strong>and</strong> delivery, as well as financial <strong>and</strong> cultural barriers to
access.
Help the Aged recently published “Bus <strong>Travel</strong> <strong>and</strong> Transport Concessions” (2006, HTA) which sets out
how public transport <strong>and</strong> travel concessions are perceived by older people, particularly those with mobility
problems <strong>and</strong> those who rely solely on public transport. The report highlights how older respondents
welcome proposals for a nationwide scheme for travel concessions to be introduced in 2008, but they also
strongly favour choices being oVered, by way of tokens for use on taxis, community transport <strong>and</strong> other
alternatives to bus travel, to meet their diVering needs. For many, even free bus services are of little use
because they find it diYcult, if not impossible, to use public transport. Yet the survey reaYrms what previous
surveys have stated; that there are some key perceived barriers to greater use of public transport by older
actual <strong>and</strong> potential passengers. Punctuality <strong>and</strong> reliability are vital but so are a range of other factors such
as drivers’ attitudes, information, comfort <strong>and</strong> safety.
Demography
In 2002, there were 9.5 million people aged 65 <strong>and</strong> over in the UK. The number of older people in our
population has increased over the past few decades <strong>and</strong> is projected to continue to grow in the future. During
the 50 years from 1971 to 2021, the number of people in the UK aged 65 <strong>and</strong> over is expected to have
increased nearly 70%, from 7.3 million to 12.2 million. The section of the older population which has
increased most rapidly, both in actual size <strong>and</strong> in relation to the total population, is that of people over 75.
The proportion of people in this age-group is projected to increase from 4.5% in 1971 to 9% in 2021.
About Help the Aged <strong>and</strong> Our Work on Transport
Help the Aged is a charity fighting to free disadvantaged older people in the UK <strong>and</strong> overseas from
poverty, isolation <strong>and</strong> neglect. It campaigns to raise public awareness of the issues aVecting older people
<strong>and</strong> to bring about policy change. The Charity delivers a range of services: information <strong>and</strong> advice, home
support <strong>and</strong> community living, including international development work. These are supported by its
fundraising activities <strong>and</strong> paid for services. Help the Aged also funds vital research into the health issues
<strong>and</strong> experiences of older people to improve the quality of later life.
In preparing this response, Help the Aged has drawn on our extensive research <strong>and</strong> experience of working
with <strong>and</strong> talking to older people. We have published widely in relation to transport <strong>and</strong> older people
including:
— Local Bus Services <strong>and</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Concessions. Key findings of a survey into the experiences <strong>and</strong> views
of older people (2007).
— <strong>Travel</strong>, Access <strong>and</strong> Older People (2006).
— In the Right Place, Accessibility, Local Services <strong>and</strong> Older People (2005).
— Fair Fares, Calling for freedom of travel for older people in the UK (2003).
— Help the Aged Transport Council: SARA (Safe, Accessible, Reliable <strong>and</strong> AVordable) (1988).
We have also supported older people’s forums to do their own research on transport <strong>and</strong> in 2004, the
Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People’s forum published “Sic transit . . ..” Hamble to Hospital. The
Hospital <strong>Travel</strong> Needs of Older People in Hamble le Rice. (2004).

<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—the Right Strategy?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 139
Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus travel,
adequate?
— 12% of older people (1.2 million) feel trapped in their own home;
— 13% of older people (1.26 million) don’t go out more than once a week;
— 3% of older people never go out;
— 17% of older people have less than weekly contact with family, friends <strong>and</strong> neighbours;
— 11% have less than monthly contact; <strong>and</strong>
— 1.2 million pensioners have no other source of income than the state benefits (GB).
Free national bus travel for older people will help us take an important step forward in making public
transport accessible to older people. The Bill currently going through Parliament will extend the current
legislation <strong>and</strong> enable the implementation of a statutory minimum concession of free oV-peak travel for
pensioners <strong>and</strong> disabled people on local buses anywhere in Engl<strong>and</strong>. Under the current system older people
<strong>and</strong> other qualifying groups are entitled to free bus travel only in their local area.
Help the Aged has warmly welcomed the Bill, which will allow older people to use local bus services
nationwide. However, we have a number of concerns:
Takeup of concessionary fares
Help the Aged’s “Fair Fares” (2003) made the case for a national system of concessionary fares <strong>and</strong> we
are delighted that the Government have taken this on. However, the report also highlights the need to
improve, as a matter of urgency, the levels of take-up of senior citizen travel concessions, with particular
attention to disadvantaged <strong>and</strong> ethnic minority groups.
The fact that there remains a low take-up of concessions in some areas <strong>and</strong> for particular groups is a major
problem. Despite energetic take-up work by some local councils, there is still a long way to go. Central
Government <strong>and</strong> Local Government should work together to ensure all older people use <strong>and</strong> benefit from
concessionary fares. A national scheme may well help facilitate national promotion which could help in
this area.
Concessions are important but only part of the solution
Of course the solution isn’t just about free travel—if the Government’s strategy is to succeed we need a
transport system for older people which is Safe, Accessible, Reliable <strong>and</strong> AVordable. Early on in Help the
Aged’s transport campaigning, a report (SARA 1998) was published which highlighted the four
fundamental elements of older people’s transport needs: Safe, Accessible, Reliable <strong>and</strong> AVordable (SARA),
<strong>and</strong> how failures in these four areas combine to create barriers to transport use for older people.
Whilst there has been some progress, older people continue to complain that local transport services fail
to meet their needs. A survey to be published in Spring 2007 shows that of those respondents who agreed
that their life is not as full as they would like it to be, one in five said that better public transport would help
them be more active.
And communities <strong>and</strong> services within them must be better “planned” to meet the needs of an ageing population
Help the Aged’s In the Right Place (2005) details a series of recommendations <strong>and</strong> key issues to be
considered by local authorities as they develop their local transport accessibility plans. If we want older
people to be active citizens within thriving communities we need to ensure that the communities themselves
are delivering the right services in the right places.
Our follow-up report (<strong>Travel</strong> Access <strong>and</strong> Older People 2006) examined a representative selection of local
transport plans in order to find out how well the recommendations of the initial report have been
implemented <strong>and</strong> to what extent the needs of older people are being met. We found that although much has
been done, there is still much to do.
While key services such as healthcare centres <strong>and</strong> food shops are being factored into local transport
planning, equally critical destinations such as post oYces <strong>and</strong> banks are being largely ignored. The report
revealed that of 31 local councils surveyed, only 10 actually made any eVorts to speak to older people or
their representatives when designing a local transport plan.

Ev 140 Transport Committee: Evidence
Restriction to OV Peak <strong>Travel</strong>
The Bill going through Parliament only provides for a m<strong>and</strong>atory free local oV peak bus pass. Restricting
concessions to oV-peak times prevents older people from travelling to an early medical appointment,
morning adult education courses, or leisure activities with an early start time. Whilst the Government’s Bill
will remove the barrier for older people travelling to a hospital appointment on the “other” side of a county/
district boundary, the failure to remove the peak time restriction for all means that older people who need
to be at hospital for early appointments may still be forced to pay.
Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
No. Whilst we have welcomed the free national bus provision, Help the Aged believes that there is a need
for flexibility in provision of concessionary fares by local authorities.
Help the Aged are extremely concerned that the Government’s Bill restricts itself to providing free travel
on buses alone. Bus passes are of no use in areas there are no or poor bus services.
Help the Aged would like to see provision made in the Bill for passes to be used for community transport
in areas where the bus service is inadequate <strong>and</strong> for those who are unable to use public transport due to
disabilities.
Bus passes are also of limited use for the significant proportion of older people, who, due to disability or
mobility problems (or because the services are not accessible enough) cannot use bus services.
Many older people face barriers that prevent them from using bus services. A recent survey carried out
by Help the Aged in Portsmouth identified the following reasons for older people avoiding bus use:
— diYculty in carrying shopping on <strong>and</strong> oV the bus;
— diYculty getting to <strong>and</strong> waiting at bus stops in bad weather;
— buses unreliable;
— diYculty in getting to/from bus stops to home or destination;
— anxiety over anti-social behaviour;
— diYculty in getting to a seat before the bus moves oV;
— buses run at inconvenient or infrequent times; <strong>and</strong>
— timetables diYcult to read.
For some people who may not be registered disabled, <strong>and</strong> therefore not have access to the mobility
components of benefit packages that those who become disabled before the age of 65 are entitled to, but
nonetheless experience mobility diYculties, buses can be impractical <strong>and</strong> impossible to use.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a non-means-tested benefit for disabled people with care or
mobility needs. People who become disabled <strong>and</strong> claim DLA before their 65th birthday can continue to
receive it after the age of 65. However, people whose disability arises at or after the age of 65 (or who don’t
claim help until after 65) can only claim the much more limited Attendance Allowance (AA). There is no
mobility component to AA, meaning those aged 65 <strong>and</strong> over cannot receive help with mobility costs. For
these people, a free bus pass is of no use whatsoever.
There is a risk that insisting in statute on free bus passes will impact on the flexible provision provided by
local authorities. In many local authorities, concessionary fares are available in a more flexible form, with
the extra cost borne by local taxation. This Bill will not do anything to remove this postcode lottery <strong>and</strong>
provide the same high st<strong>and</strong>ard flexible concessions for all.
In 2006, the Social Exclusion Unit report A Sure Start to Later Life reinforced the need for flexibility in
the provision of transport services for older people. It found that “older people have told us clearly that they
value flexible, individualised transport services which can allow them to retain their independence within
their local community.” In the report, problems accessing transport came out as an underpinning factor that
contributed to every type of isolation of older people.
At present any “enhancements” to the basic free oV peak local bus schemes, such as oVering tokens which
can be used on taxis, trains or community transport schemes, have to be paid for by local councils. Evidence
from a study that Help the Aged undertook in Portsmouth suggests that for a large minority of older people,
such a scheme better meets their needs that a simple bus pass. Help the Aged want local authorities to oVer
alternative concessions (eg tokens for taxis) for those who cannot use or don’t have access to buses. At the
least, the DFT should be providing guidance for local authorities on how to oVer a flexible system of
concessionary fares.
March 2007

Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from FirstGroup plc (TPT 23)
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 141
First is a UK based international transport group with bus <strong>and</strong> rail operations spanning the UK <strong>and</strong>
North America.
In the UK we are the largest rail operator. We operate the First Great Western, First ScotRail, First
Capital Connect <strong>and</strong> the First Trans Pennine Express franchises <strong>and</strong> the UK’s only open access train service,
Hull Trains. We carry more than 250 million passengers every year.
We are also the largest bus operator in the UK. We operate approximately 9,000 buses operating across
40 towns <strong>and</strong> cities across the UK. We carry 2.8 million passengers every day.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
<strong>Ticketing</strong> Across Modes
1.1 Our bus <strong>and</strong> rail operations work extensively with each other <strong>and</strong> other industry partners to deliver
integrated transport.
1.2 The most significant development in recent years has been the introduction of PlusBus, allowing
customers to purchase one day’s travel on a local bus network as an add-on to their rail ticket in a single
transaction. This initiative is very much a creation of the bus <strong>and</strong> rail industry <strong>and</strong> has recently achieved
national coverage across all major UK towns <strong>and</strong> cities (195 locations).
1.3 The add-on cost is usually priced attractively to incentivise take-up. Unlimited bus travel for the day
in Manchester for example is available for a £1.70 add-on <strong>and</strong> Norwich for £1. Recent development of the
scheme has included the introduction of PlusBus season tickets. These are currently available to 103
destinations with more due to be added.
1.4 PlusBus is underpinned by the highly sophisticated rail revenue allocation system which gives every
destination a unique code <strong>and</strong> ensures each operator is automatically allocated the correct amount of money
for the ticket purchased.
1.5 Otherwise many of our bus <strong>and</strong> rail companies are active participants in multi-modal ticketing
schemes in large conurbations, typically oVering unlimited bus <strong>and</strong> rail travel for various zonal
combinations. Examples include Metrocard in West Yorkshire <strong>and</strong> Zone <strong>Travel</strong> Master in South Yorkshire.
1.6 Where dem<strong>and</strong> exists it is not unusual to see other modal combinations in integrated ticketing. In our
First ScotRail franchise for example, shipping services to the Western Isles are supported by the ability to
buy through tickets from the rail network.
<strong>Ticketing</strong> Between Different Geographical Areas
1.7 Within the rail industry ticketing integration across geographical boundaries is possible by means of
the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement Agreement (TSA) in which all Train Operating Companies (TOCs) providing
franchised train services are required to participate. This agreement allows through tickets for rail journeys
throughout the UK to be booked with one transaction, with booking oYces oVering an impartial retailing
service to customers, regardless of which TOC is selling tickets. This means it is simple to buy a ticket from
York to Penzance.
1.8 Bus travel is inevitably more localised <strong>and</strong> the issue here is ensuring ticketing complies with natural
travel to work, business or leisure trip patterns rather than administrative or bus company boundaries. In
West Yorkshire we have a number of companies: Halifax/Huddersfield, Leeds <strong>and</strong> Bradford. Rather than
a separate day ticket for each company a combined day ticket is available for £3.30 which recognises the
interdependence between the four locations.
1.9 <strong>Concessionary</strong> fare areas, particularly where there is no countywide scheme, <strong>and</strong> therefore rely on
discounts only for limited district council boundaries, are an obvious problem in this respect but any
remaining diYculties will be solved in April 2008 with the introduction of the nationwide English scheme
to match those in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales.

Ev 142 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 In many ways, the rail <strong>and</strong> bus sectors, often prompted by common ownership, have shown
leadership on integrated transport such that a prescriptive Government strategy has not been required. The
aforementioned PlusBus initiative is a case in point <strong>and</strong> numerous other local initiatives are in place; the
Holmfirth Connection, Heathrow Reading Railair <strong>and</strong> Bristol Flyer airport link illustrate just a few
FirstGroup bus/rail schemes, many of which are long st<strong>and</strong>ing.
2.2 However, Government does have an important role in setting the tone <strong>and</strong> in providing the right
conditions in which integrated transport can flourish <strong>and</strong> we believe the Government has delivered in this
respect. Some examples are discussed below.
2.3 Government has used its powers to exert leverage through franchise agreements by, for example,
requiring train operators to participate in existing multi-modal products <strong>and</strong> many new franchise
agreements include a requirement to provide an Integration Manager which provides a good focus for
developing <strong>and</strong> improving integrated ticketing. The requirement that all TOCs operating franchised rail
services are part of the TSA cannot be underestimated in terms of the maintenance of a fully integrated fares
<strong>and</strong> ticketing system for National Rail.
2.4 With projects such as ITSO, Government has taken a lead in ensuring an “open access” platform for
smartcard technology. This will not only enable interoperability between schemes across the country but
importantly will facilitate the cost-eVective supply of smartcard technology to operators. In addition,
through its underwriting the costs of the Yorcard pilot in South <strong>and</strong> West Yorkshire it is actively helping
the passenger transport industry to underst<strong>and</strong> the role of smartcards as an aVordable <strong>and</strong> reliable multimodal
ticketing channel of the future.
2.5 There is a mechanism within the Transport Act 2000 which enables local authorities to implement
ticketing schemes where it is considered commercial provision is insuYcient to meet customer needs.
However, most schemes remain operator led, testament to the industry taking a lead in the area but also
assisted by the OFT working with the DfT to publish the <strong>Ticketing</strong> Schemes Block Exemption. Published
in 2001 (<strong>and</strong> revised in 2006) this exempts bus <strong>and</strong> train operators from the 1998 Competition Act where
there is a public interest <strong>and</strong> certain protection processes are put in place. This has led to the introduction
of many new schemes.
2.6 Hence, in our view, there can be described to be a Government strategy in place for integrated
ticketing but it is largely market forces through customer dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> operator initiative which is driving
implementation.
The Use Of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 FirstGroup was a leader in the introduction of smartcards with the first commercial scheme in the
UK implemented in our Bradford bus operation in 1999. Since then FirstGroup bus <strong>and</strong> rail operators have
worked with local authorities on the Yorcard project <strong>and</strong> in bus we have worked on local authority initiated
projects in York, Cheshire <strong>and</strong> Southampton <strong>and</strong> in Scotl<strong>and</strong>. First Great Western <strong>and</strong> First Capital
Connect are working closely with Transport for London in relation to the acceptance of Oyster Pay As You
Go on their services. At all our National Rail stations in the Greater London area, we already accept Oyster
<strong>Travel</strong>cards.
3.2 Smartcard technology will naturally be implemented fastest where the customer <strong>and</strong> business benefits
are greatest. This is likely to be in metropolitan areas where the convenience that smartcards oVer will drive
passenger uptake, which will in itself create business benefits such as redeployment of ticket issuing staV to
enhanced customer service roles, less cash h<strong>and</strong>ling <strong>and</strong> reduction of other time consuming back oYce tasks.
3.3 In circumstances where the commercial rationale is less strong, such as where there is a cost eYcient
fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing system already in place, <strong>and</strong> in the absence of any other business imperative, such as a
franchise obligation, it may be less appropriate to implement smartcard technology <strong>and</strong> consideration may
need to be given as to what assistance can be provided if introduction is desirable to meet Government policy
objectives. For example in Scotl<strong>and</strong>, to support the roll out of a national concessionary fares smartcard,
Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong> has provided the necessary investment to fit smartcard readers on buses.
3.4 In relation to the smartcard back-oYce infrastructure (processing transactions etc) consideration
should be given to maximising economies of scale <strong>and</strong> scope through shared industry resources. Within this
context we encourage the current discussions between the DfT <strong>and</strong> the Association of Train Operating
Companies (ATOC) as regards establishing a back-oYce system for the rail industry.

4. Does the ITSO System cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> transport providers?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 143
4.1 For the customer, the ability to purchase a variety of travel modes through a single smartcard in a
number of diVerent locations creates a truly integrated oVering. For transport providers, it also gives a
similar re-assurance that they are investing in hardware <strong>and</strong> software that has universal application.
4.2 Although the ITSO platform can accommodate all existing travel products, we do not necessarily see
other payment channels being eliminated by ITSO. Smartcards are most likely to have application for
frequent users probably making local journeys. The extent to which smartcards may have applicability to
less frequent users such as foreign tourists or very occasional public transport users depends on the ability
to store value over long periods of time <strong>and</strong> to create a simple, cheap <strong>and</strong> easy to underst<strong>and</strong> registration
process.
4.3 In the longer term other developments in the banking <strong>and</strong> retail sectors will determine the continuing
role of ITSO. For example the concept of stored value integrated onto existing debit cards for occasional
low value cash transactions is coming soon <strong>and</strong> the implications of this need to be borne in mind.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where Smartcard
technology is already in place?
London
5.1 Oystercard was introduced en masse in London in October 2003 <strong>and</strong> FirstGroup has been close to
the product as an operator of contracted bus services in London <strong>and</strong> franchised train services where Oyster
<strong>Travel</strong>cards have been valid from the start.
5.2 TfL is best placed to observe on successes <strong>and</strong> failures but from our point of view the key issue is
that the absence of ITSO compatibility of Oyster will cause diYculty as ITSO rolls-out on other parts of the
National Rail network <strong>and</strong> other modes of transport. In addition to the costs incurred in retro-fitting ITSO
technology such an approach is likely to create a certain level of customer confusion. This illustrates the
need for a national st<strong>and</strong>ard like ITSO.
Scotl<strong>and</strong>
5.3 Scotl<strong>and</strong> is yet to go live but some interesting lessons have emerged from the process so far:
— Technical complexity has led implementation timescales to being a lot longer than originally
anticipated.
— The procurement of a replacement fleet of smartcard enabled ticket machines for all of Scotl<strong>and</strong>’s
local bus services has led to production eYciencies <strong>and</strong> therefore capital cost savings.
— The procurement <strong>and</strong> manufacture of the smartcards through one agency (Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong>)
has given them the same look <strong>and</strong> feel which is good for bus driver recognition <strong>and</strong> has eliminated
the risk of manufacturing inconsistencies between diVerent suppliers.
Revenue Protection And The Powers Of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
6.1 Railway revenue protection staV work within the framework of the Railway Byelaws <strong>and</strong> the
Regulation of the Railways Act 1889. Under these byelaws they may require a person refusing to pay the
appropriate fare to give their name <strong>and</strong> address. StaV will often use appropriate agencies to verify the name
<strong>and</strong> address given. After that rail companies will follow normal debt collection approaches, starting by
writing to request payment.
6.2 Bus operators have powers to inspect tickets but there is a diVerence in the sanction that can be
imposed. Under the Railways Act 1993 <strong>and</strong> Penalty Fares Regulations 1994 rail companies in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
Wales (<strong>and</strong> buses inside Greater London) have the power to impose on the spot Penalty Fares. The current
penalty fare is £20. (The fare is a set maximum for all TOCs <strong>and</strong> is approved by the Secretary of State.) Bus
companies have no powers of arrest or sanction of penalty fares. Some of our companies overcome this
where a st<strong>and</strong>ard fare of £20 is advertised but only applied if the ticket holder does not have the appropriate
ticket for the journey being made.
6.3 The power of bus companies is therefore severely curtailed compared to rail <strong>and</strong> the ability to secure
a conviction for fare evasion relies on police intervention. Underst<strong>and</strong>ably interest tends to be low because
individual journey oVences tend to be low value <strong>and</strong> this means the deterrent of a criminal oVence rarely
occurs. We do therefore consider the legal framework in buses to be inappropriate.
6.4 The railway penalty fare of £20 was last increased in January 2005 (up from £10) The issue here is
getting a balance between the level being set at a rate which is a suYcient deterrent against one which is so
punitive (perhaps £50) that the chances of an inspector extracting this are lessened particularly without the
potential of conflict. Overall though we consider the legal framework to be appropriate.

Ev 144 Transport Committee: Evidence
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
7.1 For railways, it is a requirement of any penalty fares scheme that an independent appealsprocess is
instituted. All railway penalty fares schemes currently use the Independent Penalty Fares Appeal Service
(IPFAS) which operates under a DfT approved code of practice to assess issues such as whether appropriate
discretion was used, was there appropriate warning of the scheme posted at stations <strong>and</strong> whether the scheme
was applied consistently Most operators set a 21-day limit for appeals to be made.
7.2 We consider this to be adequate. As noted, the code of practice has strict criteria for considering cases
<strong>and</strong> it is not unusual for appeals to be successful if these have not been met.
7.3 For buses the appeal process is not regulated or set down in statute but in FirstGroup would typically
involve a senior manager in the company conducting an investigation where all the evidence is considered
including the interviewing of witnesses. This is rare but when it happens most disputes are usually settled
amicably.
7.4 If an individual is not satisfied with a company response then a further appeal is possible to the Bus
Appeals Body (BAB). This is a non-statutory body set up by the Confederation of Passenger Transport <strong>and</strong>
Bus Users UK to deal with appeals arising from UK Bus <strong>and</strong> Coach operations which are not covered by
any other statutory body. We consider this to be suYcient because although the findings of the BAB are not
binding failure to abide with them can be taken into account when the relevant TraYc Commissioner is
deciding whether an operator is of “good repute” for registration <strong>and</strong> licensing purposes.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
8.1 In the case of rail where revenue protection inspectors have a considerable array of powers but
passengers are protected by a strong code of practice backed-up by statute, the answer to this is probably
yes. For the bus industry the diYculty in levying on the spot fines is an issue <strong>and</strong>, as noted, the courts process
is a diYcult route. Attracting the interest of the police to bring a prosecution is the first hurdle but the whole
process can be extremely cumbersome <strong>and</strong> expensive for what often amount to low value amounts.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
9.1 Given that virtually all UK FirstGroup bus <strong>and</strong> rail operators take revenue risk, we have every
incentive to maximise revenue collected <strong>and</strong> minimise fare evasion. Levels of evasion are typically less than
3% <strong>and</strong> much oV this quantum will be due to finding a level beyond which the costs of collecting an extra
percent of revenue is uneconomic.
9.2 Revenue collection measures are generally welcomed by customers, providing adequate facilities are
provided for purchasing tickets. Honest customers do become annoyed when they see others travelling
without paying especially because advances in technology in terms of self service <strong>and</strong> staV operated ticket
machines as well as the internet have greatly improved the ease of buying the correct ticket for the journey.
9.3 As an illustration of our commitment to revenue protection, on taking over the WAGN <strong>and</strong>
Thameslink franchises in April 2006 we are investing over £5 million in revenue protection measures
including installing additional Automatic Ticket Gates <strong>and</strong> the employment of additional revenue
protection inspectors.
9.4 In our UK Bus Division we still employ around 100 inspectors on ticket checking duties despite the
fact that virtually all our fleet is One Person Operated <strong>and</strong> customers have to pass the driver through a single
door on entrance or exit. These mainly look for fraudulent use of period passes or evidence of counterfeiting.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 From a customer perspective, the introduction of a truly national bus concession for the over 60s is
a major step forward although the discretion to continue local enhancements has the potential to cause
ongoing confusion.
10.2 The next step would be to m<strong>and</strong>ate other modes particularly to encourage journeys that are more
logically made by a combination of bus-rail or bus-tram rather than all bus. In addition, the diVering nature
of discretionary rail schemes across the country often causes confusion for concessionary card holders, who
are sometimes unclear about how far their card takes them <strong>and</strong> what level of discount it oVers.
10.3 From an operator perspective, the principle of “no better, no worse oV” cannot be disputed, but its
application has been problematic with scope for disagreement between operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities. It
might be appropriate to see the administration of concessionary fares h<strong>and</strong>led at a national or regional level
rather than by the plethora of local district councils that currently fund the schemes. The current mechanism
causes much duplication of eVort <strong>and</strong> hinders the introduction of st<strong>and</strong>ard or consistent parameters for

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 145
reimbursement. Replacement of this with a single tier or regional concessionary authority would largely
eliminate these issues. Having said that, the priority at the moment is for all to focus on successful
implementation of the 2008 national scheme under the existing framework.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
11.1 Historically the benefits oVered by concessionary fare schemes have varied by area according to
what each <strong>Travel</strong> Concession Authority (TCA) wishes to oVer its citizens. Integration across geographic
areas will cease to be a problem from April 2008 when the new national bus scheme applies in Engl<strong>and</strong>.
Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales already have their own national schemes so the only remaining issues will be travel
between the countries. Even this is being tackled in the legislation passing through Parliament at present
<strong>and</strong> will therefore be resolved.
11.2 Rail concession schemes are discretionary for TCAs <strong>and</strong> therefore there is little geographic
integration across rail <strong>and</strong> modal integration between bus <strong>and</strong> rail is patchy. A greater degree of consistency
would benefit both customers <strong>and</strong> transport providers—<strong>and</strong>, as noted in 10.2, may result in more logical
journey opportunities. However, this has to be achieved in a sustainable way. As dem<strong>and</strong> for rail travel
continues to grow, <strong>and</strong> expansion in capacity remains constrained, operators increasingly have a
responsibility to balance supply <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>. It seems inevitable that any widespread expansion to rail of
concessionary travel would have to avoid the morning <strong>and</strong> evening peak.
March 2007
Joint memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Joint Committee for the Mobility of Blind <strong>and</strong> Partially Sighted People; The
Joint Committee for the Mobility of Disabled People; The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; RADAR;
National Autistic Society; Disabled Parents Network; Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB);
Arthritis Care; Mind; Restricted Growth Association; Parkinson’s Disease Society; Community Transport
Association <strong>and</strong> Spinal Injuries Association (TPT 24)
Introduction
Our organisations welcome the decision of the Transport Select Committee to look into the issue of
concessionary fares.
The Government’s <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill will ensure that from April 2008 free travel will be
extended to local oV-peak bus travel across local authority boundaries providing the bus stops at least every
15 miles. We welcome these improvements but we believe that there is considerably more that the
Government needs to do to ensure that the mobility needs of disabled people are addressed in concessionary
travel. This could be achieved by introducing:
— A requirement for free travel anytime.
— A requirement to provide free travel on other modes of transport.
— A requirement for concessions to apply to community transport services such as “dial-a-ride”.
— A requirement to provide free travel for a companion where the person’s impairment means that
they can not access transport on their own.
— A definition of disability which includes people with mental health diYculties.
We set out our reasons for these suggestions below. As our coalition has come together to lobby on the
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill (the Bill) this submission only addresses questions 10 <strong>and</strong> 11 under the
heading of “<strong>Concessionary</strong> fares-the right strategy?”.
The Need for <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
We believe that the free travel provided by the Bill is necessary for disabled people for several reasons:
— It is often necessary, even on short routes, for disabled people to use public transport either because
their mobility is restricted, the pedestrian environment is inaccessible to them, or because they are
concerned about personal security. <strong>Travel</strong> costs can restrict that mobility.
— Blind, deafblind <strong>and</strong> partially sighted people <strong>and</strong> people with movement-related conditions such
as Parkinson’s disease are likely to have diYculty finding the correct change. For deaf <strong>and</strong> hard
of hearing people, free travel avoids the diYculty of communicating with the driver or conductor.

Ev 146 Transport Committee: Evidence
— Where ticket machines are used, many disabled people may have diYculties. For example,
wheelchair users may have diYculty because of the physical design <strong>and</strong> people with learning
disabilities may find such machines confusing.
Free travel also makes operational sense: it contributes to reduced dwell times at stops with disabled
people simply showing their concessionary pass as they board.
Transport <strong>and</strong> Access to Employment
Disabled people typically have lower incomes due to their lack of employment opportunities <strong>and</strong> are more
likely to be socially excluded. According to the Government’s “Disability in Great Britain” report the
incomes of disabled adults are 20 to 30% lower than those of non-disabled people (these figures included
income from disability benefits). The ninth annual report of indicators of poverty <strong>and</strong> social exclusion,
Monitoring Poverty <strong>and</strong> Social Exclusion in the UK 2006, issued in December 2006 by the New Policy
Institute (funded by Joseph Rowntree) reported that disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed
as non-disabled people. According to the report 30% of disabled adults of working age live on 60% of
average income levels.
Free <strong>Travel</strong> At Any Time
The restriction of concessionary travel during morning peak periods has a severely detrimental eVect on
disabled people travelling to work or looking for work. Research by RNIB suggests that only 27% of blind
<strong>and</strong> partially sighted people of working age are in employment <strong>and</strong> where people are employed they are more
likely to be in lower paid jobs. Employment levels for many other impairment groups are similar if not worse.
Restricting concessions to oV-peak times also aVects disabled people travelling to early medical
appointments, benefit <strong>and</strong> other appointments, or to education <strong>and</strong> leisure activities with an early start time.
Many disabled people prefer to travel to shops <strong>and</strong> town centres early in the day when they are quieter <strong>and</strong>
so more accessible.
As the Government has improved the minimum concessionary fare scheme for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people,
some local authorities have cut back on local schemes that previously oVered more than the statutory
minimum. For example, there has been pressure on a number of schemes that provided free morning peak
travel to blind people but not to other older <strong>and</strong> disabled people. When this issue came up in London, the
Association of London Government (ALG, now renamed London Councils) suggested levelling down but
following a major campaign by disabled people free travel was extended to all disabled people in the morning
peak hours. Our organisations would support the national adoption of the London approach, ie. free
morning peak travel for all disabled people.. The scheme operating in Scotl<strong>and</strong> already oVers this level of
provision.
The Bill would also restrict free travel at the other end of the day by limiting it to travel up to 11.00 pm.
That limit is likely to eVect the mobility of younger disabled people in particular who want to go out for the
evening with their peers.
Other Support for Extra Transport Costs
It is widely believed that disabled people in employment are able to obtain assistance with the costs of
travelling to <strong>and</strong> from work through the Department for Work <strong>and</strong> Pensions Access to Work Scheme. In
fact, the Scheme is only available to those disabled people unable to use existing public transport that
operates between their home <strong>and</strong> their place of work, who would therefore incur additional costs travel
costs, for example, in using taxis. The Scheme takes no account of the cost of public transport.
While we are pleased that the Bill would not prevent local authorities from continuing to oVer more
generous concessions than the statutory minimum, we are concerned that exercise of this discretion would
eVectively create a postcode lottery for disabled people. Such lotteries are already evident, for example to
resolve a budget crisis Christchurch District Council has removed the right for blind people to travel for free
in the morning peak despite the fact that the Dorset-wide County scheme oVers free morning peak-time
travel to blind people. Guide Dogs, RNIB <strong>and</strong> Warwickshire Association for the Blind worked without
success to try to reverse a decision by Stratford-on-Avon District Council to remove free perk-time travel
for visually impaired people in the morning peak hours following the introduction of free oV-peak travel
for all disabled people in April 2006.
For the Government to include morning peak-time travel in the statutory minimum would be consistent
with its commitment to get more disabled people into work: a policy they are currently promoting through
their reform of Incapacity Benefit. Indeed the New Policy Institute report cited above pointed to the lack
of access to paid work as the main reason for poverty amongst disabled people.
There are no time restrictions on the schemes which have been introduced in Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>.
Similarly there are no time restrictions on using the Freedom pass in the morning peak hours in London on
buses, Underground <strong>and</strong> the DLR <strong>and</strong> this has not caused diYculties despite the huge pressure on public
transport in the morning peak hours <strong>and</strong> late in the evening in the capital city. However, if local authorities

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 147
are to be able to go on providing more than the statutory minimum the Government must make sure that
they are fully funded for the increases in the statutory minimum concessionary fare schemes that are
proposed in the Bill.
The Government said in Gr<strong>and</strong> Committee that they were unable to support amendments to this eVect
because it would cost £100 million. We appreciate the resources that the Government is already committing
to implementing the Bill. However, we also note that when the ALG (now London Councils) first began to
consider the cost of allowing travel in the morning peak for disabled people they also said that “It was so
expensive as to not be worth quantifying”. However, after further investigation <strong>and</strong> discussion with TfL the
cost turned out to be a lot less than originally thought <strong>and</strong> free travel has been available in London 24 hours
a day since April 2003. The Government might also find that the cost of this particular extension to the
scheme would be less than they originally thought.
Extending the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme to provide for free travel 24 hours a day would help disabled
people find <strong>and</strong> retain work <strong>and</strong> turn them from benefit claimants into taxpayers. This would go some way
to raising the £100 million which the Government suggest that this measure would cost.
Applying the Concessions to Other Modes of Transport
In some areas concessionary fare passes can be used in taxis, on community transport <strong>and</strong> other door-todoor
transport. This is particularly important in rural areas where bus services may be infrequent or absent.
Disabled people will not benefit from having the concession if they have few or no bus services on which to
use it. In Scotl<strong>and</strong> many ferry journeys are also covered by the concessionary fares scheme in recognition
of the local transport services that ferries provide between the Scottish Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the mainl<strong>and</strong>. We would
encourage the same approach to be adopted for other services throughout the UK.
In urban areas concessions are also often available to be used on local rail <strong>and</strong> light rail services. This is
particularly important where train <strong>and</strong> tram services are used as an alternative to the bus for local journeys.
Certain groups of disabled people would also benefit greatly from the application of the concessions to
a wider range of transport modes. People with autism, for example, prefer to use door-to-door services
because they often have diYculty in judging road safety <strong>and</strong> can experience anxiety on scheduled public
transport services, especially where routes <strong>and</strong> timetables frequently change. The restrictions on the
eligibility for the higher mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance means that for some disabled people
door to door transport is currently not an option for them because of the additional costs associated with
its use.
Our organisations would encourage the extension of the statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme
to provide for its application to a wider range of transport services.
Our organisations appreciate that the Government are sympathetic to the sentiment of our proposed
amendment in this area but are unable to accept it because they believe that it would cost £300 million. We
are, however, encouraging the Government to consider the cost-benefits of these changes in terms of giving
disabled people greater independence <strong>and</strong> allowing more disabled people to work. Once these benefits are
taken into account to we believe that the economic case is much stronger.
Use on Door-to-Door Transport for Those Unable to Access Mainstream Public Transport
An increasing number of services are operated by accessible buses but it will be some time before all buses
are fully accessible. Having a concession for a service that you cannot use is of no benefit to disabled people
in areas where fully accessible services are not yet available. Even where more accessible vehicles are in use,
they will never be a viable option for some disabled people, even with assistance. Others may need door-todoor
transport to get to the nearest bus stop because of the distances involved or the inaccessibility of the
pedestrian environment. For these reasons we believe that concessionary fares should be made available on
community transport <strong>and</strong> door-to-door services.
Local authorities have discretion as to whether to reimburse those providing community transport for
accepting concessions but a survey by the Community Transport Association found that only a minority
did so <strong>and</strong> of those most only reimbursed half, rather than the full fare. We believe that this discriminates
against disabled people who rely on such services <strong>and</strong> is potentially challengeable under the Disability
Discrimination Act or the Human Rights Act.
As with the more generous schemes, reimbursement for community transport schemes is a postcode
lottery. In Wiltshire, for example, the County Council, West Wiltshire District Council <strong>and</strong> Kennet District
Council reimburse community minibus groups for taking free passes on the eligible services they operate
but North Wiltshire District Council <strong>and</strong> Salisbury District Council do not. Swindon Borough Council only
provide disabled people with £60 of free journeys per annum on community minibuses before they have to
pay for using the services.
Salisbury District Council have informed the Community Transport Association that their concessionary
fares settlement from central government was insuYcient to meet the costs of reimbursing registered bus
operators let alone community transport operators. This aVects two Salisbury-based community minibus

Ev 148 Transport Committee: Evidence
groups in particular -groups currently run services for isolated people in Salisbury mainly to help them
access local shops, <strong>and</strong> both have to charge their concessionary pass holding passengers for journeys which
they would otherwise get free if there was a registered bus route which served them.
At Gr<strong>and</strong> Committee Stage cost was also cited by the Government as the reason for rejecting an
amendment to extend the scheme to community transport. The Government also pointed out that local
authorities would continue to have the discretion to provide concessionary fares on door to door transport
<strong>and</strong> that the legislation would allow for an extension in this area at a latter date by Regulations.
At Report a further argument was oVered that such an amendment would eVectively provide for buses to
be replaced by community transport in rural areas. We do not believe that would be the eVect. The purpose is
to ensure that those disabled people who because of their impairment could not access local bus services, or
who live in areas that are not served by bus services, would be able to enjoy free travel on community
transport services in their area. As a safeguard the Secretary of State could be required to issue guidance
which could also address the Government’s concerns about the definition of community transport for the
purposes of concessionary fares legislation
<strong>Travel</strong>ling With a Companion
Some disabled people need a companion to travel with them on public transport. We would argue that
concessions should be available to allow a companion to travel free of charge, where this is necessary to
enable the disabled people to access the service. This provision already applies under both the Welsh scheme
<strong>and</strong> the Dorset scheme.
Whilst we appreciate the Government’s estimate that this extension would cost £10 million we would
point out that as the proposed additional concession would only apply to those who cannot access public
transport without the support of a companion, the number of people that would be brought into the scheme
is likely to be relatively small. The Government has also pointed out that the term “companion” could be
open to abuse but we would be happy for an alternative term to be used such as “personal assistant.”
Adding People with Mental Health Difficulties to Those Eligible for <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
The issue of the eligibility of people with mental health diYculties remains a problem. Currently, people
with mental health issues who qualify for concessionary fares do so by virtue of the fact that they would, if
they applied, be refused a driving licence under Part 3 of the Road TraYc Act 1988 pursuant to section 92
of the Act. Section 92 of the 1988 Act refers to five categories of people who would be refused a driving
licence. The second of these are people with a “severe mental disorder”.
Eligibility for concessionary fares is one of the major factors in determining an individual’s chance of
recovery <strong>and</strong> re-integration into society. Severe mental ill health often leads to social <strong>and</strong> physical isolation,
discrimination <strong>and</strong> an inability to play a full part in economic <strong>and</strong> community life. Access to community
centres, drop-in therapeutic communities, counselling or self-help groups can be essential to recovery. To
access those services many people rely on public transport. Research in the Report Focus on Mental Health,
An Uphill Struggle: Poverty <strong>and</strong> Mental Health (London, Mental Health Foundation 2001) suggests that
some people have not been able to get help from mental health services because of their inability to pay for
transport. Even where they still hold a driving licence, poverty <strong>and</strong> a fluctuating health condition may make
driving impossible. The ability to travel to education centres, to take up job opportunities <strong>and</strong> to access
community health <strong>and</strong> social care facilities is vital. The inability to access these can lead to serious
consequences for the individual.
These quotes from experiences reported to Mind show the diYculties:
A service user writes from the Midl<strong>and</strong>s: “Initially I came up against a lot of aggravation when I
applied for concessionary fares. Now I hold a bus pass <strong>and</strong> come up against hostility with a few bus
drivers questioning my right to hold a pass”.
One city Patient Council representative from the West of Engl<strong>and</strong> writes that “even where there is
no current problem in claiming in the city there are constant problem(s) on buses of drivers’ prejudice,
eg ‘Why have you got a pass, you don’t look ill?’”
The evidence suggests that the definition is causing a problem <strong>and</strong> for that reason we believe the
Government should act now to introduce a new definition to cover explicitly people with mental health
issues. Our suggested definition is based on the definition used for the Scottish <strong>Concessionary</strong> fares scheme.
In addition, a new definition could cover people with a social <strong>and</strong> communication disability—such as
those with Asperger syndrome. Since most people with Asperger syndrome do not have a learning disability,
they may be excluded by a strict interpretation of the definition in the Transport Act 2000. While people
with Asperger syndrome are not generally refused a driving licence, they must notify DVLA of their
condition <strong>and</strong> cases are assessed on an individual basis; this may make car insurance unaVordable, especially
for young people. The diYculties experienced by some people with Asperger syndrome in anticipating the
actions of other road users mean that some individuals choose not to drive.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 149
Our organisations have welcomed the Government’s commitment to look at this issue <strong>and</strong> consult with
its <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Stakeholder Group. We believe that the consultation could also usefully cover the
issues of stigma faced by people with mental health problems receiving concessionary fares (eg being
questioned because they do not “look disabled”) <strong>and</strong> how to maximise take up of concessionary fares
amongst those people with mental health diYculties who are entitled to them. The recommendation of the
Social Exclusion Unit’s Report, Mental Health <strong>and</strong> Social Exclusion was to consider the case for revisions
to the statutory guidance on giving concessionary fares to people with mental health diYculties by the end
of 2004. How has the 2004 recommendation been taken forward? We look forward to the early completion
of the new review which the Government have announced.
March 2007
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from <strong>Travel</strong>Watch Northwest (TPT 25)
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
Within Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) areas integrated ticketing is well established <strong>and</strong>
relatively easy to use. When the ticket is of a st<strong>and</strong>ard design produced by the PTE it is easily recognised
<strong>and</strong> accepted by staV of all operators. If a similar multi-modal <strong>and</strong> multi-operator ticket requires the issue
of a ticket from a company machine which will bear the issuing company’s logo, passengers often have
problems convincing other operators staV that the ticket is valid on their services.
Whilst PTEs have usually managed to persuade operator consortia to take part in multi modal ticketing
schemes this has often been at the cost of them being more expensive than operator’s own multi journey
tickets.
Outside PTE areas, integrated ticketing is virtually unknown with just a few isolated examples such as
Derbyshire County Council’s “Derbyshire Wayfarer” product. Integrated tickets are usually only available
within a restricted area <strong>and</strong> do not extend into adjoining areas.
There is also a lack of integration within bus travel let alone across modes. In many instances it is not
possible to turn up <strong>and</strong> buy a ticket for a through journey when it involves a change of bus. For example a
journey from Milnthorpe in Cumbria to Morecambe in Lancashire (about 12 miles) requires change of bus
at some point <strong>and</strong> two fares have to be purchased. This does not encourage the car to be left at home.
<strong>Travel</strong>Watch NorthWest’s predecessor the North West Public Transport Users Forum (NWPTUF)
produced a report in December 2005 on Multi Modal <strong>Ticketing</strong> which highlighted shortcomings with
integrated ticketing as well as highlighting best practice. This is attached. 27
Pricing should also be considered. Outside metropolitan areas the perception of public transport is as an
expensive mode compared to the car. In some areas a 10 minute return bus journey can be around £5.
Contrast this with the cost of a journey across the breadth of Greater Manchester for about half the price.
Until some national consistency on fares can be achieved <strong>and</strong> promoted bus travel will be unattractive to
future generations in many rural areas where the convenience of the car will remain unchallenged.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Government policy is ineVective <strong>and</strong> will continue to be so until the role of the OYce of Fair Trading is
revised to allow operators to discuss integration without the fear of prosecution. Such co-operation is vital
<strong>and</strong> there can be no meaningful integration whilst this interference continues.
There is a need to look more acutely at the future. The whole marketplace for travel <strong>and</strong> consumerism will
change in the next 10 years as the “baby boomers” (those born between 1945 <strong>and</strong> 1960) form the majority of
the retired population. Post war attitudes to life that include the many conveniences enjoyed by this
generation in contrast to the previous generation will bring a very diVerent set of dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards.
Unless public transport gets its act together, particularly for short distance travel, to meet the new
expectations <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s, it will be in danger of dying of neglect <strong>and</strong> underuse.
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
With the exception of London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>, smartcards are only being developed <strong>and</strong> used on very local
schemes <strong>and</strong> are only introduced after long trials of the technology even though the technology has been
used in other places for years.
27 Not printed.

Ev 150 Transport Committee: Evidence
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel provider?
ITSO is overcomplex <strong>and</strong> delaying the progress of smartcard implementation.
The trials of this system are over-long <strong>and</strong> the first large scale scheme is only just being rolled out in
Lancashire. The Lancashire scheme is only dealing with the NoW (North West) card used by the over 60’s
for their concessionary journeys. It appears that other needs are still being “trialled”.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
Both schemes are now well established, but the London “Oyster” system (not ITSO compatible) shows
the way forward for integrated ticketing throughout the UK. Of course, the London ticket has the advantage
of being operated in a regulated bus system, also an area where all forms of transport work well with each
other <strong>and</strong> without the interference of the OFT.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
For buses there appears to be no national system to back the work of inspectors <strong>and</strong> many do not know
the extent of their powers under the law.
On rail there are National Conditions of Carriage which are appropriate although a review of their
passenger friendliness may be desirable.
7. What appeals mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
The current mechanisms for dealing with bus passengers problems are:
— London—London <strong>Travel</strong>watch.
— Scotl<strong>and</strong>—Bus Users Complaint Tribunal.
— Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>—The General Consumer Council for Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>.
— Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales—The Bus Appeals Body.
In London, Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> these are statutory bodies with eVective powers to deal with
the complaints. In Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, the Bus Appeals Body (BAB) is a non-statutory organisation run
by Bus Users UK with funding from within the bus industry. There is no statutory power given to BAB <strong>and</strong>
their decisions are not binding on any party allowing the operators to ignore there deliberations.
<strong>Travel</strong>Watch considers that there should be a statutory appeals body for bus users in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales.
Unlike the bus industry, Passenger Focus does have statutory powers to deal with complaints about rail
services. Complaints h<strong>and</strong>ling is centralised <strong>and</strong> it has been commented that the organisation has lost the
wealth of local knowledge that the former regional Rail Passenger Committees possessed.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> ticket inspectors well-balanced?
There is often a conflict between the perceived rights of inspectors <strong>and</strong> the actual legal framework
applicable. Ignorance of the rights of both parties is often to blame <strong>and</strong> more should be done to publicise
these rights.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
With bus services outside London, the fare is paid to the driver who also checks the validity of pre-paid
tickets. Within London, the same applies in most cases, but when multi entrance vehicles are used, there is
an increasing tendency to fares avoidance which is diYcult to deal with.
On the continent it is common for passengers to be expected to cancel their own ticket before travel in
machinery provided either at the station or on the train/tram/bus. It works there <strong>and</strong> would here. So why
is it not in practice as it could assist revenue protection where human intervention is diYcult.
The rail industry has a great loss of revenue by its’ inability to collect the fares due from passengers. The
open station principle <strong>and</strong> unstaVed stations mean that the onus is on the train staV to collect fares but this
is frequently not happening. This is due to a variety of reasons ranging from inability to access the train
when it is over-crowded to neglect of duty by the on-train staV.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 151
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
The concessionary bus schemes are diVerent for each country <strong>and</strong> there is no truly national scheme in
operation or proposed. This leaves many passengers disadvantaged especially in border areas.
The provision of bus concessions is only of use to those who have bus services available <strong>and</strong> does not
consider the growing number of people in rural areas with no access to any form of public transport.
Free rail concessions are available in PTE areas, but not in the Shire Counties <strong>and</strong> for long distance
services. A Railcard is available from the rail industry at a price, but is subject to many restrictions.
Attached is <strong>Travel</strong>Watch NorthWest’s comments on the current <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill. 28
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
With the exception of PTE areas, there is no integration across modes. The current scheme in Engl<strong>and</strong> is
fragmented <strong>and</strong> does not allow cross-boundary traYc in many areas. The new proposals will improve this,
but may not allow full freedom throughout the UK.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Dr John Disney, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham
Trent University (TPT 26)
I address the 11 questions as posed by the Committee in order.
1. Integrated ticketing across modes is rare; where it does exist it is badly publicised <strong>and</strong> often ridiculously
diYcult to use with numerous restrictions. “PlusBus”, as indicated in my letter to RAIL published in August
2006, is a great concept but extraordinarily diYcult to administer, market <strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> consequently has very
low market penetration. It is not available from on-line ticket retailers (who shun all integrated tickets even
when they oVer by far the best deal for passengers); requires the date of the return journey to be stated even
when purchased with an open unrestricted rail ticket <strong>and</strong> needs to be purchased in advance if bus travel is
required at the start of the journey. Fare levels are inconsistent <strong>and</strong> are often higher than the cost of a simple
connecting bus journey from the rail station to specific destination or an operator’s own day ticket.
The only exceptions to this bleak picture are London, most of the PTE’s, North Wales <strong>and</strong> Derbyshire.
The latter’s “Derbyshire Wayfarer” integrated bus <strong>and</strong> train ticket is the ideal benchmark to which other
shire counties should aspire.
Visitors to <strong>and</strong> residents of Cumbria appear to have a choice between a “Stagecoach Explorer” or
“Cumbria Goldrider” 7 day ticket costing £26.50 or £21 respectively. Timetable leaflets fail to clarify any
diVerences in availability except the fact that the cheaper ticket is only available from Tourist
Information Centres.
All the above mentioned schemes have defined boundaries <strong>and</strong> it is frustrating that the tickets are
normally unavailable outside these areas <strong>and</strong> cannot be purchased on trains (even if the station is unmanned)
or on many buses.
However, even in Derbyshire there are deficiencies <strong>and</strong> anomalies on specific services. For example, there
are three diVerent bus services between Ilkeston <strong>and</strong> Derby with diVerent fare structures <strong>and</strong> ticketing
schemes with a bewildering array of conditions surrounding their interavailability. The limited evening
tendered bus service between Ashbourne <strong>and</strong> Derby is operated by Arriva <strong>and</strong> accepts return tickets issued
on TrentBarton’s daytime commercial service but not TrentBarton’s discount day ticket. A third operator,
TM <strong>Travel</strong>, operated the Sunday service under Derbyshire County Council (DCC) contract with yet more
diVerent ticketing arrangements.
Bus <strong>and</strong> train tickets between Derby <strong>and</strong> Matlock were interchangeable for three years up to August 2006
when the arrangement was withdrawn. This is despite many bus services being extended to Derby Rail
Station from October 2005 using DfT Kickstart funding <strong>and</strong> new bus stop flags being installed to indicate
the proximity of rail stations en route.
Even bus companies with common ownership do not accept each other’s tickets. Trent Barton <strong>and</strong> Notts
! Derby are both owned by Wellglade <strong>and</strong> occasionally interchange vehicles, but tickets are not
interchangeable on overlapping services in Nottinghamshire <strong>and</strong> Derbyshire. TransDev subsidiaries
Keighley & District <strong>and</strong> Harrogate & District provide abutting services on West <strong>and</strong> North Yorkshire but
there is no interavailability of tickets unless using a pre-paid WYPTE Metro ticket.
Some SYPTE bus/rail tickets are accepted on trains departing SheYeld Station but cannot be purchased
there. Potential customers are directed to the Bus Station <strong>Travel</strong> Shop 200yards away which is closed on
Bank Holidays.
28 Not printed.

Ev 152 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. The Government appears to have no strategy for the development of integrated ticketing.
3. Outside London, <strong>and</strong> to a lesser extent Scotl<strong>and</strong>, the industry is proving very reluctant to adopt
Smartcard ticketing. Many smaller operators do not even possess or use ticket machines. In North
StaVordshire <strong>and</strong> rural Northumberl<strong>and</strong> return tickets are h<strong>and</strong>written <strong>and</strong> no ticket is issued for single
journeys. Derbyshire County Council has attempted to overcome this by leasing modern ticket machines to
smaller operators in order to apportion concessionary fares revenue <strong>and</strong> monitor use of tendered services.
TrentBarton are trialling a new Smartcard based ticketing system this summer but this does not appear
to be compatible with the Smartcards issued by Nottingham City transport for season tickets although many
routes overlap. Furthermore concessionary fare holders in Nottinghamshire have a separate Smartcard to
permit free oV-peak travel but have to pay for peak journeys by cash.
4. I believe that this issue is open to debate <strong>and</strong> do not feel able to comment upon it at present.
5. Smartcards work very eYciently on gated systems such as Tube/Rail stations with automatic barriers
<strong>and</strong> on buses as season tickets or with a flat fare provided there is just one entry point to the bus with a
Smartcard reader monitored by the driver. However they are cumbersome to read with h<strong>and</strong> held machines
on multiple entrance vehicles such as articulated buses in London <strong>and</strong> trams in Nottingham. This leads to
a substantial (<strong>and</strong> unquantifiable) revenue loss especially at peak times.
6. Discretion needs to be exercised as appropriate to avoid genuine honest passengers being deterred from
using public transport for a fear of being penalised for inadvertently using the wrong ticket or service.
7. The need for, <strong>and</strong> frequency of, appeals should be at an absolute minimum.
8. Yes, provided that discretion is exercised by ticket inspectors when appropriate.
9. Many rail operators fail to ensure that on-train staV make regular ticket checks whilst few bus
companies now employ ticket inspectors <strong>and</strong> drivers have neither the time nor power to check tickets after
the passenger has boarded to prevent “over-riding”.
10. The Government’s concessionary fares policy is an unaVordable disaster. It is a subsidy to both bus
operators <strong>and</strong> those over 60’s <strong>and</strong> disabled persons fortunate enough to both live close to a bus route taking
them where <strong>and</strong> when they want to travel <strong>and</strong> be in suYcient good health to travel by bus. It leads to
overcrowding between 0930 <strong>and</strong> 1030 which deters other potential paying customers <strong>and</strong> it will result in
single fares increasing at a greater than expected rate whilstever reimbursement to operators is based upon
an agreed proportion of the single fare.
It will do nothing to encourage operators to oVer integrated ticketing as it removes up to 50% of the oVpeak
market <strong>and</strong> therefore makes the administration of such schemes even less commercially attractive.
It will also lead to a deterioration in service quality as customers travelling free are less likely to complain
about the service oVered <strong>and</strong> will exhibit less br<strong>and</strong> loyalty to a particular operator. EVectively free travellers
will catch the first available bus <strong>and</strong> it is likely that the viability of “all day” routes will be undermined by
low quality operators targeting free oV-peak passengers possibly between school journeys.
11. There is a danger that free bus travel will reduce oV peak use of parallel rail services, especially for
medium distance inter-urban journeys where journey time is of less importance. The proposed Engl<strong>and</strong>-wide
free bus travel has significant cost implications for tourist areas where “outsiders” will seasonally outnumber
“locals” yet it appears that the local authority will be expected to foot the bill. It is to be hoped that this will
not lead to cuts in supported bus services which local residents rely upon to reach essential services such as
health <strong>and</strong> shopping, whilst “over 60” leisure travellers <strong>and</strong> holidaymakers enjoy free travel.
I must stress however that the solution to this problem is not to oVer free “local” rail travel but to
withdraw the exorbitantly expensive free bus travel scheme <strong>and</strong> replace it with a UK concessionary half fare
scheme available on all modes at all times using Smartcard technology. Operators should be oVered a flat
rate administration fee per passenger carried (paid by Central Government) <strong>and</strong> savings should be diverted
to installing compatible Smartcard readers on all buses <strong>and</strong> at all rail stations with all concessionary passes
being Smartcard based. This would reduce boarding times <strong>and</strong> provide a robust, reliable means of tracking
the use of concessionary travel passes. It would also restore an element of competitiveness in the market <strong>and</strong>
allow the continued use of well established elasticity theory; free concessionary travel invalidates such theory
<strong>and</strong> will inevitably lead to some fares increasing at a higher rate.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Scheidt & Bachmann (TPT 27)
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann GmbH is a global provider of intergrated <strong>and</strong> automated fares systems for public
transport services.
In the United Kingdom the company is a major provider to the National Rail Passenger Franchise
operators <strong>and</strong> is currently delivering the DfT funded Yorkshire multi modal smartcard ticketing programme
Yorcard to the ITSO St<strong>and</strong>ard.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 153
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann would wish to submit the following response to the questions outlined by the
Committee <strong>and</strong> would welcome the opportunity to provide further information based on both its UK <strong>and</strong>
international experience.
For convenience, the Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann response to the Call for Evidence has been summarised using
the section <strong>and</strong> paragraph headings <strong>and</strong> numbering that was used in the Call.
The response provided has been limited in order to meet the request for six pages or less. Scheidt <strong>and</strong>
Bachmann GmbH accept that the information may be published <strong>and</strong> at this stage have no contributions
that it would consider confidential.
Section 1—Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
In Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s opinion whilst there are areas where ticketing is well integrated, notably in
the major cities where a PTE body manages the processes, integration between modes is limited <strong>and</strong> the
geographic integration is generally restricted to defined areas with less “cross boundary” integration than
is ideal.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann welcomes the Government’s clear interest in this very important topic <strong>and</strong> would
express the view that whilst the Government has a very clear vision of the requirements <strong>and</strong> benefits that
integrated ticketing systems oVer to the citizen the strategy remains to be completely defined.
An example of this would be the current call for Expressions of Interest in the English Concession Card
provision which will take a very important step forward, especially if it exploits the ITSO smartcard
technology but is silent on multi modal travel.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up midern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view would be that whilst some areas, such as Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, have either
implemented or are proceeding to implement smartcard technology in a limited way, only London,
benefiting from its revenue risk <strong>and</strong> management regime has demonstrated fully the benefits of the
technology.
The area of most concern, especially in a national context, is the passenger rail services which have only
recently started to consider how to implement the technology <strong>and</strong> that is because the Department for
Transport has m<strong>and</strong>ated its use in new franchises.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann believe that the ITSO approach has the capacity to cater for all the needs of all
passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers <strong>and</strong> that over a period of time it can become the basis of providing best value
ticketing across all modes for both citizens <strong>and</strong> transport service providers.
5. What can be learned from the experience of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
It is Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view that the main lesson that can be learnt from both of these schemes is
that successful implementation of integrated fares systems that use new technologies requires clear <strong>and</strong>
focused leadership from a single body.
In each case that has been identified, a single body, the Scottish Executive or Transport for London has
defined the requirements clearly <strong>and</strong> contracted for them on behalf of the transport service providers. This
has meant the funding of the programmes to ensure speedy <strong>and</strong> common adoption with the benefits being
derived in the longer term, <strong>and</strong> approach that public bodies can take more easily than the private sector.

Ev 154 Transport Committee: Evidence
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann view this as an operational issue <strong>and</strong> would not wish to comment on it.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann view this as an operational issue <strong>and</strong> would not wish to comment on it.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann view this as an operational issue <strong>and</strong> would not wish to comment on it.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
Whilst Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann view this as an operational issue <strong>and</strong> would not wish to comment on it
directly it should be noted that all of the transport service providers in all modes make every eVort to deliver
a fair <strong>and</strong> open revenue protection approach.
A common requirement when specification of integrated fares systems are being planned is for the use of
the technology to assist in the delivery of revenue protection, both by providing ticket inspectors with the
appropriate tools to do the job <strong>and</strong> by providing the passenger with every opportunity to pay for travel
through manned, self service <strong>and</strong> remote access sales points such as the web.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
It is Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view that the vision that is shown in the current Expression of Interest notice
for the English <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme clearly reflects the importance that the Government places on
the manner.
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann feel that the approach is the correct one, especially given the complex nature of
the relationships that must be accounted for but that the proposed strategy currently lacks suYcient detail
in the public domain for a comment on its adequacy to be made.
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann do believe that the strategy implied in both the EoI <strong>and</strong> in the Transport
Committee’s enquiry indicate that with sound <strong>and</strong> clear leadership from Government <strong>and</strong> the exploitation
of the ITSO technology <strong>and</strong> approach will deliver a more that adequate strategy.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
At this point in time it is Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view that whilst the intention is there to deliver
integration across modes <strong>and</strong> geographical areas the strategy remains to be implemented to deliver this.
Additional Comment
12. Integration of systems
Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann believe that there are three areas which the Government should consider <strong>and</strong>
provide leadership on.
The first is to recognise that the implementation of anew, full integrated multi modal <strong>and</strong> geographically
broad public transport ticketing solution will probably be delivered over a period of time.
In order to achieve this a key planning eVort that Government can provide guidance on will be the
intregration in the short term of existing legacy system into a new solution that uses modern technology.
This will ensure continuity of services whilst the new technology is fully deployed <strong>and</strong> will help to drive down
the cost of implementation by reducing the risks associated with a “big bang” approach.
The second area where guidance can be given is in the planning of new technology implementation. ITSO
smartcards represent a very major step forward in achieving a national integrated ticketing solution which
will provide passengers with a common interfact <strong>and</strong> allow Authorities <strong>and</strong> transport providers to benefit
from an open <strong>and</strong> competitive supplier base.
Whilst encouraging the development <strong>and</strong> piloting of new technologies such a Near Field Communication
<strong>and</strong> Mobile solutions, the guidance should ensure that the introduction of the new concepts does not delay
the implementation of the current smartcard technology.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 155
The third area where Government can provide support <strong>and</strong> encouragement is in driving forward the
implementation of the programme that has already been funded to bring London into the ITSO
technological solution, thus ensuring that by 2010 the UK benefits from the single, open technology
st<strong>and</strong>ard that Government <strong>and</strong> private sector have co-operated on to deliver.
Manfred Feiter
Director Project <strong>and</strong> Application
6 March 2007
About Merseytravel
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Merseytravel (TPT 28)
Merseytravel is a public body comprising the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority <strong>and</strong> the
Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive, acting together with the overall aim of providing a single
integrated public transport network for Merseyside which is accessible to all. While there are seven PTAs
<strong>and</strong> PTEs in the UK, Merseytravel is unique in that it was the first PTA <strong>and</strong> PTE to be fused together <strong>and</strong>
is now a mature operating organisation.
If it would assist Members’ deliberations further, Merseytravel would be delighted to give oral evidence
to the Committee.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas?
Generally, ticketing is not suYciently integrated either across diVerent modes of transport or between
diVerent geographical areas. Merseytravel believes that the future of transport ticketing cannot proceed
without a fully integrated smartcard ticketing system <strong>and</strong> that it is this approach that is needed to deliver a
fair transport system that oVers suYcient flexibility <strong>and</strong> information for the passenger. The success of this
approach is subject to suitable smartcard readers being implemented across all modes of transport with
operators recognising a diverse but specific range of smartcards as an appropriate ticketing medium,
regardless of region or transport mode.
Merseytravel is responsible for ensuring that ticketing systems make public transport easy to use,
aVordable, <strong>and</strong> contribute to attracting <strong>and</strong> retaining passengers to the network <strong>and</strong> on this basis, they have
implemented a multi-mode smartcard travel card for Merseyside. This smartcard has been developed to
ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ards, ensuring interoperability with smart-based travel systems outside the Merseyside region.
In addition, Merseytravel oVers multi-operator <strong>and</strong> multi-modal integrated tickets “Trio” <strong>and</strong> “Trioplus”.
(NB ITSO is the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation dedicated to producing a specification <strong>and</strong>
operating environment for interoperable smartcards).
Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Merseytravel believes that it is smartcard ticketing, developed to the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard that will provide a
platform <strong>and</strong> structure for developing the integration of ticketing systems—a concept fully supported by
the Government. During the Third Reading of the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill in the House of Lords,
Lord Davies oVered the Government’s “firm commitment” to smart ticketing in compliance with the ITSO
st<strong>and</strong>ard <strong>and</strong> gave support to ensure “the faster <strong>and</strong> wider spread of smart ticketing”. He further stated that
the Government is committed to the use of smartcards in the transport area <strong>and</strong> is committed to the ITSO
st<strong>and</strong>ard which they see as “vital to ensure the interoperability of smartcards across the country”.
Merseytravel believes that the only way to guarantee interoperability, is to use this key feature of the Bill to
ensure that smartcard ticketing is ITSO compliant.
The DfT has supported ITSO by giving it Crown Copyright status, making it available to all <strong>and</strong>
providing a framework for enabling interoperability <strong>and</strong> interchange ability of cards, readers, ticketing
equipment <strong>and</strong> back oYce equipment.

Ev 156 Transport Committee: Evidence
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Although the rollout of the schemes could be happening faster, the industry is now taking up smartcards.
Merseytravel believes that take-up would be quicker were the scheme funded in a similar way to the Scottish
transport card, which is fully funded by the Scottish Executive.
The industry is now embracing smartcards, mainly due to the publication of the ITSO specification. Many
of the business cases need some pump priming, consequently, adding to the delay in implementing the initial
scheme. If the right choices are made for the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme (ENCTS) then
this will open massive opportunities for smartcard ticketing. The diagram below demonstrates the possible
enhancement path which could follow an ITSO compliant roll out of Smartcards.
Environment
Launch Pad
Partners
St<strong>and</strong>ard s
Vision
Vision – becoming reality
Plethora of
delivery
channels
Transport Entitlement
Concessions Tickets
Education Tourism Access
Attainments Welfare Virtual/ Physical
Evolving applications that mirror the
requirements of the smartcard holder.
In establishing ENCTS, it is important that the DfT does not specify the actual type of smartcard to be
used as to do so would stifle the market response. Instead they should specify their requirements in brief for
the functionality of the card, for example:
— Must be ITSO compliant.
— Must support other applications both within <strong>and</strong> alongside ITSO.
— Must be secure enough to support applications such as E purse on a national basis.
In adopting this approach the DfT will enable (by eVectively a pump priming mechanism) the vision of
smartcards into the future <strong>and</strong> their potential role as citizen or entitlement cards.
This approach will require a smartcard which is at the higher end of the technology range <strong>and</strong> therefore
will come at a higher price. This additional cost is however marginal within the entirety of ENCTS <strong>and</strong> will
be far outweighed by the future benefits. Indeed it may be possible to recoup that cost (<strong>and</strong> more) by “renting
out the card real estate” to, say, a national E-purse. The DfT should allow, even encourage, the market to
be creative in this respect.
Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
Merseytravel believes that the ITSO system is a living document <strong>and</strong> as such is versatile, valuable, cost
eYcient <strong>and</strong> user friendly. ITSO does not discriminate between suppliers, is not manufacturer specific <strong>and</strong>
does not restrict travel to the conceptual boundaries put in place by local administration or the structure of
ownership <strong>and</strong> operation of transport modes. The ITSO specification allows smartcards to be issued across
a range of partners, using any form of co-br<strong>and</strong>ing while at the same time oVering certainty about the
interoperability of the card in other areas.
ITSO oVers a highly secure ticketing system. The Department for Transport commissioned a report into
the relative security levels of TfL’s Oyster card system <strong>and</strong> ITSO that showed that, while Oyster was
suYciently secure in a closed environment, only ITSO provided the security levels needed for national
interoperable activities.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 157
Merseytravel continues to remain active in a number of UK working groups on the development of
national st<strong>and</strong>ards for smartcards. This important development work will ensure that smartcard technology
is not limited to specific geographical areas <strong>and</strong> transport operators. ITSO oVers a unique opportunity to
help create the necessary st<strong>and</strong>ards to allow smartcards to become the main ticketing medium in the UK,
so that a smartcard issued in Liverpool could be read in London <strong>and</strong> elsewhere.
Looking to the future, Merseytravel believes that the ITSO concept could be taken a stage further with
excellent opportunities to follow the principles, the organisation <strong>and</strong> to some extent the technology that
ITSO uses to begin addressing interoperability of Road User Charging schemes across the country.
ITSO was designed by all the players in the Transport industry (Operators, Manufacturers, Transport
Authorities etc) <strong>and</strong> whilst in the design stage this was a weakness (design by consensus) it is now a strength
in that ITSO has become the Industry St<strong>and</strong>ard, this is illustrated by:
— The number of suppliers who are submitting cards, point of service or back oYce equipment for
ITSO certification.
— The number of schemes implementing ITSO including 6 of 21 of the rail franchises.
— The indication that London will move towards ITSO ticketing.
— The international interest <strong>and</strong> adoption of ITSO.
ITSO provides for interoperability—indeed this was the driver for ITSO along with interchangeability.
ITSO allows the scheme provider a choice of smartcards from throw away single journey tickets to
sophisticated life style or entitlement cards. ITSO provides whatever data elements are required to allow
complex ticketing between operators or on a geographical basis by capturing the on card data <strong>and</strong> secure
data transfer to the back oYces. This same wealth of data on who travelled where, on what etc will allow
the DfT to monitor ENCTS <strong>and</strong> to tune or revamp the scheme, in essence it will futureproof ENCTS.
The need for smartcard ticketing <strong>and</strong> the security it brings has again been demonstrated in recent days
by the press articles on alleged fraud.
What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
The Scottish transport card has public sector investment, being fully funded by the Scottish Executive <strong>and</strong>
because of this take-up of the system happened at a faster rate than can be expected across the English
system.
ITSO <strong>and</strong> Oyster are now compatible however, as this was not the case when it was initially set up the
costs of doing this “after the event” were greater. Merseytravel believes that smartcards systems should be
ITSO compliant in the first place to save the expense of making them compatible later on.
Smartcards are very acceptable to customers because of the convenience <strong>and</strong> benefits normally associated
with them. This is particularly so where the “entitlement” card approach has been taken. Whilst existing
schemes are still in their infancy it would appear that the drivers behind ITSO are achievable:
— Better Data (Customer habits, Reimbursement).
— Automated Validation (More sophisticated ticket types).
— Fraud Prevention (Forgery, Pass back).
— E money (Reduced theft & operational costs, Attractive customer facility).
— Faster Processing (Customer convenience, Operational savings).
— St<strong>and</strong>ards (Interoperability, Interchangeability).
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
Yes. Ticket inspectors on both bus <strong>and</strong> rail services need adequate powers to fulfil their primary role of
revenue protection; identifying the minority of passengers who deliberately seek to evade paying their fare
or fraudulently use travel permits.
What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Appeal rights are important but, first <strong>and</strong> foremost, revenue protection measures must be applied fairly
<strong>and</strong> consistently so that unfair penalisation <strong>and</strong> other incidents giving rise to appeals are kept to a minimum.
Any appeals mechanism must deal with cases fairly <strong>and</strong> consistently against specified criteria <strong>and</strong> passengers
need to have confidence in the process, which must be seen to be independent of the commercial interests
of operators <strong>and</strong> funded on a basis which is unaVected by the outcome of appeals. In respect of rail penalty
fares, passengers have access to the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service (IPFAS) which meets
those criteria.

Ev 158 Transport Committee: Evidence
Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
Yes, for example, rail passengers can only be charged a penalty fare if ticket facilities were unavailable
where they joined the train. However, it is important that passengers rights are protected by ensuring that,
for example, if a passenger says that they could not buy a ticket an inspector is able to verify whether that
is the case. Inspectors need real time information on whether ticket oYces are open or machines are working
properly so that they can exercise discretion in appropriate cases.
Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
The extent to which operators take steps to protect fare revenues is likely to vary according to their
dependence upon “fare box” revenue. Where operators have accepted little or no revenue risk, there is
disincentive to ensure that the correct fares paid or that tickets or passes are valid.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus travel,
adequate?
Merseytravel welcomes the introduction of an Engl<strong>and</strong>-wide scheme for free oV-peak bus travel,
applicable to disabled people <strong>and</strong> those over 60 <strong>and</strong> is keen to work with the Government to ensure its
successful implementation.
Merseytravel believes the Government’s mechanism for allocating funding for the concessionary fares
scheme presents significant challenges, particularly in Engl<strong>and</strong>’s metropolitan areas.
Government funding, although reflective of the actual cost of the scheme, will be allocated as part of the
Revenue Support Grant (RSG) process meaning that allocations are not reflective of local passenger
numbers or need. Channelling funds through the RSG is particularly detrimental to metropolitan areas
where passenger numbers are naturally higher, making the cost of implementation higher.
This problem is not reflected in the RSG <strong>and</strong> can only be resolved by Transport Authorities cutting
services or quality. In Metropolitan areas, funding allocated for the scheme does not go directly to PTEs.
It goes to Metropolitan District Councils as part of the RSG process, who are under no obligation to pass
on the additional funding to the PTEs.
Another funding issue arises because the scheme follows Barnett principles, meaning a proportion of the
funding for the English scheme will go to Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales—even though those schemes are fully funded
already via their respective Assembly <strong>and</strong> Executive.
One significant area of concern is the impact of the recent round of Appeals by bus operators against PTA
Participation Notices. All the PTAs aVected have had to make provision in their budgets for the potential
outcomes. This means that there is uncertainty in the budget, but also that budget plans could be seriously
aVected by the outcome of the Appeals process, eg PTAs have faced increased payments to bus operators
in the region of £1.5 million to £5.0 million per annum. Decisions by the Secretary of State are potentially
undermining the sovereignty of PTAs to determine their own budgets. However, the reality is that the DfT
funding to the PTAs <strong>and</strong> <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Authorities is fixed: so there is one rule for the DfT <strong>and</strong>
another for reimbursing Authorities!
ITSO provides a flexible <strong>and</strong> interoperable scheme basis which allows many of the current issues to be
resolved:
— Recognising a valid card.
— As much data as you want.
— Whose scheme is it?
— Issuing the cards at where?
— Local add ons.
— Commercial add ons.
— Cross Border.
— Future proofing.
Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
— For the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme to be applied on a national scale, it is essential that eligible
passengers are able to travel with ease, Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) are able to gather
reliable data about passenger numbers <strong>and</strong> travelling trends, <strong>and</strong> fraud can be minimised.
Merseytravel recognises the opportunity to ensure that technology supports inter-operator

March 2007
1. Summary
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 159
ticketing not only across types of transport but also over areas <strong>and</strong> regions. Schemes using ITSOcompliant
smartcard technology ensure complete interoperability <strong>and</strong> eYcient management of the
movement of people <strong>and</strong>, if applied nationally, would ensure a “seamless journey” for the traveller
regardless of mode or LTA boundary.
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport for London (TPT 29)
1.1 The Oyster smartcard has provided substantial benefits to passengers on all TfL modes since it was
introduced in 2002. Passengers can move faster around the city. TfL’s losses from fraud have been reduced.
And it has been the foundation for a transformation in TfL’s relationship with its regular customers. But it
is important to recognise that Oyster may no longer represent a state-of-the-art smartcard system, as
developments in related industries open up attractive alternative models.
1.2 TfL actively tackles fare evasion through the provision of dedicated revenue protection teams <strong>and</strong>
believes that these teams generate net revenue. But it is still not satisfied with the rigour applied to revenue
protection especially on buses. Further steps can be taken to make the law in this area more relevant to
modern technologies.
2. Introduction
2.1 TfL welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public
Transport. With four year’s worth of experience in running the Oyster smartcard system alongside its older
paper ticket system, TfL feels it has useful perspectives to oVer on the subjects of smartcard technologies
<strong>and</strong> revenue protection. TfL has also contributed to a separate submission by the Mayor of London that
focuses on integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> concessionary travel.
2.2 Overall, TfL considers that the introduction of the Oyster smartcard has been unambiguously
positive. It has improved the customer experience in many ways. Certainly customers can proceed through
TfL stations <strong>and</strong> board TfL buses much more quickly than used to be the case, <strong>and</strong> they are unanimously
positive about this. But that is only the start. Customers now have a wider choice of travel products including
the Oyster Pay As You Go stored value product which was impossible to deliver using paper tickets. They
can also register their possession of a given Oyster card with TfL <strong>and</strong> thereby access an improved range of
customer services <strong>and</strong> benefits. There is no interest within TfL in returning to paper tickets.
2.3 The Transport Policing & Enforcement Directorate’s (TPED’s) Bus Enforcement section is
responsible for operational <strong>and</strong> procedural bus enforcement, including managing TfL’s approximately 295
Revenue Protection Inspectors 29 (RPIs), ticketing <strong>and</strong> policy input on revenue, <strong>and</strong> investigation <strong>and</strong>
prosecution delivery for Surface Transport. Public transport providers have a duty to ensure that public <strong>and</strong>
private monies are protected <strong>and</strong> paying customers are supported through eVective revenue protection <strong>and</strong>
prosecution activities.
2.4 The pattern <strong>and</strong> methods of fare evasion have changed to adapt to new technology <strong>and</strong> ticketing
requirements, particularly in the last two years. Fare evasion has also increased on the bus network over
the same period. This has been driven by operational <strong>and</strong> ticketing changes which reinforce the need for
appropriate legislation <strong>and</strong> eVective sanctions delivery. Fare evaders are often involved in other forms of
crime. EVective fare evasion detection provides judicial access to these oVenders.
3. The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3.1 The Oyster contactless smartcard was launched by TfL in 2002 <strong>and</strong> since then has grown to be the
largest transport smartcard scheme in the United Kingdom. To date, more than 11 million cards have been
issued to TfL customers, <strong>and</strong> they use their cards for almost 7 million journeys on TfL <strong>and</strong> train operating
company services every day. 82% of journeys on TfL services are now made using Oyster. But such a scheme
does not come cheap: TfL pays its PFI contractor substantial service charges to provide <strong>and</strong> operate the
Oyster system. There are broadly three lessons from London’s experience with Oyster.
3.2 First, Oyster has allowed passengers to move significantly faster around the city by reducing queues
both for ticket purchase at ticket oYces <strong>and</strong> retail outlets <strong>and</strong> for London Underground gate-lines <strong>and</strong> bus
entrances (maximum throughput for gates was increased from 15 passengers per minute to 40 on the
29 The main aims of RPIs are to:
— Detect <strong>and</strong> minimise fare evasion on the London bus network.
— Develop <strong>and</strong> eVectively use technology to ensure eVective resource targeting <strong>and</strong> data analysis.
— Provide a visible, uniformed presence to deter fare evasion <strong>and</strong> other criminal behaviour.
— Provide staV <strong>and</strong> passenger safety <strong>and</strong> security reassurance <strong>and</strong> to assist <strong>and</strong> guide as needed.

Ev 160 Transport Committee: Evidence
introduction of Oyster). In addition, at certain highly-congested Underground stations such as Bank, the
reduction in congestion achieved with Oyster has meant that passenger volume growth has been
accommodated without the need for sizable capital investment in exp<strong>and</strong>ing ticket halls. Oyster has also
delivered real financial benefits by preventing <strong>and</strong> eliminating several types of fraud, such as the re-sale of
discarded one-day tickets by touts which so blighted the environment of so many Underground stations in
the 1990s <strong>and</strong> also the use of forged paper tickets. Other operators elsewhere in the UK may well be able to
replicate the benefits from fraud reduction, but the non-financial passenger benefits <strong>and</strong> capital investment
avoidance benefits may be harder to replicate except for operators in those urban centres where peak
passenger flows result in queuing <strong>and</strong> over-crowding at levels similar to London.
3.3 The second main lesson has been that smartcards can be the foundation for the transformation of
transport operators’ relationships with their customers. More than 1m Oyster card users have chosen to
register their card details with TfL <strong>and</strong> constantly re-use a single registered Oyster card for their travel.
Where the necessary customer consent has been given, TfL can proactively warn these customers by email
or text message several days beforeh<strong>and</strong> that the service that they normally use will not be available <strong>and</strong>
suggest alternatives. Another benefit is the free replacement of products if a card is lost: where a customer
has registered a card number with TfL, its number can be “hot-listed” if lost so that the card cannot be reused
on the system. A new card with duplicate products is issued to the customer.
3.4 The final lesson concerns the implementation challenge of a smartcard ticketing scheme. Oyster is a
huge, complex system. To put it into context, where MasterCard processes about 40m payments every day
worldwide, the Oyster system processes more than 10 million individual “taps” each day—it is at a
comparable scale. Building, testing <strong>and</strong> commissioning such a system is detailed, dem<strong>and</strong>ing work <strong>and</strong> must
be tackled in a step-by-step fashion with each incremental development to the scheme released one at a time
after thorough testing <strong>and</strong> assurance. This is not just a consequence of the project complexity: account also
needs to be taken of the pace at which customers can assimilate changes to the ticketing system. Smartcards
change the fundamentals of ticketing systems <strong>and</strong> time must be allowed for customers to digest these changes
<strong>and</strong> adapt to them.
3.5 It rather misrepresents the situation to refer in the Committee’s terms of reference for this inquiry to
“the ITSO system”. There is no single ITSO system. There is a technical specification, a number of suppliers
of equipment that comply with this specification, <strong>and</strong> a number of distinct smartcard schemes that use this
equipment. It is not entirely clear that this set of entities makes up a system in the fullest sense of the word.
3.6 Because the PFI contract for the Oyster system was made in 1998, it pre-dates the establishment of
the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) <strong>and</strong> the publication of the various parts of the
ITSO specification. As a consequence, TfL has never formally analysed the ITSO specification nor
compared it against Oyster. At no stage in the first nine years of the PFI contract could the benefits of ITSO
conceivably have oVset the financial penalties of terminating the contract early.
3.7 At the DfT’s request, an exercise is underway in which the PFI contractor is assessing what would be
required to transform the Oyster smartcard system so that the various smartcard readers within it could also
read <strong>and</strong> write to cards compliant with the ITSO specification. TfL believes that investment in such an
upgrade project would be rather wasteful. The vast majority of TfL’s customers are residents or regular
commuters who already have an Oyster card. Visitors can get one from TfL in person or by post at any
address in the UK or through Visit Britain’s arrangements overseas. The beneficiaries of such an investment
programme would be people travelling to or through London on an ITSO-compliant smartcard carrying
travel products valid within London but purchased outside London. At present, there is no transport
smartcard scheme in the UK that has these characteristics (although South West Trains has obligations to
provide such a system from 2009). It is not clear what problem is to be solved through the investment of
tens of millions of pounds in an upgrade that will benefit a small number of travellers who already have
straightforward access to the benefits of smartcard ticketing in London with Oyster.
3.8 This is proving to be a fertile period in the history of the smartcard technology industry. The past 12
months have seen a noticeable acceleration of technology trends in the industry that make assumptions
made even as recently as 2004 seem dated. Prior to that date, the requirements of the public transportation
industry were too dem<strong>and</strong>ing for the mainstream smartcard industry to meet. That industry focused on
providing smartcards to the banking payments <strong>and</strong> mobile phone industries in the form of very secure
cryptographic products for consumers using contact interfaces—the Chip & PIN cards in peoples’ wallets
or purses <strong>and</strong> the SIM card in their mobile phone h<strong>and</strong>sets. The dem<strong>and</strong>s of the public transportation
industry were very diVerent. The very fast transaction speeds that they dem<strong>and</strong>ed to achieve high passenger
throughputs made the use of contact smartcards infeasible, so the main producers ignored the transport submarket
<strong>and</strong> allowed a set of niche transport smartcard providers to appear. These providers thrived to
varying degrees <strong>and</strong> their successes prompted some further entrants to compete, such as ITSO. For transport
operators the market seemed relatively under-served <strong>and</strong> competition was diYcult to create.
3.9 That situation has recently changed dramatically. Some banks, notably in the United States, have
decided to oVer contactless payment functionality on their bank cards in the hope that in certain contexts
customers will prefer to make a “tap <strong>and</strong> go” card purchase—without the need for a PIN—than to fumble
with cash <strong>and</strong> change. This has been made possible by the steady improvement in the speed <strong>and</strong> power of
the microprocessors embedded in the industry’s st<strong>and</strong>ard smartcards which allows the whole interaction
between card <strong>and</strong> reader to be compressed into less than a second. Already some transport operators have

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 161
adopted this technology for their operations, albeit on a pilot basis, in Taiwan <strong>and</strong> New York City where
on certain routes passengers can tap their bank cards to board buses or to pass through the subway gates.
There is also a lot of activity in the mobile phone industry around a technology called Near Field
Communications (NFC) which allows a suitably-adapted mobile phone h<strong>and</strong>set to emulate a contactless
smartcard. In Tokyo, Japan Rail East launched a commercial product of this type last year called Mobile
Suica that allows customers to buy travel tickets using their mobile phone that are delivered in electronic
form “over the air”, <strong>and</strong> then use the h<strong>and</strong>set as a smartcard to tap-in <strong>and</strong> tap-out of the transport system.
3.10 What conclusions can be drawn from all this activity? Broadly, it seems as though the mainstream
smartcard industry is close to reaching the point at which its st<strong>and</strong>ard payments <strong>and</strong> mobile telephony
products can for the first time meet the needs of transport operators. Bank cards <strong>and</strong> mobile phone h<strong>and</strong>sets
that use open or widely-adopted industry st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> that can interact suYciently fast with contactless
smartcard readers will be available in only a h<strong>and</strong>ful of years time. Prices for contactless cards, readers <strong>and</strong>
associated services are likely to fall. For transport operators, these changes should open up real
opportunities to weave contactless smartcard technologies into their ticketing systems at prices that were
unattainable even 3–4 years ago. Doing so may require them to learn to partner with large organisations in
industries that are currently unfamiliar to them.
4. Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
4.1 Current legislation needs updating to take technological developments into account. It also needs a
degree of flexibility to ensure relevance to future developments. The legislation governing the modes <strong>and</strong>
their application varies greatly across the country. London Underground prosecute under Section 5 of the
Regulation of Railways Act 1889 <strong>and</strong> also under byelaws made pursuant to section 67 of the Transport Act
1962 or schedule 11 of that Act. Bus Operators primarily prosecute under section 25 of the Public Passenger
Vehicles Act 1981 <strong>and</strong> the related the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors
<strong>and</strong> Passengers) Regulations 1990. In London penalty fares can be imposed instead of prosecutions under
Schedule 17 to the Greater London Authority Act (1999) for both bus <strong>and</strong> rail modes. Bus operators apply
the current legislation diVerently, varying from a st<strong>and</strong>ard fare being charged for fare evasion through to
penalty fares <strong>and</strong> prosecutions. The current legal framework does not have set transport-industry wide
criteria for proving fare evasion. On London’s bus network, not having a valid travel product represents
adequate proof of fare evasion as PSV legislation does not require the burden of intent to be proven. London
Underground, however, does have to prove a passenger intended to evade their fare in order to successfully
prosecute. These anomalies allow fare evaders to abuse the ticketing requirements <strong>and</strong> can lead to genuine
customer confusion. Amendments to Schedule 17 of the Greater London Authority Act contained in the
Transport for London Bill are currently progressing through Parliament to ensure its ongoing relevance to
current operations <strong>and</strong> improve deterrence. Amendments to the Public Service Vehicle Regulations have
been suggested to the Department for Transport.
4.2 A three-stage penalty fare appeal process is in place within TfL for the Underground <strong>and</strong> buses. The
first stage is administered by the issuing mode; second stages are heard by TfL Bus Enforcement’s
Investigation <strong>and</strong> Prosecution Section <strong>and</strong> the third stage is heard by the Independent Penalty Fare Appeals
Panel. This panel was established in 2005 <strong>and</strong> consists of members nominated by London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch <strong>and</strong>
agreed by TfL. It meets every six to eight weeks to consider appeals which have passed through the first <strong>and</strong>
second stages of the appeals process. TfL currently believes that the appeal mechanisms in place (which have
been agreed with London <strong>Travel</strong>Watch) are wholly adequate <strong>and</strong> robust. The appeals process also
incorporates appeals against the withdrawal of youth <strong>and</strong> full time education concessionary travel.
4.3 Current legislation places restrictions on revenue protection personnel. For example, personnel are
required to interact with the alleged fare evader only on the vehicle on which the alleged oVence has
occurred, thereby potentially disrupting the bus service. They are also unable to charge an alleged fare
evader with obstruction where they fail to provide correct details. As part of the name <strong>and</strong> address
verification process, the right to obtain additional information, such as a date of birth, would reduce the
significant number of evaders who manipulate the system <strong>and</strong> persistently evade payment. This hopefully
will shortly be subject to change with the powers proposed within the TfL Bill. Passengers rights are
maintained through, for example, the right to view oYcial’s photographic <strong>and</strong> authority identification, the
Data Protection Act (1998), appeal rights <strong>and</strong> the Police <strong>and</strong> Criminal Evidence Act (1984).
4.4 There is nationwide scope for improvement in the measures used by the public transport industry to
protect fares revenue. The costs of revenue protection can, however, appear commercially prohibitive. In
London, appearances are deceptive: TfL business case evaluation indicates a positive 2:1 cost benefit ratio
ie the costs of providing a revenue protection function is outweighed by the benefits of prevented revenue
loss. Revenue protection measures adopted in London include the complete gating of all London
Underground stations <strong>and</strong> the provision of full-time revenue protection teams on the Underground <strong>and</strong>
buses. But on buses drivers are the main point of control in protecting fares revenue. Current levels of driver
ticket checking in London are unacceptably low. Increasingly, fares are paid via pre-purchased ticketing
products which require accurate driver checking of ticket <strong>and</strong> pass validity rather than on-bus cash
transactions. Operators need to be supported by the judicial processes which adequately consider financial
impact assessments. This is enacted in London through the use of five regional courts resulting in the
successful prosecution of around 3000 bus network fare evasion cases a month.

Ev 162 Transport Committee: Evidence
5. Conclusion
5.1 TfL’s experience of Oyster suggests that contactless smartcards are the best way to h<strong>and</strong>le ticketing
in highly-congested urban centres like London. And encouragingly, the smartcard industry will soon be able
to oVer transport operators a range of contactless technologies derived from the payments <strong>and</strong> mobile phone
industries that will be much cheaper than the transport-specific technologies that have been available to
date.
5.2 TfL is firmly of the view that proactive revenue protection is a value-creating activity, but is concerned
that it has yet to achieve the levels of performance in this area to which it aspires. TfL requires support in
its work to control the revenue lost to bus network fare evasion <strong>and</strong> fraud annually. Further legal rights
would allow RPIs to better tackle to this issue to allow significantly increased revenue for reinvestment in
London’s public transport network. There are some characteristics of the legislation surrounding revenue
protection that require updating <strong>and</strong> which currently mitigate against the most eVective revenue protection
at present. TfL would encourage the Committee to consider how these might be re-visited <strong>and</strong> made wholly
relevant to both recent technological developments <strong>and</strong> varied operational requirements. Public transport
service providers have a duty to ensure that public <strong>and</strong> private monies are protected <strong>and</strong> paying customers
supported through eVective revenue protection <strong>and</strong> prosecution activities. A consistent approach to the
detection <strong>and</strong> deterrence of fare evasion <strong>and</strong> fraud by national operators together with a consistent
approach by the judicial services is needed to adequately address these errant behaviours.
March 2007
1. Introduction
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport for London (TPT 29a)
1.1 Our response to the request for additional information that was made by the Committee during our
oral evidence session regarding the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme, the Freedom Pass <strong>and</strong>
Revenue Protection OYcers is set out below. We have also included information about London
Underground’s <strong>Ticketing</strong> Strategy which was raised later during that session.
2. The Impact of the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme on Dem<strong>and</strong> for London
Bus Services
2.1 Reliable information on current London bus usage by non-London concession holders is diYcult to
obtain. We have agreed an estimate with the Boroughs on which to base provisional payments in 2008–09
until actual data comes through from the on-bus surveys. The Boroughs will pay us £25 million on the basis
there are currently 25 million paid for journeys, which will rise to about 40 million as a result of free travel
(ie generation of about 15 million journeys, or about 0.75% increase in total bus traYc of 2200 million). The
payment will be retrospectively adjusted once actual usage figures come through. A further factor here is
that the government formula for distributing the additional grant for the out-of-area travel (£212 million
for Engl<strong>and</strong>) looks likely to give the Boroughs £60 million!, compared with our £25 million cost estimate.
This occurs mainly because the London scheme has always included out-of-Borough travel—so the
Boroughs would argue is simply putting right many years of injustice, not h<strong>and</strong>ing them a windfall.
3. London Boroughs <strong>and</strong> Payment for the Freedom Pass
3.1 London Councils is responsible for managing the Freedom Pass <strong>and</strong> would be able to provide further
information about how the scheme is funded.
4. Revenue Protection Officers
4.1 In 2006–07 there were 21 recorded major staV assaults on revenue protection oYcers on the bus
network, ie those assaults leading to over 3 days sick leave <strong>and</strong> 115 minor assaults. Up to the end of period
9 this year (8 December 2007), there have been 17 major assaults <strong>and</strong> 72 minor assaults. This is in the context
of additional revenue staV operating on the network <strong>and</strong>, currently, there is no year-on-year increase in
assaults per hours of ticket checking on buses.
5. London Underground’s <strong>Ticketing</strong> Strategy
5.1 Oyster currently represents nearly 70% of all London Underground (LU) ticket sales. Its success has
provided an opportunity for LU to look at the best ways of deploying its staV to the benefit of all passengers,
especially in the context of the huge rise in numbers currently being experienced. By moving some staV from
positions in ticket oYces to more customer-facing positions, LU believes that its service will be improved.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 163
5.2 As a consequence of the growth in the use of Oyster, there has been a dramatic decline in ticket oYce
transactions at many of LU’s smaller ticket oYces. At stations where there has been the biggest decline in
ticket oYce sales, LU will move staV from ticket oYces to more visible positions across the network, where
they are needed most. On average at the stations where changes are proposed, ticket oYce sales have
dropped by 42% over the past two years—in some cases this figure is as high as 80%. Most of the ticket oYces
that will close are currently open for only a few hours each day <strong>and</strong> sell fewer than 100 tickets daily.
5.3 Additional Oyster-enabled machines (more than 300) will be installed across the LU network which
equates to at least one at every station. LU is also planning comprehensive customer information <strong>and</strong>
education programme at each of the relevant stations to ensure any questions are resolved before any
changes are made. A new marketing campaign around automatic top-up for Oyster was launched in
December.
5.4 These changes do not mean that LU is reducing staV at stations <strong>and</strong> it remains committed to staYng
all of its stations at all times. At some of the busiest stations, such as Victoria <strong>and</strong> King’s Cross, where people
are less likely to have Oyster <strong>and</strong> may be less familiar with the network, LU proposes to increase the number
of ticket oYce staV.
5.5 LU has decided to put back the implementation date for the ticket oYce changes to autumn 2008. It
will review the results of the consultation <strong>and</strong> allow time for the full benefits of new ticket machines <strong>and</strong> the
Ticket Stop network, which is to be exp<strong>and</strong>ed in 2008 to 4,000 outlets, to be realised.
December 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisation –Transport Resource Unit
(GMCVO) (TPT 30)
Background
The voluntary sector 30 has an important role to play in local transport, whether as users of transport,
contributors to policy development, representatives of community groups or in delivering community <strong>and</strong>
public transport schemes. The Transport Resource Unit (TRU) is part of the Greater Manchester Centre
for Voluntary Organisation (GMCVO) with the specific remit of focusing on transport issues as experienced
by the voluntary sector.
The TRU vision is for an integrated transport system for Greater Manchester that is socially inclusive,
sustainable, <strong>and</strong> accessible to all communities
Integration can only work to an optimum level, however, if fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing are simple <strong>and</strong> economical
for the users, with the minimum of complication.
It is from this perspective that that the TRU oVers comments on the questions posed in the
Committee’s Inquiry.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
A ticketing scheme currently exists in Greater Manchester, under the powers of the Greater Manchester
Passenger Transport Authority under Sections 135 to 138 of the Transport Act 2000. The scheme has been
developed in the Local Transport Plan context in which a key objective is to increase public transport’s share
of travel across Greater Manchester.
Under the ticketing scheme, GMPTA has powers to require integrated ticketing but not set ticket prices.
This is due to the deregulated commercial nature of the public transport market. As such, fares diVer across
modes <strong>and</strong> operators, providing a barrier to integration.
The scheme provides for a range of inter-operator <strong>and</strong> inter-modal tickets that are called “System 1”, as
well as a multitude of operator specific tickets. The System 1 integrated tickets are priced at a premium to
one mode or operator specific tickets. In consultation with voluntary sector groups, I obtained evidence that
many people use single routes <strong>and</strong> operators, <strong>and</strong> avoid making trips on other modes or with other
operators, because their ticket relates to a particular operator. The added cost of a trip outside that ticket’s
validity presents a barrier to extending travel horizons.
30 The term “voluntary sector” is used throughout this document. It should be understood to include the whole “third sector”
including voluntary, community <strong>and</strong> faith groups <strong>and</strong> organisations, social enterprise, co-operatives <strong>and</strong> other not-for-profit
organisations with a social purpose.

Ev 164 Transport Committee: Evidence
Overall, the current system is overly complex <strong>and</strong> expensive <strong>and</strong> does not suYciently integrate across bus,
train, <strong>and</strong> tram modes, <strong>and</strong> across county boundaries. This last point is especially relevant to local trains
where there is a big diVerence in ticket prices on travel from Greenfield to Manchester (£3.45 st<strong>and</strong>ard day
single) <strong>and</strong> Marsden to Manchester (£6.50). Marsden is only one station further on from Greenfield but
because it’s outside the GMPTA boundary, the price is much more. This leads to people driving to the closer
station <strong>and</strong> occurs at other GMPTA boundary stations across the conurbation. There is evidence of similar
occurrences in other PTA areas.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
There does not seem to be a strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems at Government
level. It appears that, outside London, PTAs <strong>and</strong> operators are left to develop their own strategies. As
mentioned previously, the commercial nature of public transport means that operators are less inclined to
work towards better integration.
A Government strategy would be extremely useful <strong>and</strong> could perhaps feed into the Road Transport Bill,
where bus regulation is being considered.
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
GMPTA/E have been in process of developing smart card ticketing for some years. It seems that a system,
similar to TFL’s Oystercards, could go some way towards solving the integration issue.
The cost of developing these technologies to the correct ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ards is expected to be met by
authorities <strong>and</strong> operators <strong>and</strong> this is causing delays in the take up.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
From my limited underst<strong>and</strong>ing, the principles of ITSO are to allow for integrated ticketing across modes
with multiple use <strong>and</strong> purpose. In this way, it could cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> providers.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
It is most important to consult with users prior to implementing smartcards. It’s also important to have
a clear legislative <strong>and</strong> policy platform.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors’ function appropriate?
I am not suYciently informed on this topic to comment.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
I am not suYciently informed on this topic to comment.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
I am not suYciently informed on this topic to comment specifically however we believe that the law
supports the common sense position that if you would be forced to go to unreasonable lengths to purchase
a ticket, or are denied an opportunity to purchase a ticket, you should not be fined.
Reasonable steps <strong>and</strong> reasonable opportunity for purchasing tickets need to be included in the relevant
legislation.
Examples of circumstances where we believe it may be reasonable for passengers to travel without a valid
ticket include:
— Where ticket machines are not working at the start of your journey <strong>and</strong> you are denied an
opportunity to purchase a ticket during or after your journey.
— Where ticket machines are in exact fare mode <strong>and</strong> you do not have exact change.
— Where a bus driver does not have the correct ticket available (eg a cover for a mega rider).
— Where a bus driver does not have change available for reasonable denominations presented (eg
weekly ticket is £11.50–£20 is presented <strong>and</strong> the bus driver does not have change).
— Where an inspector approaches you while you are queuing to use a ticket machine.

9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 165
Tram operators employ inspectors to regularly check tickets whilst rail operators have conductors. These
measures appear adequate for protecting fare revenue.
Buses do not appear to have the same consistency of measures. Bus drivers are expected to provide tickets,
inspect tickets, <strong>and</strong> question passengers if they have asked for the incorrect ticket. This puts added
unnecessary pressure on drivers. Employment of more bus inspectors for protecting fare revenue would
assist.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Service users of the local concessionary scheme are very supportive. Bus travel has increased across
Greater Manchester since April 2006. Rail <strong>and</strong> tram services have also been incorporated into the local
scheme by the authority, providing opportunities for greater integration of travel. This has all been
welcomed by the users. The extension of the scheme, expected in April 2008, will provide added benefits of
cross boundary travel, local travel in other areas of Engl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> should increase travel horizons <strong>and</strong> social
inclusion.
Whilst the strategy has been an overwhelming success for users, it has had some negative impacts on Local
Authorities <strong>and</strong> PTAs (<strong>Travel</strong> Concession Authorities or TCAs), other public transport users, commercial
operators <strong>and</strong> community transport operators.
Under the current guidelines <strong>and</strong> operations, funding is not ring fenced, meaning that TCAs need to agree
funding amounts from authorities.
TCAs are obliged to ensure that operators are ‘no better or no worse oV’. This concept has led to appeals
by over 60 operators <strong>and</strong> led to financial risks to TCAs. Under current arrangements operators are
reimbursed for only those journeys that are expected to have been made in the absence of the concessionary
scheme. Operators receive nothing for trips that are deemed to have been generated by the scheme, though
they can make claims for additional costs to be covered as a result of the rise in dem<strong>and</strong>
Community Transport is another area where concessionary fare schemes need to be considered. Given
that community transport services are not commercial <strong>and</strong> frequently already operate at capacity, they are
not in a position to benefit from the rise in passengers generated by free concessionary fare scheme. The
concessions allowed for passengers travelling on community transport should therefore be reimbursed in
full.
The cost of training people to use their concessionary entitlement (such as people with learning
disabilities) should also be covered by the scheme.
The logical way forward would be to simplify schemes so that operators received a reimbursement on the
basis of the agreed average adult fare for every concessionary passenger carried. The reimbursement would
be lower than the average adult fare to prevent operators making super profits <strong>and</strong> to take account of the
economies of scale that operators would receive by carrying more passengers.
The method for managing schemes needs to be considered in the concessionary fares bill for the
national scheme.
Other public transport users, particularly children, are disadvantaged by the current scheme. The
conclusion of the recent appeals by bus operators, led to concessionary fares in Greater Manchester being
raised from 50p to 70p. The impact of this will be felt most by children, the very people that we are trying
to encourage to use public transport <strong>and</strong> become lifetime public transport users.
The Government needs to consider its strategy <strong>and</strong> consider the costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of incorporating
children into the free scheme.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
Greater Manchester has already incorporated rail <strong>and</strong> tram into the local scheme, at a cost to GMPTA.
Not all authorities have incorporated all modes, leading to anomalies <strong>and</strong> lack of an integrated approach.
In order to provide integration across modes, consideration needs to be given to a multimodal national
scheme after April 2008. The issue of diVerent geographical areas should be resolved after April 20008,
however the cost of implementing schemes in popular areas, needs consideration to ensure equity for PTAs
<strong>and</strong> TCAs.
March 2007

Ev 166 Transport Committee: Evidence
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport 2000: Herefordshire <strong>and</strong> Worcestershire local group (TPT 31)
The local group representing the national environmental transport campaign in the two counties
Inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport
1. This short memor<strong>and</strong>um for the above Inquiry is submitted by way of illustration of how the present
systems operate in a smallish (c 95,000 residents) shire district on the edge of one of the conurbations with
a passenger transport authority [PTA] <strong>and</strong> executive [PTE]. The shire district is Bromsgrove, in
Worcestershire, <strong>and</strong> the whole of the boundary between Worcestershire <strong>and</strong> the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s county
(which forms the PTA/PTE area) is also the Bromsgrove/West Midl<strong>and</strong>s boundary.
2. It is not intended to cover all the issues raised in the Press Notice, but to highlight specific problems
in relation to ticketing in a particular area which may be hindrances or deterrents to the use of public
transport, either wholly or within the district.
3. Until deregulation of bus services in 1985 or 1986, almost all the stage carriage bus services in the
district were provided by a single National Bus Company subsidiary, Midl<strong>and</strong> Red West [MR]. A small
number of PTE services crossed the county boundary for a short distance to reach their terminus, but they
remained essentially services within the metropolitan county.
4. MR sold single bus tickets for each journey. If a traveller required to use more than one bus service to
complete their journey, separate tickets had to be bought for each leg of the journey, unless the traveller
bought a “runabout” or “rover” ticket, which allowed the holder to travel on any of MR’s services that day.
The cost was disproportionate for shorter journeys involving two or more legs on MR bus services.
5. MR became part of what is now First Group (as, according to the First website, First Wyvern, though
that name does not appear on the buses as far as I have noted). The “runabout” or “rover” ticket is now
the “First Wyvern” ticket, which is available in day, week, month <strong>and</strong> term versions. The FirstDay Wyvern
ticket in turn is available in adult (£5), child (£3.50) or family (£10) versions. That is relatively good value
for many occasional return journeys longer than 10–15 miles each way (depending on the particular service,
as fares are not calculated on a st<strong>and</strong>ard distance basis). or for shorter trips where a change of service is
required. In addition, a range of local tickets, available on any of the company’s services within a specified
area, is on oVer.
6. The benefits of that approach have however been limited by another eVect of the deregulation.
Whereas in 1986 all the bus services in Bromsgrove town (whether town services or inter-urban) were
provided by MR, that is no longer the case. It appears that nowhere which had a bus service in 1986 has
lost it, <strong>and</strong> indeed there are one or two new services which run as a result of local authority (or in the past
health authority) support. However, several services have been cut back, <strong>and</strong> instead of MR running along
nine radial inter-urban routes from the town, as was the case in 1986, First now runs only on five. In addition,
they have given up operating the town services (serving four local destinations).
7. On both the routes which MR or its successor no longer operates <strong>and</strong> on some of those run now by
First, other operators now provide services, in some cases commercially, but in all but two under contract
to the county council. Currently, six companies (including First) operate on the inter-urban routes, while
four companies provide the town services, two of which are entirely contracted, while there are limited
Sunday tendered services on one route. At one point, along one corridor (Bromsgrove-Redditch), the service
was provided by four diVerent companies, with some interavailability of tickets, since First was the only
commercial operator.
8. The eVect is now that First Wyvern tickets are available only on three of the inter-urban routes
operated by First. The company runs on two other tendered routes which are excluded from its Wyvern
tickets—these include areas where the bus will divert from its route to a pre-arranged pick up or set down.
9. The eVect of all this is that it is no longer possible to make a bus journey requiring the use of a local
service <strong>and</strong> an inter-urban one on one ticket. I live on one of the local routes which was served by First until
six months ago. A return journey by bus from the nearby stop to Birmingham <strong>and</strong> back would then have cost
me £5 (at current fares). It would now cost me £6.40 as a direct result of First’s withdrawing from the route.
10. Though (according to Worcestershire County Council’s Second Local Transport Plan) the use of
Bromsgrove railway station has increased fivefold in the 10 years from 1994–95 to 2004–05, the ticketing
system there also oVers several quirks <strong>and</strong> obstacles to the intending traveller, the eVect of which is to raise
the cost of travelling by train unreasonably. The quirks include regional journeys via Birmingham often
being cheaper if the traveller rebooks there—the combination of day tickets between Bromsgrove <strong>and</strong>
Birmingham, <strong>and</strong> between Birmingham <strong>and</strong> Shrewsbury costs £14.40. The cost of a through day ticket for
the same journey is £19.50. For some journeys where there is a service there is no “any permitted route”
ticket. For journeys to <strong>and</strong> from London, the traveller has to buy a ticket via Birmingham or via Evesham/
Stroud. In some cases, these idiosyncracies appear to arise from the privatisation process: there was were
“any reasonable route” tickets between Bromsgrove <strong>and</strong> London before the 1993 Act.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 167
11. The PlusBus scheme in theory includes Bromsgrove, but there is no co-ordination of services, <strong>and</strong> the
bus <strong>and</strong> railway stations are over a mile from each other, with the railway station perhaps 250m from the
bus stops serving it. Information about the bus services is displayed at the station (which, despite serving
perhaps 60,000 people <strong>and</strong> being on one of the principal cross country routes, is unstaVed), but the bus
services themselves do not operate in the evenings.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Journey Solutions (TPT 33)
The Department for Transport states that “integrated ticketing is a key component of integration between
services <strong>and</strong> between public transport modes”. Changes in statuary provisions over the past decade have
enabled local authorities <strong>and</strong> other transport providers to create integrated ticketing schemes. But is it
working? Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent
geographical areas?
1. Introduction
There is a nation-wide integrated ticketing scheme for train <strong>and</strong> bus travel that’s available to 195 towns
<strong>and</strong> cities across Britain. It has been introduced over the last five years by a non-profit making partnership
established <strong>and</strong> funded by the six main PLC bus <strong>and</strong> train operating Groups in Britain (along with their
respective trade associations). On 16 January this year, Tom Harris MP (Under Secretary of State for
Transport) congratulated Britain’s bus <strong>and</strong> train operators for the Journey Solutions initiative that has
introduced PLUSBUS integrated ticketing across Engl<strong>and</strong>, Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>, without the need for
financial support from central Government.
2. Journey Solutions
Journey Solutions was created in 1999 to enable the public transport industry to deliver on its
commitment of improving transport integration—in particular making combined train <strong>and</strong> bus travel
easier, more convenient <strong>and</strong> better value for customers. All Journey Solutions work aims to support
Government policies on improving <strong>and</strong> integrating public transport in local communities, across regions
<strong>and</strong> throughout the whole of Britain.
3. Journey Solutions is funded entirely by Arriva, Blazefield/Transdev; First; Go-Ahead; National
Express <strong>and</strong> Stagecoach, the Association of Train Operating Companies <strong>and</strong> the Confederation of
Passenger Transport. Essentially Journey Solutions is an operator-led initiative to improve modal
integration.
4. Journey Solutions is managed by Jonathan Radley, the full-time Commercial Director, who is
supported by Giles Fearnley, the Chairman. Both have many years experience of management in both the
bus <strong>and</strong> train operating companies. Each of the supporting organisations has a director or senior
representative who sits on the Journey Solutions Board. It is this Board that decides strategic direction for
the initiative, taking advice, leadership <strong>and</strong> sharing best-practice from each of the supporting organisations.
Journey Solutions uses a number of respected public transport consultancies to deliver its programme.
5. Journey Solutions also has an Advisory Panel, which includes representatives from a wide range of
stakeholders. These include:
Central Government agencies: Department for Transport, Transport Direct, Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong>,
Welsh Assembly Government, Commission for Integrated Transport, <strong>and</strong> the Countryside Agency.
Local Government representatives: Association of Transport Co-ordinating OYcers, Local
Government Association <strong>and</strong> the Passenger Transport Executive Group.
Consumer groups: Association of Community Rail Partnerships, Bus Users UK, London <strong>Travel</strong>watch,
Passenger Focus <strong>and</strong> Transport 2000.
Professional bodies: County Surveyors’ Society <strong>and</strong> the Institute of Logistics <strong>and</strong> Transport.
It is important to Journey Solutions that these organisations are able to contribute to our agenda <strong>and</strong> the
feedback received is most welcome.
6. Journey Solutions looks at improving the customers’ whole journey experience, including:
— travel information before the integrated journey begins <strong>and</strong> during the journey;
— integrated ticketing for the whole journey; <strong>and</strong>
— easy interchange between diVerent methods of public transport during the journey.
7. Journey Solutions has two guiding principles underlying its work. These are to:
— create an environment which makes it easier for travellers to use public transport for their entire
journey; <strong>and</strong>

Ev 168 Transport Committee: Evidence
— develop integrated products that encourage people to use public transport.
8. Specifically Journey Solutions has:
— managed the successful development <strong>and</strong> implementation of a st<strong>and</strong>ard template for nation-wide
integrated train <strong>and</strong> bus ticketing schemes;
— worked with public transport operators <strong>and</strong> their trade bodies to identify opportunities for better
integration;
— encouraged <strong>and</strong> supported operators in sharing integration “best practice” <strong>and</strong> introducing new
integration initiatives; <strong>and</strong>
— promoted the integration of bus <strong>and</strong> train services, including with other modes (eg metro/light rail
<strong>and</strong> tram networks).
9. Journey Solutions believes that maximising the use of public transport will help to reduce road
congestion <strong>and</strong> contribute to better air quality in our towns <strong>and</strong> cities. Encouraging more public transport
use can also play its part in reducing the damaging eVects of global warming.
10. PLUSBUS
PLUSBUS is the br<strong>and</strong> name of a nationally available train ticket add-on for bus travel. It is available
to 195 towns <strong>and</strong> cities across Britain. A further 21 new destinations will be available with PLUSBUS from
20 May 2007. It has always been the aspiration of Journey Solutions that every rail-served town <strong>and</strong> city
with a population over 80,000 together with other strategic centres, would have PLUSBUS available. We
are now very close to meeting that target.
11. PLUSBUS is a bus ticket that the customer buys at the same time as their train ticket. PLUSBUS
oVers train travellers unlimited bus travel around the urban area of a town or city, at the start, the finish,
or both ends of the train journey. With a valid PLUSBUS ticket the customer can make as many bus
journeys as they like on all participating bus operators services, at any time of day within one easily defined
zone, covering the whole urban area of the town or city.
12. The minimum st<strong>and</strong>ard is that the zone covers what the public would reasonably expect to be the
urban area of the named town or city. In many cases this zone is actually larger <strong>and</strong> covers nearby
settlements, villages, or small towns. In most PTE areas, the zone encompasses the whole region. Zone maps
for all PLUSBUS served towns <strong>and</strong> cities are available on the website: www.plusbus.info.
13. Journey Solutions encourages all local bus service operators in each town to participate in the
PLUSBUS scheme <strong>and</strong> accept the ticket for travel (bus operators remain free to choose to participate). A
number of light rail/tram/metro schemes also accept PLUSBUS tickets (eg Midl<strong>and</strong> Metro <strong>and</strong> SheYeld
Supertram). PLUSBUS has been established in line with the Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong> Block Exemption Orders
(2001 <strong>and</strong> 2005). Schemes function as both a Multi-Operator <strong>Travel</strong>card (MTC) <strong>and</strong> a Through-Journey
ticket scheme.
14. PLUSBUS can be added to most types of train ticket:
— single journey tickets;
— day return tickets; <strong>and</strong>
— period return tickets.
The customer specifies the date of their return journey in order to have PLUSBUS. Typically a
customer would buy two PLUSBUS tickets, one for your outward journey <strong>and</strong> a second for the
return journey.
— season tickets.
These are currently available to 103 towns <strong>and</strong> cities across Britain, for specific periods, to match
the most popular train season tickets: 7-consecutive days, 1-calendar month, 3-months <strong>and</strong> a year.
Ten more towns will have PLUSBUS season tickets available from 20 May 2007.
15. How does PLUSBUS Work?
Customers ask for PLUSBUS when buying their train ticket <strong>and</strong> are then issued with one or more ticket(s)
for both their train <strong>and</strong> bus travel in one convenient transaction. The whole transaction can be paid for using
cash, credit or debit card. A PLUSBUS valid rail ticket has either the origin or destination of the ticket
marked with “!BUS”.
16. For customers PLUSBUS is easy to use <strong>and</strong> easy to explain, as it is based on existing ticket types that
customers are familiar with. From an industry point of view, the advantage of PLUSBUS, is that it makes
best use of existing rail ticketing technology <strong>and</strong> revenue apportionment systems (particularly the Rail

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 169
Settlement Plan managed by ATOC). Therefore, it’s development <strong>and</strong> expansion has not involved
considerable capital investment, or protracted development lead times which using new ticketing technology
would have inevitably required.
17. Now that PLUSBUS is embedded into the National Rail fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing system, conversion of
the ticket aspect of the product to any future Smartcard application should be possible.
18. What Does PLUSBUS Cost?
PLUSBUS tickets are designed to be great value <strong>and</strong> can save customers money (compared with the cost
of buying multiple separate tickets for several journeys). A PLUSBUS ticket costs a specific headline price
for each complete day’s unlimited bus travel, in addition to the cost of the train fare. At present, 70% of
PLUSBUS day tickets cost £2, or less. In virtually all cases the PLUSBUS fare is less than the equivalent
cost of buying a similar unlimited bus travel day or season ticket from the bus operator(s) themselves. This
added discount is considered an important customer benefit of PLUSBUS, in order to entice rail users to
try the product (<strong>and</strong> hopefully switch from using another less sustainable mode of transport to/from the
train station).
19. Prices start from as little as £1 day. Below is a list of destinations currently available with PLUSBUS
for just £1 a day: Aberystwyth, Bangor, Bletchley, Bury St Edmunds, Colwyn Bay, Dovercourt, Exeter,
Flint, Great Yarmouth, Harwich, Ipswich, Kings Lynn, Ll<strong>and</strong>udno, Lowestoft, Milton Keynes, Norwich,
Prestatyn, Rhyl, Ruabon, Stanford-le-Hope, Witham, Wivenhoe, Wolverton, <strong>and</strong> Wrexham.
20. PLUSBUS is currently available to over 50 towns <strong>and</strong> cities across Britain, for less than £2 a day,
including, for example: Birmingham £1.50, Bishops Stortford £1.60, Blackburn & Darwen £1.50, Burnley
£1.50, Chester £1.50, Coventry £1.50, Durham £1.50, Elstree & Borehamwood £1.60, Harpenden £1.60,
Luton £1.80, Manchester £1.70, Potters Bar £1.60, Rochdale £1.70, Sunderl<strong>and</strong> £1.90, Wolverhampton
£1.50.
21. The following towns oVer PLUSBUS for just £2 a day: Aberdeen, Basingstoke, Blackpool, Bracknell,
Brighton & Hove, Carlisle, Chesterfield, Chorley, Colchester, Darlington, Derby, Droitwich Spa,
Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Harrogate, Hereford, Inverness, Kidderminster, Lancaster, Leicester,
Lincoln, Maidenhead, Newport, Newton Abbott, Northampton, Oxford, Paignton, Penzance, Preston,
Reading, Southampton, Southend, Stirling, Swindon, Telford, Torquay, Truro, Weymouth, Windsor.
22. A small number of PLUSBUS tickets cost between £2.10 <strong>and</strong> £3.50 a day, for example: Bristol £3.00,
Leeds £2.50, Watford £2.50. The highest ticket price is £5.50 which oVers unlimited bus travel on
participating operators around the whole of Pembrokeshire (a higher cost reflecting the extensive area of
validity).
23. Railcard Savings
PLUSBUS is the only nation-wide integrated ticketing product for train <strong>and</strong> bus travel that oVers all
Railcard holders (Disabled Persons, Family, Network Card, Senior, Young Persons) st<strong>and</strong>ard rail discounts
on their bus travel. Railcard holders save one-third oV the price of a day, or period return PLUSBUS ticket.
Children (aged 5 to 15 years) pay half-fare for a PLUSBUS day or period return ticket <strong>and</strong> in some cases
can also obtain half-fare on PLUSBUS season ticket prices.
24. Where to Buy
PLUSBUS can be bought at:
— all staVed train station ticket oYces in Britain;
— by telephone through selected train company telesales teams (Arriva Trains Wales, First Great
Western, First ScotRail, GNER <strong>and</strong> ONE Railway);
— appointed travel agents of National Rail; <strong>and</strong>
— self-service ticket machines (at selected stations only).
A new generation of self-service ticket machine is gradually being installed across the rail network,
which are able to be programmed to sell PLUSBUS tickets.
For bus travel at the start of the journey, customers are advised to buy their PLUSBUS ticket in advance
from either a station, or by telephone (through the TOC Telesales units).
25. We are also working with National Rail <strong>and</strong> the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC)
to oVer online sales of PLUSBUS during the later part of 2007.

Ev 170 Transport Committee: Evidence
26. Journey Information
Pre-journey information is important, it reassures the passenger that they can make their entire journey
by train <strong>and</strong> bus with confidence. In order to help travellers underst<strong>and</strong> the PLUSBUS product <strong>and</strong> become
familiar with where the ticket can be used <strong>and</strong> on what bus operators services tickets are valid, the
PLUSBUS website (www.plusbus.info) provides all this information, as well as all ticket prices, in an easy
to view format. Detailed colour zone maps for all 195 PLUSBUS served towns <strong>and</strong> cities are available on
our website as downloadable PDF’s. These show the boundary of each zone, list all the main places/suburbs
within each town served by participating bus services <strong>and</strong> also show locations of Hospitals, University/
college campuses <strong>and</strong> main leisure/tourist attractions.
In order to assist customers arriving at an unfamiliar station, we produce detailed “Continuing your
journey around town with PLUSBUS” information posters (specific to each town) for display on the
concourse of 60 main stations across Britain. These posters show customers the zone map within which their
PLUSBUS ticket is valid, provide a journey gazetteer of bus routes <strong>and</strong> places served. The poster also lists
all bus companies that accept PLUSBUS in that town <strong>and</strong> give “traveline” details (telephone 0871 200 22 33
or www.traveline.info), should customers want to check bus times. (In several PTE areas eg West Midl<strong>and</strong>s,
Greater Manchester, the relevant authority produces similar onward travel posters).
27. Achievement
PLUSBUS is the first major product developed <strong>and</strong> introduced by the Journey Solutions partnership.
PLUSBUS is a nationally available integrated train <strong>and</strong> bus travel ticket on sale across the whole of Britain.
Journey Solutions has established customer focused minimum st<strong>and</strong>ards, which can be exceeded by a
scheme. In eVect PLUSBUS provides a national template, which can be tailored to accommodate some
local/regional variation to make the product relevant to local market conditions.
28. Before PLUSBUS there existed a myriad of individual agreements between train operators <strong>and</strong> local
bus companies, which oVered the traveller a wide <strong>and</strong> confusing range of through-journey tickets. Each of
these was a diVerent oVer to the passenger. Through partnership <strong>and</strong> negotiation, Journey Solutions <strong>and</strong>
the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has introduced a set of national st<strong>and</strong>ards for
PLUSBUS ticketing that oVers the customer a consistent <strong>and</strong> reliable product they can trust. This has made
it much easier for retail staV at stations to sell integrated ticketing. For operators it has also brought about
the simplification of integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> a significant reduction in the amount of administration <strong>and</strong>
the cost of establishing <strong>and</strong> maintaining such products. By providing a national template for integrated
ticketing, it is also possible to have a nation-wide marketing campaign for integrated ticketing.
29. In January this year, the first-ever national marketing campaign for PLUSBUS was launched.
750,000 promotional leaflets have been printed <strong>and</strong> are racked at nearly 1,000 train stations across Britain.
Over 500 promotional posters have been put on display at train stations <strong>and</strong> the website (www.plusbus.info)
has been re-designed. Train Operators are encouraged to have more information about the product included
in their own publicity literature (such as timetables <strong>and</strong> customer service guides) <strong>and</strong> also on their websites.
In partnership with Train Operators we are also working to raise the PR profile of the product, by arranging
regional events <strong>and</strong> launches. (Printed colour samples of literature referred to in this paragraph have been
provided separately to the Committee as evidence).
30. Journey Solutions would like to thank the Association of Train Operating Companies for their
significant ongoing contribution to the management <strong>and</strong> development of PLUSBUS ticketing. As well as
oVering use of their Rail Settlement Plan (revenue allocation system) ATOC also oVers a forum, the
Integrated Transport Working Group, where all TOC’s are able to share best-practice in the field of modal
integration <strong>and</strong> integrated ticketing, which has proven very valuable to Journey Solutions in the on-going
development of PLUSBUS. The fact that several more recently awarded TOC’s now have Integration
Managers focusing on improving modal integration has been extremely helpful in achieving results.
31. Last Summer we celebrated our 100,000th PLUSBUS ticket issued. A total of 68,300 PLUSBUS
tickets have been sold during the last 12 months (year to January 2007). At present sales of PLUSBUS
tickets are 45% higher than for the same period last year.
32. Development Objectives
By the end of 2007, PLUSBUS should be available to over 230 rail-served towns <strong>and</strong> cities across Britain,
including all those with a population of 80,000 <strong>and</strong> over (as well as many with smaller populations). The
next logical step for the development of the initiative is to develop a nation-wide product that covers
through-ticketing between the National Rail network <strong>and</strong> non-rail served towns, where a bus/coach service
completes the link between interchange rail station <strong>and</strong> the non-rail served town. The key to success with
this product very much mirrors what has been achieved with PLUSBUS, ie to work in partnership with
TOC’s, bus operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities/PTE’s on the development of a set of minimum national
st<strong>and</strong>ards for such a product, which can then rolled-out across the country as part of a coordinated
campaign.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 171
The list (below) gives an indication of the current development objectives for integrated ticketing that
Journey Solutions has:
— Complete national coverage of PLUSBUS (ie all rail-served towns with a population of 80,000 or
more), by introducing schemes in the following towns: Bedford, Eastbourne, Gravesend,
Hartlepool, Medway Towns (Chatham, Gillingham & Rochester), Maidstone, Middlesbrough,
Peterborough, Stockton.
— Introduce season tickets for many more destinations across Britain.
— Undertake a series of TOC-based regional media events to launch further new schemes <strong>and</strong> the
introduction of season tickets for existing towns.
— Run an on-going national marketing campaign to raise awareness of PLUSBUS amongst:
— train company retail amd marketing teams (regular newsletters, retail training tools <strong>and</strong>
marketing template material);
— bus company driver <strong>and</strong> supervisory teams (bus driver notices <strong>and</strong> briefings);
— rail users (using a variety of commuter communications channels); <strong>and</strong>
— politicians & other important stakeholders (through regular meetings <strong>and</strong> newsletters).
— Continue to improve the PLUSBUS website.
— Update <strong>and</strong> re-issue (at least once a year) bus information posters for 60 main stations.
— Introduce online sale of PLUSBUS tickets <strong>and</strong> work with TOC’s to programme self-service
machines to sell PLUSBUS.
— Imbed greater commercial focus/sales targets in all areas of activity.
— Work with ATOC, train operators <strong>and</strong> bus operators to introduce a nation-wide set of st<strong>and</strong>ards
<strong>and</strong> public br<strong>and</strong> for “RailLink” through-journey/line-of-route tickets between local rail stations
<strong>and</strong> non-rail served towns/villages (eg Minehead).
— Continue to demonstrate that privatised bus <strong>and</strong> rail Groups are successfully working in
partnership (along with Local Authorities/PTE’s) to improve modal integration <strong>and</strong> deliver a key
Government transport objective.
March 2007
Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Department for Transport (TPT 34)
1. The Government recognises the crucial role an integrated public transport service plays. In the 2004
White Paper, The Future of Transport, the Department for Transport underlined the importance of
“seamless” public transport networks, with buses <strong>and</strong> other services being well integrated. Developing an
integrated transport information booking <strong>and</strong> ticketing system has been seen as a priority for smoother
journeys, especially when moving from one type of transport to another.
2. In the context of integrated transport information, we want to see travellers given a comprehensive
<strong>and</strong> impartial choice of transport modes to enable them to make better transport decisions. Transport Direct
was developed to cover a gap in the market for national, integrated, multi-modal transport information.
Since its launch it has provided 12 million user sessions <strong>and</strong> currently gets over 175,000 users a week.
3. Our vision for ticketing has been clear. Working closely with Passenger Transport Executives <strong>and</strong>
Local Authorities, bus <strong>and</strong> train operators <strong>and</strong> the wider industry we have embraced new <strong>and</strong> emerging
technologies to enable convenient <strong>and</strong> versatile ticketing systems to be delivered.
4. To help achieve this, the Department for Transport has supported the development of national
st<strong>and</strong>ards for smartcards which can simplify ticketing, allowing passengers to use one smartcard on diVerent
buses, trams <strong>and</strong> trains. Passengers will be able to use the same smart card to store tickets for travel on any
mode <strong>and</strong> in any area. The st<strong>and</strong>ards open the way for national stored value style <strong>and</strong> account based tickets
<strong>and</strong> ease the way for greater flexibility of season tickets, for example a ticket used any three days in seven.
These st<strong>and</strong>ards are now a reality. We are now:
— introducing smartcards which meet the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard into all new rail franchises;
— working with Transport for London (TfL) to make the Oyster estate interoperable with ITSO into
London while, at the same time, supporting TfL in rolling out Oyster pay-as-you-go across the
London rail network;
— supporting the migration <strong>and</strong> development of smartcard schemes operating in a number of Local
Authority areas; <strong>and</strong>

Ev 172 Transport Committee: Evidence
— considering ITSO smartcards as part of the introduction of the national bus travel concession in
Engl<strong>and</strong> in April 2008. The national concession is provided for in the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong>
Bill currently going through Parliament.
5. In the context of bus services the Government published “Putting Passengers First” in December 2006
which introduces proposals to transform the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> ensure that bus services are better designed
around the needs <strong>and</strong> requirements of the public. This should provide the opportunity to embrace the
developments in ticketing st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> information services ensuring bus services form part of a better
integrated transport provision.
6. Looking to the future, our research programme is investigating related technologies <strong>and</strong> the use of
innovative ticketing products, <strong>and</strong> is exploring the ability to interface with mobile operators <strong>and</strong> the banks
by sharing the infrastructure <strong>and</strong> card space.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas?
7. The Government supports a range of measures which ensures integrated ticketing between operators
<strong>and</strong> modes across geographical areas. These measures include a Block Exemption Order, powers in the
Transport Act 2000 <strong>and</strong> specific rail obligations on franchise holders to ensure the ongoing delivery of an
integrated rail network.
8. The bus industry outside London is deregulated, <strong>and</strong> the majority of bus services are provided on a
commercial basis. Bus companies are subject to general competition law but the Block Exemption Order 31
referred to in the Committee’s Press Notice forms an important exception to the general rule that
undertakings may not form collective agreements to set a price for a product. The eVect of the block
exemption is that transport operators can market various forms of ticket or travelcard which are valid on
the services of more than one operator, provided certain conditions (specified in the Order) are observed.
9. The Order relates to public transport generally (including rail <strong>and</strong> ferries) but is particularly relevant
for deregulated bus <strong>and</strong> coach services. An example is the Solent <strong>Travel</strong>card scheme, launched in March
2004. <strong>Travel</strong>cards are valid on all bus services over a wide area around the Solent <strong>and</strong> Hampshire as far
north as Winchester, with participating operators including subsidiaries of First, Stagecoach <strong>and</strong> Go-Ahead
as well as small local firms.
10. The Transport Act 2000 also makes provisions for local authorities to improve local transport
services, primarily buses, by making ticketing schemes. They have not, to date, been widely used.
11. The Government maintains integrated ticketing across the rail network by requiring train operators
through their passenger licence <strong>and</strong> franchise agreement to participate in, <strong>and</strong> comply with, throughticketing
arrangements between operators. Any changes to these arrangements have to be approved by the
Secretary of State. The <strong>Ticketing</strong> & Settlement Agreement (TSA) delivers through ticketing <strong>and</strong> ticket interavailability
throughout the UK rail network. It also ensures that tickets for any operator for a whole range
of journeys can be bought at any ticket oYce.
12. In addition the Government requires the train operators, through the franchise agreements, to
participate in the three London ticketing agreements: the LRT Agreement, the <strong>Travel</strong>card Agreement <strong>and</strong>
the Through <strong>Ticketing</strong> Non-<strong>Travel</strong>card Agreement. These deliver through ticketing between rail <strong>and</strong>
London buses, Underground, Dockl<strong>and</strong>s Light Railway <strong>and</strong> Croydon Tramlink, including multi-modal
<strong>Travel</strong>card fares. Individual franchise agreements include references to any local ticketing agreements which
relevant Passenger Transport Executive’s or Local Authorities have introduced which have a bearing on the
rail services in their area.
13. We have actively encouraged further integration by the private sector, the “PlusBus” initiative allows
rail tickets to be issued with a bus add-on at one or both ends of the journey in almost 200 UK towns <strong>and</strong>
cities. PlusBus has been developed by Journey Solutions, an independent company funded by train <strong>and</strong> bus
operators. PlusBus terms <strong>and</strong> conditions are st<strong>and</strong>ard across the country, <strong>and</strong> information has been wellpublicised
to ticket oYce staV.
14. Government also supports the train operators’ eVorts to integrate other services with many bus <strong>and</strong>
ferry operators around the country, <strong>and</strong> with attractions such as Leeds Castle or Alton Towers. Through
tickets can be issued from any British station to the Isle of Wight, the Channel Isl<strong>and</strong>s, any station in the
Republic of Irel<strong>and</strong>, any station in Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> (via Harwich-Hoek van Holl<strong>and</strong>) any Dutch
station.
15. For passengers making international journeys by Eurostar which start in the UK, Saver fares are
available from almost any British station to a destination called “London International CIV”, intended for
use in conjunction with Eurostar tickets to the continent. Tickets to London International CIV include the
Underground across London to Waterloo, unlike conventional Saver fares they have few or no time
31 The Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong> Schemes Block Exemption) Order 2001 (SI 2001/319), amended by
The Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong> Schemes Block Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3347).

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 173
restrictions, <strong>and</strong> passengers are covered by the international conditions of carriage (Convention
Internationale pour le transport des Voyageurs or CIV) throughout their journey, providing protection in the
event of any delay or missed connection.
Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
16. The Government has an active policy supporting the development of integrated ticketing systems
which embrace new opportunities for innovative ticketing. Close partnership with the private sector, local
authorities, transport operators <strong>and</strong> others has been seen as key to bringing this about. This work builds on
the range of measures described in the previous answer.
17. In December 2006, the Department of Transport published a policy document, “Putting Passengers
First”, setting out proposals for a modernised national framework for bus services. The Government intends
to publish a draft Road Transport Bill during the Spring, which would include legislative provisions needed
to implement these proposals. The draft Bill would also facilitate reform of local transport governance
arrangements in the major cities outside London, to enable a more coherent, coordinated approach to local
transport. It is hoped that the new framework would encourage all local transport authorities to promote
inter-operability of tickets <strong>and</strong> travelcards, in conjunction with other measures to improve bus services.
18. Over the past 10 years there has been a significant shift towards an integrated approach to
technological development; two outputs being Transport Direct <strong>and</strong> the ITSO specifications.
19. Users of Transport Direct, having requested <strong>and</strong> received a suitable journey plan <strong>and</strong> ticket
information can then seamlessly access a range of rail <strong>and</strong> coach retailers, with their desired itinerary being
transferred with them. This interface is a st<strong>and</strong>ard, published interface <strong>and</strong> could support a wide variety of
retailers <strong>and</strong> modes of transport.
20. Transport Direct also has a search capability that enables users to first select a ticket price <strong>and</strong> type
<strong>and</strong> then to access information regarding the services on which this is valid <strong>and</strong> currently available.
Currently this functionality is only supported by the rail industry but is mode neutral <strong>and</strong> could be used for
other modes where the retail <strong>and</strong> reservation system is capable of interfacing with Transport Direct.
21. The publication of the Integrated Transport White Paper in 1998 led to the Passenger Transport
Executives, with support from London Underground, other authorities <strong>and</strong> transport operators to form the
Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO). To ensure the emergence of local bespoke smartcard
schemes did not result in the loss of existing integrated ticketing solutions, the Department for Transport
sponsored a research programme, through ITSO, to deliver interoperable ticketing specifications across all
modes of transport. In March 2004 the specifications <strong>and</strong> licence agreements, known collectively as the
ITSO Specifications were published. These are Crown Copyright <strong>and</strong> available free of charge, ensuring the
freedom of the supply industry to compete against one common framework in the delivery of ticketing
systems.
22. The Department for Transport <strong>and</strong> ITSO have jointly supported the emergence of European <strong>and</strong>
International st<strong>and</strong>ards in this area. The framework st<strong>and</strong>ard, which describes all the actors involved in
providing a smartcard ticketing scheme became an International St<strong>and</strong>ard in February 2007. This work has
been fundamental to future proofing UK technological development with other developments across
Europe <strong>and</strong> beyond.
23. The Department for Transport has followed an active policy supporting smartcard implementations.
We have encouraged the convergence to the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard through a series of migration projects in
London, Cheshire, Nottinghamshire <strong>and</strong> Southampton; the introduction of ITSO on national rail through
the new franchise negotiations; <strong>and</strong> support for the introduction of smartcard ticketing in Yorkshire,
Cumbria <strong>and</strong> Lancashire. This will enable passengers to use the same smartcard for tickets in any of these,
or any other areas with ITSO schemes. Research conducted using Oyster cards demonstrated the technical
ability to place a limited use 32 ITSO ticket on an existing Oyster card.
24. In May 2006 the Secretary of State for Transport <strong>and</strong> the Mayor of London agreed that TfL would
roll out Oyster Pay as you go to mainline rail in London <strong>and</strong> would also make the existing Oyster estate
compliant with basic ITSO smartcard products. On 31 January all London Train Operating Companies
(TOCs) agreed to continue to work with TfL towards achieving Pay as you go, although some remained
concerned about the cost of Oyster. This extension of Pay as you go will benefit passengers within London.
The introduction of ITSO interoperability into London ensures smartcards from anywhere in the country
will work in London, which is particularly important for rail travel where journeys begin or end outside
London. ITSO interoperability <strong>and</strong> Pay as you go is expected to be in place by 2009.
25. The Government is considering using smartcards for the English national bus travel concession being
introduced in April 2008. A national identifier will be needed so that concessionary passes issued by any
local authority can be recognised across Engl<strong>and</strong>. Under such an arrangement local authorities could be
required to issue concessionary permits in the form of smartcards, compatible with the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard.
32 The space on existing Oyster cards limits the ability to store additional complex tickets on the same card. The ITSO
specifications provide a range of ticketing products which could be stored in the space. Examples of the sort of ticket which
could use this space include singles, returns <strong>and</strong> carnet. It may also be possible to extend the ticket range to include concessions.

Ev 174 Transport Committee: Evidence
Where bus-based readers have not been installed smartcards could simply be shown to the driver like
ordinary “flash-passes”. But as full smart ticketing is rolled out it would provide much more detailed
information about concessionary travel. This would also help in the on-going reform of the existing system
to address, for example, disagreements over reimbursement.
The Use of Smart Card Technologies
Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
26. Early smartcard implementations were bespoke systems, the largest of which was London’s
Oystercard. Others include Local Authority concessionary schemes, Nottinghamshire, Hertfordshire <strong>and</strong> a
few commercial operations <strong>and</strong> trials, for example First Bradford <strong>and</strong> the Cheshire County Council stored
value scheme. These developments raised the awareness of the potential that smartcard based technologies
could oVer public transport ticketing but highlighted the need to work together to deliver an integrated
ticketing system.
27. The development of the harmonised ITSO smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard enables the potential for a wider
deployment of the technology with greater competition of supply <strong>and</strong> interoperability of equipment,
smartcards <strong>and</strong> services to passengers. However, in the short term, the process may have delayed potential
scheme promoters who wished to avoid bespoke solutions.
28. The first implementations of ITSO have been by local authorities, with support from the Department
for Transport. The NoWcard scheme in Cumbria <strong>and</strong> Lancashire began live ITSO roll-out in September
last year. Cheshire, the first of the three “legacy” schemes migrating to ITSO began incremental live ITSO
rollout last November. Nottinghamshire <strong>and</strong> Southampton will follow. The Yorcard pilot in South
Yorkshire, which is expected to start by the end of the year, will include the main bus operators in the area
along with train services between Doncaster <strong>and</strong> SheYeld. The project will also investigate the issues
surrounding new innovative ticketing products <strong>and</strong> citizens’ cards.
29. All new rail franchises include a requirement to introduce ITSO smartcard technologies <strong>and</strong> the
Department for Transport is discussing with the rail industry through ATOC <strong>and</strong> RSP the optimal approach
to achieving smart card ticketing across the entire rail network.
30. Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> are both developing national ITSO schemes, initially for concessionary travel.
In Scotl<strong>and</strong>, 1.4 million cards have been issued <strong>and</strong> a network of 7,000 buses <strong>and</strong> 50 ferries will be equipped
within the coming months. The first part of the full scheme went live in Shetl<strong>and</strong> in November 2006. In Wales
the four Welsh Transport Consortia are at varying stages of development. Procurement for a Welsh back
oYce is currently underway with implementation <strong>and</strong> testing expected during 2007.
31. In contrast to the situation a few years ago, the development of open st<strong>and</strong>ards has opened the market
to greater competition. New bus ticketing equipment suppliers are entering the UK market, reinvigorating
the competition for bus equipment. In the smartcard back oYce <strong>and</strong> retail services sector, new players are
bidding for a share of the new smartcard schemes.
Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
32. The ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard opens the way to simple through ticketing <strong>and</strong> seamless travel for the individual
<strong>and</strong> far more flexible <strong>and</strong> wide-ranging products for suppliers. The st<strong>and</strong>ard covers cards, back oYce
communications <strong>and</strong> a framework licence between operators to ensure that passengers can travel seamlessly
between neighbouring schemes <strong>and</strong> competing operators.
33. ITSO worked with the transport industry to underst<strong>and</strong> the existing <strong>and</strong> likely future needs for
ticketing in public transport <strong>and</strong> beyond. This formed the first phase of the ITSO development to gather
objective data on the functional <strong>and</strong> business requirements of the industry. The resultant ITSO
specifications include details of products ranging from simple single or return tickets, concessionary
products, complex flexible season tickets <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> management products. These sophisticated ticketing
products oVer the opportunity to introduce pay-as-you-go style tickets with daily, weekly or longer capping,
account based products akin to mobile phone contract services, loyalty schemes <strong>and</strong> links to parking or road
pricing. The ITSO system also encourages the introduction of new retailing portals of tickets, enabling
greater use of web <strong>and</strong> potentially phone based sales.
34. Today the ITSO organisation supports live operational ticketing schemes by maintaining the
specifications; managing the registration of schemes <strong>and</strong> ticketing products to ensure consistency across the
country; managing a comprehensive security management service delivering a trusted system to the
operators <strong>and</strong> authorities; <strong>and</strong> providing a certification service ensuring the competitive supply of
smartcards, card readers <strong>and</strong> back oYce services.
35. The ITSO Specifications also cater for European st<strong>and</strong>ards which specify user requirements.
Examples here include enabling gate lines to remain open for longer if a passenger requires more time to pass
through; changing the language, font or background colour on electronic ticket machines to suit personal
requirements or special needs; <strong>and</strong> encouraging consistency of the passenger experience when confronted
by the smartcard reader.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 175
What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
36. Experience from existing smartcard schemes has shown that smartcards can be both popular with
the travelling public <strong>and</strong> eYcient in transport terms. The Department for Transport is currently conducting
research reviewing existing schemes to underst<strong>and</strong> what has been achieved, <strong>and</strong> to provide advice for future
implementations.
37. London’s Oystercard, which predates ITSO, is the largest smartcard system in the UK which now
has 10 million cards. TfL’s strategy in winning public acceptance for Oyster has been to link its convenience
as a product with diVerential fares between paper <strong>and</strong> smart tickets. It is also widely available from both
transport <strong>and</strong> non transport outlets. TfL have exploited many eYciencies of the technology, reducing
dem<strong>and</strong> on ticket oYce staV <strong>and</strong> crowding pressure in ticket halls, freeing up ticketing staV to help
passengers out in the station.
38. One of the reasons for Oyster’s rapid success is that it was developed for a limited geographical area
under the control of a single Authority. It was developed for the Underground but now covers the TfL
network. Experience has shown how important it is to interoperate with mainline rail ticketing. London is
central to the transport network, so any integrated ticketing solution should continue to embrace rail
because of the high proportion of journeys which begin, end or pass through London.
39. Scotl<strong>and</strong> has opted for ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard technology, preferring an open system (where there is a choice
of suppliers) to bespoke systems. Choices <strong>and</strong> interoperability are seen as very important issues moving
forward. The implementation is being done entirely at the Scottish Executive’s expense. The Scottish free
concession scheme generates about 160 million journeys per annum, with a budget for 2006–07 of £159
million, <strong>and</strong> smartcards are seen as a key tool in helping to prevent fraud.
40. The Department for Transport has worked closely with scheme promoters to learn best practise for
smartcard deployment. The NoWcard scheme has been very successful in developing a partnership between
a series of District Councils <strong>and</strong> Local Authorities which benefit from economies of scale <strong>and</strong> agreed phasing
of rollout across the bus fleet. Experience in Scotl<strong>and</strong> also showed we must plan a phased rollout of
equipment on the bus fleet, allow time to iron out bugs <strong>and</strong> gain support from bus operators. We supported
academic research through the University of Newcastle <strong>and</strong> the University of Westminster which separately
considered the use of smartcard data to assess travel behaviour <strong>and</strong> the implications for transport planning.
A separate study, carried out by Newcastle University for DfT, produced a good practice guide for dem<strong>and</strong>
responsive transport services using telematics which considered the potential to link smartcard technologies
with dem<strong>and</strong> responsive transport services, helping to integrate them into the wider transport provision.
41. We need to be careful to learn from existing schemes but not to fall into the trap of assuming what
works in one situation will work else where. Early schemes were designed to be fit for purpose for the job
in h<strong>and</strong> but may not be scaleable.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
42. We are not aware of any serious limitations in the powers within which ticket inspectors function.
The Railway Byelaws (which came into operation on 7 July 2005) have existed in a broadly similar form for
many years, <strong>and</strong> the Government believes that these byelaws are both reasonable <strong>and</strong> fit for purpose. The
byelaws include amongst other things a requirement for passengers to buy a ticket before they travel
wherever ticket facilities exist, <strong>and</strong> to give their name <strong>and</strong> address if asked by an authorised person (which
might include a ticket inspector), if reasonably suspected of breaching any of the byelaws. The byelaws
require a person reasonably believed to be in breach of any byelaw to leave railway premises if asked by an
authorised person. If the person fails to desist or leave the premises, they may be removed using reasonable
force. Many inspectors have been trained on the Police <strong>and</strong> Criminal Evidence Act, <strong>and</strong> where intent to
avoid payment of their fare can be proven, passengers can be prosecuted under the bylaws or under section
5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage forms the basis of the
contract between a passenger <strong>and</strong> the train operators, <strong>and</strong> these have been approved by the Secretary of
State.
43. Section 130 of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations
regarding the charging of financial penalties (“Penalty Fares”) to passengers unable to show a valid ticket
when asked. The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/576, as amended), made under the
Act, in turn allowed the Rail Regulator to make Penalty Fares Rules. The function of making Rules was
transferred first to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) by the Transport Act 2000 <strong>and</strong> then back to the
Secretary of State by the Railways Act 2005. The Secretary of State has inherited the SRA’s Penalty Fares
Rules 2002 <strong>and</strong> Penalty Fares Policy document.
44. All train operators wishing to charge penalty fares must submit a penalty fares scheme to the
Secretary of State for approval. Approval will be given if the scheme meets the st<strong>and</strong>ards set out in the policy
document.

Ev 176 Transport Committee: Evidence
45. The legal framework within which bus ticket inspectors function is sections 24 <strong>and</strong> 25 of the Public
Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 <strong>and</strong> the regulations made under those sections which include the Public Service
Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors <strong>and</strong> Passengers) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1020).
The Regulations contain provisions requiring passengers to have valid tickets (prepaid, paid on entering the
vehicle, or paid on dem<strong>and</strong> by a conductor or inspector) <strong>and</strong> a power for the driver, conductor or inspector
to charge them an additional fare if they stay on the bus beyond the validity of their original ticket, or if
they do not have a ticket. Passengers who contravene the regulations can be removed from the vehicle (by
a crew member or, if necessary, the police), <strong>and</strong>/or prosecuted for an oVence under section 25 of the 1981
Act, with a maximum fine at level 3 on the st<strong>and</strong>ard scale (currently £1,000).
46. For buses outside London, the question of how many inspectors the company employs, how they are
used, <strong>and</strong> how eVectively they stop fares evasion, is left to the operator to decide. In London, TfL’s
subsidiaries employ Revenue Protection OYcers to combat fare evasion on buses, DLR <strong>and</strong> London
Underground.
What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
47. Appeal mechanisms only operate where there is a penalty fare system. For buses, this requires special
local legislation <strong>and</strong> only applies in London. Penalty fares for London’s essential bus network (which is
provided by TfL), DLR <strong>and</strong> Underground are covered by schedule 17 of the Greater London Authority Act
1999. This schedule is also applied to Tramlink (under the Croydon Tramlink (Penalty Fares) Order 2003).
48. All railway penalty fares schemes must provide for a system of h<strong>and</strong>ling appeals, in line with a code
of practice approved by the Secretary of State. Some operators use the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals
Service (IPFAS), based in Portsmouth, others use the Independent Appeals Service, based in Haslemere.
Both appeals services operate to the same approved code of practice, <strong>and</strong> both are paid the same amount
per appeal by the train operators who use them, regardless of whether an appeal is accepted or declined.
49. Outside penalty fares areas, passengers may complain to the train operator’s customer services
department. Each train operator’s passenger licence obliges them to have a Complaints H<strong>and</strong>ling Procedure
(CHP) approved by the Secretary of State. Written guidance has been published for train operators devising
a CHP, setting out the features which the Secretary of State considers such a procedure should have.
Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket collectors well balanced?
50. We believe that the railways byelaws <strong>and</strong> the regulations applying on public service vehicles provide
a reasonable balance between the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors.
Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
51. Operators have a direct incentive to protect their revenue, to the extent that it is economic to do so.
The competitive process of bidding for rail franchises will favour those operators prepared to address
revenue protection issues eVectively, both by appropriate management <strong>and</strong> by investment in automatic
ticket gates <strong>and</strong> other revenue protection aids.
52. There is undoubtedly more that rail operators can <strong>and</strong> should do to protect their revenue, <strong>and</strong> in
recent years there has been a modest extension of penalty fares schemes, <strong>and</strong> a significant increase in the
number of stations fitted with automatic ticket gates. Ticket gates have proved extremely eVective at
safeguarding revenue, <strong>and</strong> as an added benefit, reducing crime <strong>and</strong> v<strong>and</strong>alism on the network. Most London
termini are now gated, <strong>and</strong> we have ensured that the new South West Trains franchise contains a
requirement to fit gates to Waterloo, which is the one remaining major London station without gates.
53. Outside London bus operators also have a direct incentive to protect their revenues but as commercial
businesses in a deregulated market, it is entirely a matter for the company concerned to decide how much
resource to put into revenue protection. In London, the revenue risk on buses, light rail <strong>and</strong> London
Underground is taken by Transport for London.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy
Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus travel,
adequate?
54. <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel is a devolved issue. In Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, the devolved administrations have
used their powers to establish nationwide concessionary travel schemes. In Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> there is a
province-wide scheme <strong>and</strong> from April 2007 an all Irel<strong>and</strong> scheme is due to be introduced.
55. In Engl<strong>and</strong>, the Government has a clear strategy in place to implement an increasingly generous
national bus concession, whilst simultaneously addressing many of the problems of current arrangements
through new technology, new legislation, new guidance, <strong>and</strong> agreement with operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 177
56. Since 2000, the Government has consistently acted to enhance access to concessionary travel. We
have moved from a situation where, before 1999, there was no statutory minimum entitlement to one where,
from April 2008, all older <strong>and</strong> disabled people in Engl<strong>and</strong> will get free oV-peak bus travel anywhere in
Engl<strong>and</strong>. At the moment, concessionaires are only guaranteed oV peak bus travel within their local authority
area. The proposed change underlines the importance we attach to older <strong>and</strong> disabled people being able to
access public transport, <strong>and</strong> shows we recognise the role access to transport plays in tackling social exclusion
<strong>and</strong> maintaining well-being.
57. Around 11 million older <strong>and</strong> disabled people are expected to benefit from the enhanced concession
in 2008 <strong>and</strong> the Chancellor, in the 2006 Budget, committed up to £250 million a year of additional funding
for it. From April 2008 the Government’s annual funding for concessionary bus travel will total around
£1 billion.
58. The Government is aware that there are concerns over the levels of funding provided to some local
authorities to pay for concessionary travel. We remain confident that the funding is suYcient in aggregate,
but we are working to ensure that it is targeted as accurately as possible. In so doing we need to be consistent
with the wider approach on funding that local government seeks from central government, namely freedom
<strong>and</strong> flexibility. Along with CLG, HMT, local government <strong>and</strong> other key stakeholders, we are actively
considering how best to distribute the additional funding being made available for the new national
concession. We have established liaison groups with representatives from all levels of local authorities, bus
operators, <strong>and</strong> other key stakeholders to work on the important issues of procurement <strong>and</strong> delivery of passes
<strong>and</strong> operator reimbursement which are also key aspects of implementation of the concession.
59. The Government’s approach has been to put in place a flexible framework for concessionary travel
to be able to respond to changing circumstances in the future, so as to maximise the benefit to users. Powers
in the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill would allow flexibility for Ministers to decide, following consultation,
to change mechanisms of reimbursement of bus operators in the future. We are committed to consulting
those with an interest, including local authorities <strong>and</strong> bus operators, on funding <strong>and</strong> reimbursement
mechanisms. It is in all our interests to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for the national
concession.
60. The Government recognises the desirability of concessionaires resident anywhere in the UK being
able to travel on eligible local bus services anywhere in the UK. Powers in the Bill would allow, via
regulations in the future, for changes to English <strong>and</strong> Welsh legislation to enable mutual recognition of bus
passes across the UK, subject to discussions <strong>and</strong> agreement with the devolved administrations.
61. The Bill also retains the Secretary of State’s ability to increase the scope of the statutory concession
in the future, for example to extend it to other categories of people or other modes such as trams, <strong>and</strong> to
provide the concession at diVerent times. The Government has no plans at present to extend the concession
to other forms of public transport. Any decision to do this would have to be fully funded <strong>and</strong> the impacts
on transport operators fully considered.
Reimbursement <strong>and</strong> appeals
62. The Government is working with operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities to put in place revised arrangements
for the new 2008 concession. The fundamental principle that bus operators should be left “no better <strong>and</strong> no
worse oV” by involvement in concessionary fares schemes is however sound. Bus operators should continue
to be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they feel that reimbursement arrangements put in place by
local authorities are unfair. To date, the Secretary of State has appointed an external independent decision
maker to determine the appeals on his behalf.
63. While appeals can create some uncertainty for local authorities <strong>and</strong> bus operators, the system is a key
component in the system of “checks <strong>and</strong> balances” which ensures that bus operators are properly
reimbursed while at the same time securing value for money for the taxpayer. The aim is to determine
appeals as quickly as possible, but proper consideration is of fundamental importance, <strong>and</strong> this sometimes
takes time.
Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
64. The Government has already taken significant steps to make concessionary travel available on other
modes of transport, in order to allow integrated concessionary travel. The Government provides £15 million
per year for concessionary half-fares on scheduled coach services (ie those that are not local bus services)
for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people. Train operators are required to participate in the Senior Persons Railcard
which oVers a third oV most rail journeys. The Disabled Persons Rail Card has similar terms <strong>and</strong> conditions,
<strong>and</strong> a companion of the disabled person is also entitled to a discount on the same journey.

Ev 178 Transport Committee: Evidence
65. Local authorities already have the discretion to oVer enhancements or an alternative to the statutory
minimum concession under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. This includes the ability to oVer
concessions on other modes. Such enhancements depend on local authorities’ assessment of local need <strong>and</strong>
their overall financial priorities. The Department’s survey of travel concession authorities (TCAs) in 2006
showed that:
— the majority of TCAs oVered some form of enhancement <strong>and</strong>/or alternative to the statutory
scheme;
— in all the major urban areas, the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) funded schemes which
extended oV-peak concessionary travel to local rail <strong>and</strong>/or to light rail services;
— over 40 TCAs stated that they oVered taxi tokens or taxi vouchers as an alternative to a bus pass.
Many of these were rural districts where there were fewer scheduled local bus services; <strong>and</strong>
— some 60 TCAs oVered schemes which provided dem<strong>and</strong> responsive public transport services such
as “dial-a-ride” buses. Around 40 of those TCAs included dem<strong>and</strong> responsive services within their
local enhancements as part of their bus concessionary travel scheme.
66. Integration of concessionary travel across modes is clearly desirable, but aside from the significant
cost involved, there is a risk that extending the national concession to some other modes could have
unintended consequences. For example, there have been suggestions that, community transport services
could be included in the new national concession. But it is not clear that the community transport sector
could meet the extra dem<strong>and</strong> generated from such a change, certainly in the short term. Some operators
are concerned about the extra administrative, accounting <strong>and</strong> auditing requirements that would result from
inclusion, which may discourage volunteers from donating their time to help run these valuable services.
67. For the geographical integration of concessionary travel, the national bus travel concession is a major
step forward—improving social inclusion benefits for older <strong>and</strong> disabled people in allowing them greater
freedom to travel, for free, by local bus in Engl<strong>and</strong>.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Community Transport Association (CTA) (TPT 35)
Inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport
In response to the Transport Committee’s call for evidence into the above inquiry, the CTA would like
to comment on two of the key questions raised by the Committee in its call for evidence, namely:
— Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for
concessionary bus travel, adequate?
— Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong>
diVerent geographical areas?
The CTA believes that the Government’s current concessionary fares strategy is inadequate to address
the needs of all eligible concessionary fares travellers. The strategy does not suYciently address the needs
of those eligible older <strong>and</strong> disabled travellers who cannot physically access mainstream bus services or who
are so geographically remote from such bus services as to render the services useless. Such passengers are
required to pay for transport on community <strong>and</strong> other services. Integrated ticketing solutions have the
potential to create a further barrier to ending this discrimination if the needs of community transport
operators are not considered in implementing such solutions.
The CTA is of the opinion that concessionary fares schemes are not suYciently integrated across modes
of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent geographical areas. <strong>Concessionary</strong> travel, including the extensions proposed in the
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill currently going through Parliament, suVer from the inherent discrimination
mentioned above. Local administering authorities have the discretion to reimburse community transport
operators for the provision of concessionary travel, but in practice few choose to do so. There is, therefore,
significant variation in the concessionary travel strategies of diVerent administering authorities across the
country. As the national extension comes into force under the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill in April 2008,
this means that travellers will be subject to diVerent policies in diVerent areas. It is entirely likely in some
cases that travellers will be subject to such variations in policy on diVerent sections of the same journey.
Again, this represents a barrier to the development of accessible <strong>and</strong> responsive concessionary travel
schemes. It is, therefore imperative that integrated ticketing solutions are developed which can be easily <strong>and</strong>
cost eVectively implemented by small scale local community operators as well the large commercial
operators. Such solutions <strong>and</strong> the extension of concessionary travel reimbursement to community transport
operators would combine to have the added benefit of facilitating the establishment of local community run
feeder services to link with inter-urban mainstream services.
It has been estimated that the cost of extending the concessionary travel provision to enable beneficiaries
to use community transport across Engl<strong>and</strong> is about £25 million. This equates to an additional 4% on the
government’s overall budget for concessionary travel or less than the cost of a mile of motorway (£30
million). The CTA believes this is a relatively small cost to end the current postcode lottery <strong>and</strong> ensure equal
access to services for all eligible travellers.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 179
I am including in our submission a copy of our policy statement 33 on concessionary travel, which provides
more background <strong>and</strong> detail to my comments above.
The CTA would be happy to provide oral evidence to the Transport Committee in support of this
submission.
March 2007
Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Passenger Focus (TPT 36)
1.1 Passenger Focus 34 , the independent national rail consumer watchdog, welcomes the opportunity to
respond to the Committee’s investigation into aspects of ticketing, many of which have long been a source
of concern to us <strong>and</strong> our predecessor organisations. Given our remit, we have largely restricted our response
to rail matters, though this has been exceeded in certain cases of readily available through ticketing between
rail <strong>and</strong> other modes.
1.2 We recognise the benefits which integrated ticketing can provide for passengers <strong>and</strong> want such
through-fare <strong>and</strong> inter-modal options enhanced <strong>and</strong> extended. Their eYcacy in the conurbations is proven
<strong>and</strong> the same flexibility should not be denied to passengers elsewhere.
1.3 Responses to many questions have been amalgamated where there is a cross-over between question
themes <strong>and</strong> to avoid repetition in the response.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Q1: Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent
geographical areas?
Q2: Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 Several types of integrated ticketing already apply:
— “<strong>Travel</strong>card” <strong>and</strong> similar schemes which allow an unlimited number of journeys by all modes <strong>and</strong>
operators covered by the scheme within a certain area or zone(s);
— interavailable <strong>and</strong> through ticketing, as stipulated in franchise agreements <strong>and</strong> required of openaccess
operators, between any two rail stations by any number of train operators on “permitted
routes”;
— PlusBus—add-on to rail tickets allowing a day’s unlimited bus travel at origin or destination; <strong>and</strong>
— through ticketing involving other operators; eg for the sea element to the Isle of Wight;where the
through fare, however, undercuts each individual element if purchased independently.
2.2 These schemes illustrate that such integration is possible. However, “travelcard”-type deals are
usually available only in metropolitan areas <strong>and</strong> are usually negotiated by or purchased by the local
authority rather than stemming from an initiative of the transport undertakings involved. They are usually
subsidised by the local authorities <strong>and</strong> a cliV-face fares increase can occur at the boundary stations of such
schemes—even where two Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) areas abut. 35
2.3 The provision of products such as multi-modal <strong>and</strong>/or multi-operator travelcards, however, is
dependent upon block exemptions to avoid infringement of competition law. (The range of names for such
tickets, which largely fulfil the same function, is in itself a source for confusion: eg <strong>Travel</strong>card in London;
MetroCard in West Yorkshire; <strong>Travel</strong>master in South Yorkshire; Trio in Merseyside; System One in
Manchester; Zone Card in Strathclyde.)
2.4 As a result, large areas of the country—even where rail or bus, or choice of bus companies, are viable
options for some journeys—are without such a scheme. Many passengers may thus have to pay considerably
more to enjoy the flexibility which urban users take for granted. In any case, co-operation between operators
may well be deemed anti-competitive collusion. Despite a clear passenger benefit in being able to use the
same ticket on the service of any operator or mode, according to choice <strong>and</strong> convenience, especially on the
homeward leg of return tickets or if one mode is disrupted or delayed, such activity is interpreted as anticompetitive
<strong>and</strong> against the public interest.
33 Item not printed.
34 Passenger Focus is the operating name of the Rail Passengers Council.
35 Consider the situation of the adjoining Greater Manchester (boundary station Greenfield) <strong>and</strong> West Yorkshire (boundary
station Marsden) PTEs. The st<strong>and</strong>ard single from Greenfield to central Manchester (12² miles) is £3.45, whereas from
Marsden (19 miles) it costs £6.50. Marsden to Huddersfield (7 miles) costs £1.45; from Greenfield, over the boundary, it costs
£6.30 for the 13 miles. The single between Marsden <strong>and</strong> Greenfield (6 miles) is £4.10.

Ev 180 Transport Committee: Evidence
2.5 PlusBus, despite more imaginative marketing of late, is still relatively unknown to passengers <strong>and</strong>
even to some members of staV. A much more aggressive campaign is required to increase patronage of the
scheme. We welcome stations’ improved <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ed displays of connecting bus <strong>and</strong>/or tram information
<strong>and</strong> signage to the stops <strong>and</strong> trust that this will be built upon to further publicise the service.
2.6 Many rail <strong>and</strong> bus interchanges are poor or non-existent, <strong>and</strong> many rail stations are poorly served
by bus services. We have made recommendations to improve this situation in our report 36 aimed at oVering
practical advice on deliverable rail strategies to those local transport authorities then in the process of
preparing their second local transport plans, supplementing the Department for Transport’s guidance but
emphasising the rail element.
2.7 Integrated ticketing requires integrated planning <strong>and</strong> transport provision to enable passengers to plan
<strong>and</strong> execute a seamless journey. We welcome the fact that although through tickets can be booked from rail
stations to destinations such as those on the Nexus metro system 37 , no connecting train information is
available through the National Rail Enquiries website. Neither does the website yet oVer PlusBus options,
as this add-on has to be specifically sought out by those in the know. Transport Direct 38 is a step in the right
direction, but at times the system is unhelpful. TOCs still fail to fully promote their own wares to best
advantage, <strong>and</strong> therefore a major change in approach is needed to encompass integrated ticketing.
Integrated information <strong>and</strong> purpose-built interchanges are crucial to popularise intermodal travel. The
Government needs to play a role in joining services up.
2.8 While with PlusBus, the add-on cost is available at the time of purchase <strong>and</strong> previous enquiry, it is
diYcult to discover bus fares for one-oV journeys in much of the country through existing media—it can
prove awkward to discover which company operates which route, especially in an area with which the
enquirer is unfamiliar. The disparate fare levels, doubtless reflecting presence or absence of local subsidy,
further add to confusion <strong>and</strong> further impede inter-modal ticketing outside the metropoli.
2.9 The size of the United Kingdom militates against the likelihood of the introduction of a zonal-based
national ticketing structure such as operates in the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. There travel by any mode (rail, urban bus
or tram, local train or metro) can be prepaid by purchasing any one of a range of “strip tickets”. 39 The
absence of a common fare structure (not only on rail but also on other modes) in Britain makes such a
scheme virtually impossible to implement at an attractive fare. The Swiss transport system is generally held
to be the most integrated with through fares <strong>and</strong> ticketing <strong>and</strong> easy-to-find information across all modes:
long-distance, local <strong>and</strong> regional rail; trams; local <strong>and</strong> longer-distance buses; boats; cable-cars <strong>and</strong>
funiculars—with virtually all transport undertakings willing to participate in the scheme.
2.10 At present, government’s strategy towards integrated ticketing is not immediately apparent, save for
the move toward smartcard technology in recent franchises. There appears to be no drive towards the
creation of additional PTE-type arrangements.
2.11 Until such time as all the relevant journey validity details can be contained on the ticket 40 , in its
various likely formats, there is no real hope of fully integrated ticketing. No amount of through fares/
ticketing will succeed without adequate publicity of what is on oVer.
2.12 Payment by all common methods needs to be available: no buses accept credit/debit cards, despite
the often high fares for longer journeys. No buses can issue the outward PlusBus deals, which have to be
booked at stations or aboard the train.
2.13 Despite all the improvements in integration in London <strong>and</strong> the South East culminating in the recent
introduction of National Rail zonal fares, it is still not possible to buy a through ticket from an Underground
station to a destination outside London; eg for a journey from Tooting Broadway to Dartford, the passenger
will need to rebook en route to avoid being charged a penalty fare.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
Q3: Is the industry taking up smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 This strategy is barely in its infancy. We welcome the extension of the benefits of smartcard
technology to National Rail passengers in the South East, but regret the failure to install Oyster readers
at National Rail stations in Greater London to coincide with deployment by London Underground. If the
franchising process is expected to deliver smartcard technology across the entire National Rail network, it
could take decades to achieve nationwide coverage.
36 Strategy to Reality—using local transport plans to deliver on rail, Rail Passengers Council (February 2005).
37 Formerly Tyne & Wear Metro—light rail services, largely on erstwhile British Rail track beds, on Tyneside <strong>and</strong> Wearside
operated by the Passenger Transport Executive.
38 A nationwide web-based route planning service for rail, coach, air (within Scotl<strong>and</strong> only) <strong>and</strong> car journeys.
39 The Strippenkaart is a pre-paid ticket for any journey wholly within the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. Passengers deduct from their ticket the
relevant number of zones through which they intend to travel when they embark on the first leg of the journey, which can be
made by any transport mode, in any combination within the zones. In the absence of overall validity limit on the overall ticket
remaining units can be used at any time.
40 By “ticket” we mean not only traditional electronic-strip card tickets, but Smartcards, mobile telephone ticketing, print-athome
tickets with bar codes etc.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 181
3.2 Stored value cards are best suited for payment for urban short-distance “low-value” journeys; their
applicability for longer journeys is open to some question, though we welcome the decision to extend the
scheme to South West Trains. We have some concerns that the level of fares for long-distance travel by
National Rail will far exceed the level which passengers are likely to want to load up in advance. London
zonal fares are all below¨ 10 <strong>and</strong> can be checked in advance—though the TfL website cannot at present
calculate fares from Underground stations to National Rail destinations, even within the six zones. Is it
probable that passengers would be willing to load the level of credit necessary to finance a journey such as
London to Derby, where the fare may not be known? The propensity for touching in <strong>and</strong> out on such longdistance
journeys must be more limited than on urban local journeys.
3.3 Beyond smartcard, other media may well take the place of traditional paper-based tickets. <strong>Ticketing</strong>
by SMS message is already a reality <strong>and</strong> more sophisticated use of this medium is in course of trial. We
welcome the harnessing of technology to simplify travel arrangements for passengers who are comfortable
<strong>and</strong> conversant with such methods - <strong>and</strong> provided that passengers without access to the required gadgetry
are not disadvantaged.
Q4: Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
Q5: What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard
technology is already in place?
3.4. ITSO is not in itself a ticket-recognition system, but is rather the philosophy underlying interoperability
<strong>and</strong> prepayment. Few such systems are yet in operation. The most vital element is to ensure that
when operators install systems, where these are not uniform, that they are mutually compatible. Open-access
operators need also to be brought into the fold to ensure that interavailable <strong>and</strong> through ticketing is not
jeopardised.
3.5 Concern has been expressed that Oyster is a monopoly supplier. While many Oyster cards have been
issued (each with a deposit of several pounds), many of them are used only occasionally. The present policy
of increasing cash fares well in excess of prepaid fares will ensure a long-term future for smartcard
technology though this might equally well be borne by travel chips in credit cards or mobile phone messages
inter alia. Credit/debit cards (as Barclays are doing with Oyster) can add a separate travel chip. Subscribers
to the scheme provider can benefit from this additional travel feature without the need for an additional
card; we see this as a useful means of smartcard payment for longer-distance fares.
3.6 Although there have been losers as a result of zoning National Rail fares in London, this is a vital
precursor to smartcard ticketing availability for journeys on both National Rail <strong>and</strong> London Underground.
3.7 Despite enquiries, we have been unable to locate any smartcard schemes in Scotl<strong>and</strong> applicable to
rail services.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
Q6: Is the legal framework within which the ticket inspectors function appropriate?
Q7: What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Q8: Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
Q9: Do operators of public transport take adequate measure to protect fares revenue?
4.1 Passenger Focus <strong>and</strong> its predecessor organisations have long called for measures to ensure that all
monies due as fare revenue are collected <strong>and</strong> have welcomed in principle the various penalty fares schemes
to that end to protect the interests of fare-payers. We are particularly anxious, however, at the variance
between schemes, particularly at stations where two or more companies’ trains call.
4.2 Passengers need clarity about when <strong>and</strong> where penalty fares apply <strong>and</strong> the likely result if they wilfully
disregard the provisions. Absence of consistency is a major cause for concern. It is unfair <strong>and</strong> illogical that
on some services (as happens, for instance, on SWT’s Basingstoke-Waterloo route) on-train staV will sell
fares at booking-oYce prices whereas on other days the full rigour of the Penalty Fare provisions will be
brought down on the same individuals. We remain vigilant to the length of ticket-oYce queues as a reason
for passengers failing to buy tickets before boarding. We are becoming increasingly perturbed as to whether
suYcient flexibility is accorded in cases of queue length exceeding maximum queueing times. We expect
passengers to allow a reasonable time 41 to obtain a ticket; after that time, we believe that the industry has
failed to provide the necessary facilities <strong>and</strong> that penalty fares should be suspended until such time as ticket
issue can conform to the prescribed timescales.
41 The <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement Agreement, operated by ATOC Rail Settlement Plan, to which all operators are party, states
that passengers should be served within five minutes at peak times <strong>and</strong> three minutes at other times. We concur that these
limits are reasonable <strong>and</strong> that they should be adhered to.

Ev 182 Transport Committee: Evidence
4.3 Adequate publicity of the existence of penalty fares at specific stations <strong>and</strong> on specific routes is vital
(<strong>and</strong> is a requirement of each penalty fare scheme) <strong>and</strong> robust safeguards must be in place to avoid innocent
passengers who have inadvertently infringed the rules being issued with a penalty fare notice. Revenue
protection inspectors have discretion as to whether to issue a Penalty fare, in addition to the appeals
mechanism. The appeal mechanisms are, in our view, clear, though they are arguably not well publicised.
All aspects of penalty fare schemes must be transparent; our principal areas of concern regarding Penalty
fares remain: (a) ticket oYce queueing times preventing passengers from pre-purchasing a ticket without
missing the train; (b) inconsistency of approach—as mentioned above; <strong>and</strong> (c) the perceived impartiality of
the system. We have concerns over the perceived fairness of the appeals system where the industry (its
appointed penalty fares inspectors <strong>and</strong>, of greater worry, the appeals processing staV) are judge <strong>and</strong> jury in
the same case. Even as statutory passenger representatives we have no right to challenge upheld appeals—
except to investigate whether they were conducted in accordance with the (unpublished) guidelines <strong>and</strong>
(publicised) penalty fares procedures.
4.4 The provisions of the Bye-laws <strong>and</strong> National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which ultimately set out
the rights <strong>and</strong> duties of both passengers <strong>and</strong> carriers, are almost wholly unknown to most passengers.
Despite major improvements in the Conditions as a result of revisions in recent years, there is still much to
do to enhance passenger benefits.
4.5 It is clearly evident that too frequently rail operators do not protect farebox revenue suYciently
robustly—for instance, through failure to police ticketless travel on board trains <strong>and</strong> at stations. Another
failing is the frequent absence of facilities for those passengers who intend to pay but can find no means of
doing so because either the station is unstaVed or because on-train staV fail to sell them a ticket. In either
case, valuable income is lost which results in higher fares overall for those who do pay.
4.6 Interim details of research 42 undertaken by Passenger Focus late in 2006 show an unacceptably high
level of uncollected fares on one set of rural/semi-urban routes from unstaVed stations. Passengers were
unable to pay their fare in advance <strong>and</strong> also unable to pay aboard the train due to non-appearance of ontrain
staV. Either this means that the railway is losing revenue or the passenger is inconvenienced by having
to queue at his destination to pay the fare. 43 In our survey researchers alighted at unstaVed stations so that
revenue was lost.
4.7 There is an urgent <strong>and</strong> growing need for wider implementation of automatic ticket gates at stations
with the highest footfall; it is equally vital to ensure that gates are staVed while ever trains are running.
Installing gates results in a major increase in revenue to the extent that such facilities have paid for
themselves within a year or so. Greater vigilance is also required to reduce the level of under-payment, such
as adults travelling on Child fare tickets or with Railcard reductions to which they have no entitlement,
alongside non-payment.
4.8 Too often the gates are left unattended <strong>and</strong> open after mid-evening, with the result that late-night
trains carry a number of non-paying passengers, who probably feel that they can travel without being
challenged to show a valid ticket. As gates permit holders of all valid tickets to pass through, there is a need
for on-train ticket examination to prevent over-riding <strong>and</strong> also, ultimately, for gates at lesser-used stations
to ensure that passengers pay the correct fare for their journey. A ticket to the next station will work the
entry gates perfectly adequately; a fraudulent passenger getting oV at an ungated destination ten or more
stations down the line need only pay the fare to the first station to access the system.
4.9 It is virtually impossible for staV to check tickets accurately at non-automated ticket barriers at busy
times under normal circumstances.
4.10 “Blitzing” ungated stations with ticket inspectors <strong>and</strong>, where necessary, the British Transport Police,
is necessary to prevent as far as possible, fraudulent travel to <strong>and</strong> from such locations. Such action is also
beneficial at major interchange points <strong>and</strong> at terminals, especially those without automatic gates.
4.11 On-train inspection is also important on longer-distance routes to ensure that passengers have a
valid ticket for the entire journey—not merely a short section at either end; in any case, regular <strong>and</strong> frequent
appearance of on-train staV provides an enhanced level of customer service beyond revenue protection
duties: enhanced sense of personal security; a deterrent against v<strong>and</strong>alism; <strong>and</strong> assistance for those
passengers in need, which in themselves may persuade more passengers to make further rail journeys <strong>and</strong>
increase farebox revenue.
42 The research, due for publication mid to late March 2007, covers purchase facilities for tickets at stations (booking oYces/
ticket machines), telesales, websites <strong>and</strong> aboard trains. Details will be forwarded to the Transport Committee.
43 Not only does this unduly <strong>and</strong> unnecessarily delay passengers, it can contribute to them missing connections. This is
intolerable—more so where onward services are infrequent.

<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 183
Q10: Is the government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Q11: Are concessionary fare schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
5.1 We welcome the regulation of the Senior, Disabled Persons <strong>and</strong> Young Persons Railcard. We would
urge other operators to emulate Virgin’s more relaxed policy on the use of Railcard-reduced fares at peak
times for leisure journeys.
5.2 We are disappointed that full-time pupils aged 16 to 18 in secondary education are still expected to
pay full adult fares when travelling between their home <strong>and</strong> place of education, save for some instances
where local authorities intervene with reduced-rate travel schemes.
5.3 The question of concessionary bus fares falls outwith our remit <strong>and</strong> we therefore make no comment
except for those cases where no practicable bus service is provided (eg central Wales or the far north of
Scotl<strong>and</strong>) but where rail services do operate. We underst<strong>and</strong> both the distress of those holders of unusable
travel concessions <strong>and</strong> train companies who operate non-remunerative services in such areas <strong>and</strong> trust that
local authorities can resolve such anomalies.
5.4 Conversely, free bus travel for pass-holders aged over 60 has reduced patronage on some rail services.
5.5 Recent correspondence 44 in the trade press suggests that the cost to extend free local rail travel to
Community Rail projects would prove a negligible; (eg £32,000 on the Tamar Valley line in Cornwall).
Long-distance free rail travel would have a major cost implication (perhaps £250 million per annum) <strong>and</strong>
as such is unlikely to be entertained.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from the National Union of Rail, Maritime <strong>and</strong> Transport Workers (RMT) (TPT 37)
The National Union of Rail, Maritime <strong>and</strong> Transport Workers (RMT) welcomes the opportunity to
contribute to the Transport Committee inquiry: <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport. The RMT organises
approximately 75,000 members in all sectors of the transport industry. With over 44,000 members employed
on the railway network we are the largest of the rail unions. Additionally RMT organises members on the
London Underground, the Tyne & Wear Metro <strong>and</strong> in the bus <strong>and</strong> coach industry who as part of their duties
issue <strong>and</strong> inspect tickets issued to the travelling public.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
The RMT supports integrated ticketing both within <strong>and</strong> across public transport modes. Making through
ticketing available to passengers encourages public transport use <strong>and</strong>, if reasonably priced, can play a part
in promoting social inclusion <strong>and</strong> the integration of isolated communities <strong>and</strong> geographical regions.
Regrettably, due to the fragmented nature of the privatised rail network <strong>and</strong> the de-regulated bus sector
outside of London, cross-modal integrated ticketing arrangements within <strong>and</strong> across public transport
modes <strong>and</strong> geographical areas remains, with some notable exceptions, inadequate.
National Rail Card
The 2004 Warwick Agreement included a commitment to introduce a national rail card. RMT fully
supports the introduction of a national railcard <strong>and</strong> would want to see the Government move quickly to
deliver on their commitment. We further welcome the commitment made by Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong> at the
conclusion of the Scottish National Transport Strategy consultation process to conduct a review of fares
policy in order to “seek to develop a new policy which encourages a modal shift to rail”. 45
RMT will continue to seek a similar commitment from the Westminster Government. Clearly any such
review should have as a core principle the need to create a fully integrated <strong>and</strong> accessible ticketing regime.
Research commissioned in 2003 by Transport 2000 <strong>and</strong> the Rail Passengers Council found that up to
3million people would make use of a national rail card, costing £20, if it oVered a reduction of one-third on
oV-peak fares. The research concluded that introduction of the card could result in the generation of an extra
£55million in fare box revenue. Indeed, the record of national discounted rail cards in Europe is on the whole
a positive one. The experience on Deutsche Bahn helps to illustrate the point.
44 Local Transport Today, issue 462 (15 to 28 February 2007).
45 Scotl<strong>and</strong>’s Railways—Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong> 5 December 2006.

Ev 184 Transport Committee: Evidence
To support integration <strong>and</strong> encourage network use, DB operates three versions of the BahnCard which
are valid for one year <strong>and</strong> can be used across national DB services (except for Autozug). Use of the cards
is limited on regional services, where other cross-modal regional discounts can apply <strong>and</strong> the card cannot
be used in conjunction with other discount oVers:
— BahnCard 25—A 2nd class card costs £39 to purchase <strong>and</strong> oVers 25% oV st<strong>and</strong>ard fares. 1.55
million were sold in 2004.
— BahnCard 50—A 2nd class card costs £153 <strong>and</strong> oVers 50% oV st<strong>and</strong>ard fares. The card is available
at half price for citizens aged over 60, students under the age of 25, children <strong>and</strong> people with
disabilities. 1.65million were sold in 2004.
— BahnCard 100—A 2nd class card costs £2,448 <strong>and</strong> oVers free travel on all national DB routes. An
accompanied child under 15 travels free <strong>and</strong> the partner of a BahnCard 100 holder receives a
complimentary BahnCard 25. 16,000 were sold in 2004.
Passenger Transport Executives/Authorities
Since being established by the provisions of the Transport Act 1968, Passenger Transport Executives <strong>and</strong>
Authorities have created many examples of good practice with regard to multi-modal, integrated ticketing
on public transport. The experience in the West of Scotl<strong>and</strong> is indicative of some of the steps that have been
taken to integrate fares <strong>and</strong> encourage public transport use.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport
The Zone Card (previously called the Transcard) has been in available since the 1980s <strong>and</strong> is valid on First
ScotRail, Glasgow subway <strong>and</strong> around 80 bus company services. Other multi-modal travel options are
available via the Day Tripper, Roundabout <strong>and</strong> Rural Daycard tickets which can be used on bus, rail <strong>and</strong>
ferry services that are financially supported by SPT. Similarly in London, Transport for London has
implemented a number of public transport friendly steps leading to a significant increase in bus patronage
since the election of the Mayor of London in 2000.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
RMT organises across the grades employed on the national rail network, the London Underground <strong>and</strong>
the Tyne & Wear Metro, who have as their core duties the sale, issue <strong>and</strong> inspection of tickets. Our bus
members also issue <strong>and</strong> inspect tickets <strong>and</strong> <strong>Travel</strong>cards.
RMT continues to raise concerns with regard to the safe issuing of penalty fares by railway staV. All too
often staV have to issue penalty fares to passengers who have started their journey at stations where the ticket
oYce is shut <strong>and</strong> the Ticket Vending Machine is out of use due to v<strong>and</strong>alism. This places the RPI in the
invidious position of penalising a passenger who has been unable to lawfully purchase a ticket. The result
can be a verbal or even physical assault on the member of staV by the disgruntled traveller. To avoid these
wholly unnecessary confrontations RMT is firmly of the view that stations should be staVed throughout the
time of traYc thereby enabling passengers to buy the necessary ticket.
Recent steps by the Southeastern Railways franchise to reduce ticket oYce opening times has raised fears
amongst RMT members about precisely this issue <strong>and</strong> brings into question the commitment of the ToC
towards revenue collection <strong>and</strong> protection.
The Committee will no doubt remember that in 2005, the then operator South Eastern Trains, brought
forward a package of measures that would have led to dozens of posts being displaced from ticket oYces in
South London, Kent <strong>and</strong> East Sussex. This led to a huge public outcry <strong>and</strong> a determined campaign by
passenger groups, trades unions, local <strong>and</strong> county councillors <strong>and</strong> MPs which led to the company
withdrawing their plans.
In late 2006, the new operator, Southeastern, has again brought forward a package which will, under
Schedule 17 of the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement Agreement, see “major” changes to ticket oYce opening hours
at 29 stations <strong>and</strong> “minor” changes at around a further 70 locations. We are of the view that these changes
will lead to a depreciation of service provided to the travelling public by making it more diYcult to purchase
a ticket, worsen the already inadequate staYng levels at many stations <strong>and</strong> in specific regard to the
Committee’s current inquiry threaten revenue collection <strong>and</strong> protection.
Smartcards
RMT supports the introduction of smartcard technology <strong>and</strong> supports attempts by Transport for London
<strong>and</strong> the DFT to make all national rail stations in the London area Oystercard compatible. However, we are
firmly of the view that the introduction of new ticketing technology should not be used by train operators
as an excuse to reduce ticket oYce opening times <strong>and</strong>/or to cut booking oYce <strong>and</strong> station staV numbers. The

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 185
Committee will be aware that in 2006 the proposed introduction of smart ticketing on GNER services saw
the company seeking to reduce booking oYce staV numbers by up to 50%; a move resisted by the rail
trade unions.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
RMT representatives employed in bus companies in the South West of Engl<strong>and</strong> have reported significant
increases in bus use amongst pensioners <strong>and</strong> other passengers who qualify for concessionary fares. The
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Bus <strong>Travel</strong> Bill, which will from April 2008 extend the bus concessionary fare scheme from
purely local use across the whole of Engl<strong>and</strong>, is expected to result in a welcome <strong>and</strong> significant increase in
bus use. RMT supports the extension <strong>and</strong> believes that Government should be seeking to extend the scheme
to students, young people <strong>and</strong> the unemployed.
RMT is aware of operational <strong>and</strong> policy problems relating to the existing concessionary scheme. In
February 2007 your Committee pointed out that “Disputes have ensued between local authorities <strong>and</strong> bus
operators over the costs of reimbursing the bus operators for the concessionary fares”. 46 Indeed in the North
East of Engl<strong>and</strong> problems associated with implementation of the scheme has resulted in reduced fares for
students being cut, some services being phased out <strong>and</strong> fares for children being raised. We are somewhat
concerned that Government has yet to take adequate measures to resolve these problems <strong>and</strong> fear that that
the £250 million set aside to pay for the nationwide extension of the scheme will prove to be insuYcient.
RMT believes that the TfL Scheme for under 16’s, recently extended to 16 <strong>and</strong> 17 years olds in full time
education, is an example which could be followed to encourage use of public transport.
Conclusion
RMT welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the current inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport.
We have for many years supported integration both within <strong>and</strong> across transport modes <strong>and</strong> believe that
Government should move rapidly to fulfil their commitment to introduce a National Rail Card.
Regrettably privatisation <strong>and</strong> deregulation of both rail <strong>and</strong> bus services have created huge obstacles to
providing the travelling public with the level of integration that is required to promote public transport use
<strong>and</strong> encourage people out of the private car. It is only where a measure of public sector regulation exists, in
the form of the PTEs/PTAs <strong>and</strong> Transport for London, that good practice has been brought forward; often
against the stiV opposition of the private sector transport providers.
Finally, recent moves to reduce ticket oYce opening hours at the Southeastern franchise hinder attempts
to integrate ticketing structures. Ticket Vending Machines are inadequate replacements for trained staV who
are best placed to oVer a full range of advice on ticketing <strong>and</strong> travel options within <strong>and</strong> across modes. There
is also a wealth of evidence indicating that the absence of staV acts as a disincentive to travel; a view held
particularly strongly by women passengers. This has obvious negative knock on eVects in relation to revenue
generation.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from CTC (TPT 38)
The CTC has since 1878 provided a voice for cyclists in shaping transport policy <strong>and</strong> provision, <strong>and</strong> today
represents some 70,000 members <strong>and</strong> aYliates mostly based in the UK. The use of the bicycle as transport,
<strong>and</strong> its value as a complementary mode to public transport are key areas in which CTC <strong>and</strong> its members
press for recognition <strong>and</strong> implementation of policy <strong>and</strong> projects. The nature of cycling as a self-propelled
mode of transport, means that for longer distances it is regularly combined with public transport to provide
a flexible personal transport solution, delivering a door-to-door journey by filling the “gaps” between
stopping points of public transport services to unite a coherent <strong>and</strong> complete trip with minimal time lost
waiting for onward travel.
We wish to provide evidence relating to the Committee’s questions 1 <strong>and</strong> 2—Integrated ticketing:
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
Journeys integrating cycling with rail, bus, coach, ferry, <strong>and</strong> air travel have a variety of purposes. Some
take place daily as part of a regular commuting trip, <strong>and</strong> others to take passengers with their cycles to a
location for a cycling holiday. All such travellers seek a guarantee that the journey they planned to make
will be delivered, <strong>and</strong> in many cases penalties of missed connections to onward travel, late arrival for
46 Transport Select Committee 7 February 2007—Department for Transport Annual Report 2006.

Ev 186 Transport Committee: Evidence
appointments, or even simply a tiresome wait without a certainty of the service on which they will travel will
place a value to the cyclist of making a reservation for a place for their cycle, in exactly the same way that
they would reserve a seat, or a sleeper berth. Thus for many the ability to get a reservation <strong>and</strong> ticket for
their cycle, which guarantees the journey as planned is a vital part of booking a ticket. When passengers
with cycles often top 10% of the total passenger count on a train, <strong>and</strong> 50% of the passengers on a rural bus
service, the need to accommodate them in the ticketing system—if only to garner knowledge of the actual
use, is an important way to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> support the delivery of eVective intermodal integration.
As highlighted to the Committee Inquiry on Access to Transport for Disabled Persons, there is a further
aspect to cycle use—that of being a mobility aid. Cycles can provide independent personal mobility to those
who are prevented from holding a driving licence for various reasons, <strong>and</strong> it can also deliver pain-free
mobility for those who cannot walk a great distance with a greater range <strong>and</strong> flexibility than a wheelchair,
noting that some wheelchair users also use specialist tricycles which can be used over longer distances <strong>and</strong>
rougher terrain, but obviously are bespoke to their users, <strong>and</strong> not appropriate for inter-urban travel, where
use of trains <strong>and</strong> buses may be appropriate.
Air
Much of the feedback on this will be duplicated by the response to the Committee’s Inquiry into
Passengers’ Experience of Air <strong>Travel</strong>. SuYcient possibly to note here that there is immense variation in the
information provided <strong>and</strong> service delivered for passengers wishing to travel with a cycle. Many of the budget
airlines have charges greater than the passenger fare for carrying a cycle, but will not guarantee which flight
they will carry the cycle on. One group wishing to travel with Flybe from Southampton to Shannon were
to be charged £12 per bike per flight but advised that they might have to wait from the first flight of the day
until the last with no guarantee of all getting taken on to the same flight—they decided to spend their money
on a ferry trip to France <strong>and</strong> support local hotels & restaurants in Brittany rather than Galway. The ability
to book online with a guarantee that your appearance with a cycle is expected is a feature of the easyJet
website which gets praised widely by both individuals <strong>and</strong> tour organisers, but few others will oVer a proper
reservation.
Coach
Many parts of the UK cannot be reached by rail <strong>and</strong> thus for all but the most dogged <strong>and</strong> fit cyclists who
will cycle where they cannot get to by train, there are alternatives in using other forms of public transport
or increasing the volume of private car traYc, The latter especially ironic where this is to scenic destinations.
The coach can provide a suitable means for travelling over long distances <strong>and</strong> roads, where traYc conditions
may be unpleasant or potentially hazardous, <strong>and</strong> in some cases this may be the only direct route available.
National Express provide what for most potential passengers is the sole source of long distance coach
travel, in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, <strong>and</strong> Scottish Citylink mirrors this in Scotl<strong>and</strong>. CTC has worked with both
companies <strong>and</strong> a number of the less well known independent operators, <strong>and</strong> major groups providing less
well known services (eg Oxford-Cambridge, Exeter-Okehampton-Bude) often filling in where former rail
lines have been severed.
National Express conditions are generally accepted as a base-line where cycles which are folded or packed
down <strong>and</strong> contained in a purpose-made bag or case will be carried “if space is available” This is clearly an
unsatisfactory position, as the passenger’s ticket is normally booked to travel on a specified service, <strong>and</strong> the
assurance that their cycle is carried depends entirely on the judgement of the driver. We have seen one
regular user denied his holiday of a lifetime when the packed bike was refused from the coach conveying
him to the airport, <strong>and</strong> another suVering DVT <strong>and</strong> almost dying (in the same month as another passenger
actually died after her trip) through a very unsatisfactory performance in accepting his bike on a journey
from CardiV to London. Tourism, <strong>and</strong> access to parts of the UK not served by rail, for those not able to
simply drive themselves <strong>and</strong> their bikes to the area, <strong>and</strong> to this end the provision of ticketing guarantees to
carry the bicycle, with provision that it is if necessary prepared to be loaded as luggage are something we
believe will make it possible for many to avoid the need to use cars to get around with their cycles.
Regional Express coach services tend to be more flexible, with less use of underfloor hold space, <strong>and</strong> we
underst<strong>and</strong> that some services are carrying as many as 8 bikes to popular areas, <strong>and</strong> not require the cycles
to be packed—appropriate given the shorter duration of the journey. <strong>Ticketing</strong> which assures the user <strong>and</strong>
makes the carrier aware of the traYc are needed.
National Express, like Virgin Trainline have a small inertia surcharge—travel insurance for 99p (£1) on
the fares being deducted—the purchaser has to be aware of this to avoid paying a cumulative charge on their
tickets (charge for each ticket sold).

Ferry
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 187
The big problems reported for this mode of travel in ticketing are generally related to a discriminatory
regime for on-line booking of tickets. Several operators fail to show a category for booking cycles—Stena
especially fails to have this for their UK services, whilst the same on-line booking template has a category
for cycles on their Sc<strong>and</strong>inavian routes. The irony is compounded by the fact that the main service which
fails to have a cycle category for on-line booking is Harwich to Hoek van Holl<strong>and</strong> which is an important
sea-bridge on the North Sea Cycle Route.
Even with the online facility, many operators set the bicycle up as a vehicle, <strong>and</strong> this category can only
be booked as one unit per booking, making it necessary to make separate online bookings for each member
of a family or small group, making it very diYcult to secure a cabin for the party to travel together. Several
operators do not make it clear that passengers with cycles attract a higher fare than foot passengers, or
alternatively that cyclists SHOULD book as foot passengers, <strong>and</strong> then notify the operator that they will be
bringing bikes. One such failing lost P&O around £800-worth of business <strong>and</strong> disappointed a group who
had been taking the annual autumn fares oVer for the previous 8 years. Whilst the Committee has stated
that they will not be considering fares we feel that here, more than for air travel, the disparity of paying as
much as the passenger fare—occasionally more—to carry a bike onto a ferry where it is often not aVorded
any special or space consuming accommodation, <strong>and</strong> has no weight penalty (as it may do on an aircraft) is
a point to be recorded.
Bus
A vast potential to place almost every household in the UK within easy reach of an hourly daytime bus
service exists by exploiting the option of getting the passenger to the bus rather than the costly exercise of
getting the bus to the passenger with an attractive frequency of service <strong>and</strong> direct, fast journeys. There are
a few bike carrying service bus routes, but almost no measures to monitor the take-up of cycle carriage—
or to guarantee journeys. For frequent services, <strong>and</strong> with the typical length of a local bus route there is less
need to travel on a specific journey, but for longer rural routes with arduous gradients etc an assured journey
perhaps with pre-booking will be more important. The position with buses has yet to mature <strong>and</strong> develop
in the respects considered.
One detail of bus ticket purchase is that no longer is the fare stages matrix <strong>and</strong> tariV on display when you
board a bus, <strong>and</strong> unlike a shop of restaurant you are frequently unable to see a display of the fare being
charged This makes the idea of a bike fare a high fraud risk as passengers might not spot their passenger
ticket being rung in as a bike.
Rail
Possibly the main area from which we get feedback from the cycling community, <strong>and</strong> primarily because
there is serious discrimination against passengers who want tio take a bike on a train, <strong>and</strong> avail themselves
of the full range of ticketing services. Up to September 2004, the Trainline provided the facility to book a
cycle reservation when you booked your seat <strong>and</strong> travel ticket. This was—with great protest withdrawn <strong>and</strong>
we were promised a return of the facility in December 2004. The total collapse of the booking system had
a major impact on the ability to reliably travel with a cycle, with delegates to an international conference in
Dublin unable to make bookings just days before they were due to travel. We note with a degree of ire that
the disappearance of cycle reservation facilities online was accompanied by the appearance of online car hire
<strong>and</strong> hotel booking facilities on the rail ticket booking service.
GNER working with CTC has restored a booking service online, albeit a big fiddle—you book the tickets
on-line, 24 hours in advance, <strong>and</strong> their booking service calls you back to discuss <strong>and</strong> confirm the reservations
being made. Because of the diYculties in making bookings CTC is very upset that some operators try to
enforce a compulsory bookings service, although for Virgin & GNER it would appear that you can normally
make a booking immediately prior to the arrival of the train you want to board, <strong>and</strong> communications with
the train managers is good enough to ensure you are expected <strong>and</strong> doors are opened (see later).
We have had ridiculous suggestions by call centre staV obviously totally ignorant of UK geography. A
passenger north of Inverness was advised that he had to go to Dunbar, Berwick, Edinburgh or Glasgow to
collect tickets for a cycle reservation for his trip—to Stirling. Passengers boarding a train at Tenby, heading
back to London, were told thay should have gone to Swansea to make a reservation for their bikes in order
to board the train. Fortunately train staV have an ethos set in running the railway rather than observing
such crazy arrangements.
CTC believes that cycle reservations should be treated like seat <strong>and</strong> berth reservations. If the space is
available when the train arrives then you can book it, <strong>and</strong> with on train staV now easily linked to online
facilities, booking with a phone call shortly before a train arrives will ensure that you are expected, told
where to st<strong>and</strong> on the platform <strong>and</strong> doors are unlocked if required.
I did witness one particularly unsavoury incident when a passenger with a printed oV confirmation of his
booking, was unable to collect his tickets (the booking oYce hours had changed, <strong>and</strong> the fast ticket machine
was not working). The overnight train was initially delayed when the conductor refused to sell the tickets

Ev 188 Transport Committee: Evidence
the man had evidence of booking, <strong>and</strong> he agreed to stump up considerably more on his credit card. The
conductor was very sloppy in filling out the counterfoil, <strong>and</strong> the passenger, who worked for a bank,
dem<strong>and</strong>ed that it was correctly filled out. The police were called again at Motherwell <strong>and</strong> eventually the
passenger was escorted oV the train <strong>and</strong> dumped in the centre of a place he did not know at 1.00 am. The
incident was witnessed by several people in the seated coach including the son of Hounslow’s MP! As a result
of this totally unwarranted abuse of a passenger we were an hour late at Carstairs, delaying the start of
engineering work, <strong>and</strong> leaving all passengers very displeased with the staV behaviour.
Only a threat to safety of those on or around the train, or serious disturbance/damage will occur, should
the train not run to timetable. Poor protocol on such issues has famously backfired on the operator—in an
example of cyclists being refused access on to trains after the London to Brighton ride in 2004, by hired in
“heavies” leading to a near riot at Brighton when passengers with valid tickets were refused access to catch
the trains to Southampton <strong>and</strong> the West, <strong>and</strong> the initiative of around 30 cyclists in boarding at Preston Park ,
safely on a near empty train, but with the train crew refusing to move it , blocked all services for 90 minutes—
a pig headed management attitude eliciting the passenger behaviour it deserved as a result.
Rail—Overcharging by Inertia
On the Virgin Trainline <strong>and</strong> some other models of this template some selections appear highlighted by a
yellow bar—reading the small print reveals that you have to opt out of paying a first class upgrade rather
than opting in—<strong>and</strong> only checking the total payment being taken on a credit or debit card. This is an
undesirable side of this website, <strong>and</strong> the fare initially “rung up” has to be the basic fare, <strong>and</strong> any optional fare
supplements such as first class upgrades <strong>and</strong> travel insurance should—for all web-based selling, be oVered
purchases as opt-in rather than opt-out.
The web based booking system also fails to have a show every fare option, as noted elsewhere.
Need for Showing of Real Timetables—Not Extracts Selected by the System
A journey frequently undertaken is that from Glasgow to the East Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> options to alight at
Rugby, Coventry, Nuneaton or even changing trains at Birmingham or Crewe, mean that selecting a train
is not a crude A to B choice but an area generic one, in much the same way that A Glasgow to South
Yorkshire trip could use trains to Leeds, Doncaster or SheYeld <strong>and</strong> arrange collection or taxi as appropriate
to check the options without access to Table 26 requires repeated enquiries with detail changes. This was
pointed out to the team interviewing about the NRS upgrade.
Similar problems also occur with the flow chart design for the voice recognition system. If it
misunderst<strong>and</strong>s a station name it became fixated on that name for the rest of the call, <strong>and</strong> only by
terminating the call can you try to get the system to let you correct it. Nowhere does the voice activated
system designers seem to have thought their system is fallible, <strong>and</strong> added in the option of saying “stop”,
“back” or “operator” to get out of a loop or one stage back in the menu.
Fish nor Fowl—The Break Between Booking Your Ticket <strong>and</strong> Booking Your Bike
Dr Bogus Zaba, a regular user of Virgin services, always books his bike from Warrington B Q as he
changes trains en route, <strong>and</strong> in so doing benefits form being a regular customer with staV used to carrying
out the transaction, although he reports that recently the booking process has been less smooth. His
experience on train was also soured by an incident at Preston where staV refused to open the door <strong>and</strong> let
him board with his cycle, even with a reservation
The experience of call centres—especially National Rail—is of staV with a geographic, <strong>and</strong> horairial
illiteracy dependent solely on what they read on screen—I have had reports of the denial that trains run to
Wick, or a service runs from Fort William to London the latter to staV who were due to work on the train,
who strongly advised otherwise. The inaptitude extends to being unable to book cycles, one Chesterfield
traveller booking to get to the ferry at Harwich had no success with National Rail, Midl<strong>and</strong> Main Line, <strong>and</strong>
Virgin, until fortunate enough to l<strong>and</strong> with ONE’s call centre in Norwich.
Gareth GriYth’s experience in Solihull where he has to travel to only two stations capable of making cycle
reservations (where is the commitment to selling any ticket from any ticket oYce?) Birmingham New Street,
<strong>and</strong> Birmingham International, parallels a TV producer living in rural Warwickshire who used to spend
around £3,000/year travelling with their bike down to Euston <strong>and</strong> enjoying a ride of under 15 minutes to
the London studios instead of a miserable <strong>and</strong> long ride on public transport. With on-line booking he simply
went to the ticket machine <strong>and</strong> collected the full set of tickets for a fully predictable journey sequence (like
Dr Zaba knowing he can make his reservation in the connection time at Warrington). However at New
Street, the uncertainty of queuing time to get served nudge the balance <strong>and</strong> now £3,000 worth of business
has gone to driving down the M40.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 189
Chris Juden, CTC Technical OYcer—possibly typical of those who used to enjoy optional use of oV-peak
trains—has had, after half a century, to finally buy a car, <strong>and</strong> reckons this is linked to the withdrawal of
around £1,000/year per rider of optional ticket sales from an increasing population of fit, retired riders who
have the flexibility to catch oV-peak trains, if only the system would accommodate them by guaranteeing
their journey itinerary.
The system also generates a huge pile of tickets—sometimes of all shapes & sizes, one member sent in
details of the 16 tickets required for a journey the length of the UK.
Rail—Failure to Offer all Relevant Fares <strong>and</strong> Routes
The template for National Rail has options for cheapest fare <strong>and</strong> general but NOT all fares available. As
examples of how the poor algorithms <strong>and</strong> lack of easy access to timetables as published in the printed all
stations timetable (book—<strong>and</strong> well secreted on-line pdf down-loadable pages on Network Rail website)
there are often routes <strong>and</strong> fares revealed only when the purchaser knows how to force the system to sell them.
Example Glasgow to Leeds—absolute cheapest fare—Virgin Value Glasgow to Carlisle <strong>and</strong> then second
fare Carlisle to Leeds via Edinburgh (7 hours!) other fares oVered (saver at approximately £70) but the low
cost fare (approximately £37) via Appleby on shortest route with shortest journey times (but poor
connections) only appears when you force a via Appleby option.
Example Glasgow to Gatwick—Use of the now to be dropped Cross Country services to Gatwick <strong>and</strong>
Brighton avoiding London would probably have been higher if the service had actually been oVered to
enquirers—even trying simple nudges like travel via Reading failed to break the lock-out (route suggested
was back to Paddington <strong>and</strong> cross to Victoria, despite direct trains from Reading Plats 1–4a. For the
journey—passing through London on a weekday between 16.00 hours <strong>and</strong> 17.00 hours with two 5-year old
children, a pensioner <strong>and</strong> luggage for a 4-week holiday was something to avoid, with a lot of testing <strong>and</strong>
trying to fool the system it eventually coughed up the journey wanted <strong>and</strong> allowed the tickets to be booked
with the seat reservations.
The algorithms are also apt to oVer ridiculous solutions. A couple returning from Wick to Wilmslow
contacted CTC over the 37 hour suggested trip with several changes of train <strong>and</strong> long waits, when the
journey could be done with just three trains in around 12 hours, <strong>and</strong> one long wait, <strong>and</strong> train could be cut
out by cycling from Crewe to Wilmslow when the overnight train from Inverness arrived, another couple
were not advised to use the “rival” South Western main line from Exeter when the bad route oVered from
Penzance to Bournemouth—via Bristol! was disrupted <strong>and</strong> they were left to hire a car to get home, when a
shorter journey option was to either catch trains to get to Southampton via Salisbury or Basingstoke, or to
use their cycle to ride between stations at Yeovil, or Yeovil Junction to Dorchester South—after all they
had just ridden over 800 miles to Penzance, <strong>and</strong> would surely be up to such a short connecting ride.
The disappearance of the All Stations printed timetable will reduce the ability to find these options, <strong>and</strong>
we really need to have access to the ability to construct our own travel itineraries, either by having this
timetable fully downloadable, or available for on-line access.
A Way Forward—Make the Local Station Part of Call Centre Network <strong>and</strong> Extend Opening
Hours
One cycling holiday organiser, now sadly dead, used to book all his tickets with Fort William Station,
<strong>and</strong> in doing so, a) boosted income for the station b) employed staV during idle periods between trains—
helping to keep the booking oYce open <strong>and</strong> pay for staYng. He in turn got excellent service, from staV well
versed in railway geography <strong>and</strong> best fares available.
With the ability to run a single call centre desk at any location, it would make a highly sensible move to
use the highly experienced staV at many stations who work just a half-shift, selling tickets <strong>and</strong> providing
information at a small local station. They would be switched in to the call centre when the dem<strong>and</strong> for
immediate service on the station itself had abated, <strong>and</strong> then take call centre enquiries <strong>and</strong> ticket sales, with
local counter activity taking the next place in the call queue. There are many wins here—call centre staV with
accurate <strong>and</strong> close-up railway knowledge, local stations with staV presence to sell tickets <strong>and</strong> provide a
facility than no CCTV system can. This might be introduced as a pilot scheme with a couple of operators
on a couple of lines that have a large number of limited hours opening stations, or a high community rail
input, the system could than be fine tuned <strong>and</strong> tested to establish the stations where the idea works to
best eVect.
March 2007

Ev 190 Transport Committee: Evidence
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from UNISON (TPT 39)
UNISON members work for a wide range of transport organisations, particularly Passenger Transport
Executives, bus companies, British Waterways <strong>and</strong> regional airports. Their jobs include professional,
managerial, administrative, clerical, manual <strong>and</strong> engineering roles. In addition to negotiating pay, terms <strong>and</strong>
conditions, UNISON works on diVerent priority issues for each group of members, <strong>and</strong> contributes to
relevant policy debates <strong>and</strong> consultations.
We welcome the opportunity to submit this short response to the Transport Select Committee enquiry
into ticketing. In terms of our overall position, we should state at the outset that we do strongly support
smart card technology. However, we do believe that the benefits of such schemes can be diminished as a
consequence of:
— insuYcient funding of such schemes. Our members report that equipment can be prohibitively
expensive <strong>and</strong> that planned projects appear to suVer from what seem like “permanent” delays; <strong>and</strong>
— inadequate ticketing information, which we believe to be almost inevitable in the context of our
fragmented public transport system.
We also wish to state at the outset that we do welcome the government’s commitment to concessionary
travel, <strong>and</strong> believe that this should be exp<strong>and</strong>ed across modes of transport, adequately funded from central
government <strong>and</strong> administered at a local level.
Responses to Specific Questions
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent models of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
We do not believe that ticketing is suYciently integrated between modes of transport <strong>and</strong> or
geographical areas.
There are some good schemes provided for travel within certain local authorities <strong>and</strong> PTEs, eg
Derbyshire, Nottingham, West Midl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Greater Manchester. However, even where there is a degree
of integration, as with the above, we find that some schemes are only available as day tickets <strong>and</strong> some are
only available after the morning peak. Many local authorities do not oVer any multi-operator/modal tickets,
eg StaVordshire, Leicestershire <strong>and</strong> Nottinghamshire. Bus operators tend to oVer day tickets for unlimited
travel, but they are only valid on their networks <strong>and</strong> not accepted by other operators. Rail operators oVer
network tickets, but these tend not to be well promoted. In certain areas PlusBus tickets are available, but
only as add-ons to rail tickets.
Integrated bus/train ticketing will not succeed until there are more services in the early morning <strong>and</strong>
during the evening to enable passengers to get to <strong>and</strong> from the rail station.
We believe that if we are to meet the challenges set out in the Eddington Report, or address the Stern
agenda, the Government needs to do more to support integrated ticketing. We note that Putting Passengers
First concluded that one of the key reasons leading to the decline in bus services has been lack of seamless
journeys caused by network deficiencies <strong>and</strong> lack of through ticketing.
The planning process, particularly where this relates to new housing growth areas, should ensure that
integrated transport is a fundamental part of planning gain supplement funded infrastructure in order to
support sustainable communities.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
A lot depends on the definition of integration. Is it expecting fares to be available from anywhere to
everywhere? This would be diYcult to implement because of the amount of memory required by the ticket
machines. Also, who would set the fares? While rail fares are controlled centrally (with some controlled by
the operators), bus fares are controlled by the bus operators, with local authorities responsible for tendered
routes (which can lead to diVerent fares for the same journey). How would operators be reimbursed, bearing
in mind the complex variety of fares available?
If it means the extension of the Oyster card, which would be easier for passengers to use, the passenger
could have no idea how much the journey costs. Again, can it cope with complex fare structures?
Overall we do not get a sense that the government has a strategy for developing integrated ticket systems
<strong>and</strong> addressing the questions set out above. We note that this issue was not covered at all in Putting
Passengers First.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 191
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Our members get a sense that the industry is taking up smartcard systems in an ad-hoc way, largely as a
consequence of the costs involved.
Where operators are embracing the technology, they are developing systems tailored to their individual
needs, rather than with a view to developing an integrated system.
4. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
In the provinces, yes. Electronic ticket machines mean that passengers pay the correct fare for the journey
undertaken. Problems arise with smartcards, which rely on the passenger’s honesty to swipe their cards.
Problems also exist on articulated buses, where there is more than one entrance.
There are problems on trains, where tickets are not checked. Train operators find installing ticket barriers
at stations cheaper than employing guards, which is unfortunate, given the important role that guards play
in ensuring safety <strong>and</strong> security on board the trains.
5. Is the government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
As stated in the introduction, we do welcome the government’s commitment to concessionary travel, but
should be free to the over 60s at all times, integrated with other modes <strong>and</strong> available throughout the nations
of the UK. This should be fully funded by the Government <strong>and</strong> administered at a local level. Our members
report that some authorities are being forced to cut bus services to pay for concessionary fares, which is
clearly self-defeating.
6. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
<strong>Concessionary</strong> fares should be free across all modes of transport at all times. There is still a postcode
lottery, where neighbouring local authorities oVer diVerent schemes. The majority of shire counties oVer one
scheme, but in some, like Leicestershire, the district councils have diVerent schemes. Problems can arise in
unitary authorities eg between Nottingham <strong>and</strong> Nottinghamshire.
It would be more eYcient <strong>and</strong> reduce bureaucracy if the funding for concessionary fares was paid direct
to county councils <strong>and</strong> PTEs.
Free concessionary travel should also be available where taxi operators take over the provision of public
transport in rural areas.
March 2007
Introduction
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Cheshire County Council (TPT 40)
The attached paper addresses the issues outlined in the 8 February Press Notice, from the point of view
of Cheshire County Council. There is a strong emphasis in the paper on the County Council’s unique success
in utilising relevant powers to develop <strong>and</strong> operate a commercially interoperable smartcard-based bus
ticketing scheme, on the pioneering application of the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard to that scheme, <strong>and</strong> on the impact of
Government strategy on the statutory concessionary fares scheme. The Cheshire concessionary scheme also
covers Halton <strong>and</strong> Warrington Unitary Councils.
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
1.1 No. There are only a few journeys where passengers can use diVerent modes by buying a single ticket.
These include the national “PlusBus” rail add-on product (in Cheshire currently only available in Chester),
<strong>and</strong> two “Ranger” services entering Cheshire from Derbyshire <strong>and</strong> the Peak District.
1.2 On bus services, outside the Chester area a small number of oVers are made which allow a single ticket
to be used on a number of operators’ services, such as the “Sunday Adventurer”. Where the County Council
has tendered services, there are a number of successfully negotiated arrangements for the contractor to
accept the tickets of the main operator on the route.

Ev 192 Transport Committee: Evidence
1.3 In the Chester area, the County Council’s Chester <strong>Travel</strong>card scheme has been operational since July
2002 <strong>and</strong> provides a unique, commercially interoperable smartcard-based bus ticketing scheme. This allows
passengers access to the services of four main participating operators through a range of zone-based pass
products, in addition to a stored value purse. The scheme was derived in response to a heavily sectorised
bus network which disadvantaged cross-city trips implying more than one operator, <strong>and</strong> was established
under Transport Act 2000 powers, utilising the Public Transport <strong>Ticketing</strong> Schemes Block Exemption Order
2001 in its reconciliation basis. As it oVers a stored value purse, the scheme also holds a small e-money issuer
certificate under Financial Services <strong>and</strong> Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 The technology basis for the integration of ticketing systems, including between modes via the ITSO
st<strong>and</strong>ard, is clearly comprehensive <strong>and</strong> capable of accommodating not only statutory (concessionary travel)
functionality, but the addition of commercial ticketing products <strong>and</strong> related functionality (such as the cohosting
of other transport (eg charging or tolling) <strong>and</strong> non-transport (e.g. tourism) functions.
2.2 The available statutory basis for the integration of ticketing systems has been shown by the Chester
<strong>Travel</strong>card scheme to be suYcient for the purpose, <strong>and</strong> capable of satisfying the participation requirements
of major national bus operating groups. However, in the general case outside the established scheme, the
competition implications of multi-operator ticketing—<strong>and</strong> the penalties for non-compliance—have on
occasion been shown to reduce operator willingness to enter into “collaborative” schemes.
2.3 Outside the concessionary case, the strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems suVers
from an inability of local authorities to enforce participation. Currently, participation is voluntary <strong>and</strong> relies
on a perceived commercial benefit on the part of the participant. For this reason, in the absence of significant
grant assistance towards equipment, software <strong>and</strong> systems, business cases are perceived as being extremely
weak <strong>and</strong> participation is conditioned accordingly. It should also be noted that in the case of local
authorities, the necessary knowledge <strong>and</strong> resource to develop such schemes may be lacking, or may not be
justified against the potential outcomes. In Cheshire, the justification is in pursuit of broad Local Transport
Plan policies relating to accessibility <strong>and</strong> ease of use of public transport.
2.4 The County Council’s concessionary travel scheme is under-developed compared with large
conurbations such as Greater Manchester <strong>and</strong> Merseyside. Any Government strategy needs to take into
consideration the needs of travellers from <strong>and</strong> within rural areas.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
3.1 If “The industry” is defined in its broadest sense (ie the entire operator, regulatory <strong>and</strong> local authority
spectrum), then it is true that modern smartcard technology is being taken up, although at diVerent rates in
diVerent areas.
3.2 Cheshire County Council’s <strong>Travel</strong>card scheme was selected <strong>and</strong> part-funded by DfT (with
Southampton City Council’s university travel scheme <strong>and</strong> Nottinghamshire County Council’s
concessionary scheme) as a successful existing scheme for development to the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard. To date, these
three “Legacy” schemes have undertaken extensive pioneering work into the application of the St<strong>and</strong>ard,
dealing with the problems encountered in establishing systems <strong>and</strong> practices, <strong>and</strong> the benefits of this are now
available to other local authorities. Cheshire has had its first live end-to-end ITSO implementation phase
in operation since December 2006, in Crewe.
3.3 In addition, Cheshire is contracted to DfT to host a research investigation into “low-cost” transport
smartcards, which is expected to provide evidence of additional applications <strong>and</strong> distribution opportunities
that would act to promote the take-up of transport smartcards.
3.4 As well as enhanced travel <strong>and</strong> product flexibility, the benefits of modern smartcard technologies to
all concerned in the accumulation of reliable transaction data <strong>and</strong> the prevention of fraud (particularly in
cases where travel entitlement is given) are readily appreciated. Although there are precedents for
proprietary operator smartcard-based schemes, we underst<strong>and</strong> that general take-up by operators may
present a perceived weak business case due to the significant capital investment required.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
4.1 Yes. Our experience with the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard demonstrates that it provides a comprehensive basis for
the establishment of integrated ticketing solutions, which can be multi-modal. It provides an open platform
<strong>and</strong> certification system for access by a range of suppliers, <strong>and</strong> retains a structure enabling it to maintain
the potential to evolve with the addition of ticketing scheme equipment <strong>and</strong> systems, <strong>and</strong> card media.
4.2 Significantly, the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard presents the broader potential <strong>and</strong> flexibility for satisfactorily
accommodating not only statutory (concessionary travel) functionality, but of expansion into commercial
ticketing products <strong>and</strong> related functionality (such as the co-hosting of other transport (eg charging or

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 193
tolling) <strong>and</strong> non-transport (eg tourism) functions. These areas aVect the majority of public transport users
(ie not only concession holders) <strong>and</strong> open the possibility of oVering products that are clearly complementary
to the underlying travel basis. For example, the ability to provide visitor entitlements, including associated
travel <strong>and</strong> admission entitlement, in an integrated <strong>and</strong> fully reconcilable framework, oVers the ability to
contribute constructively to a variety of policy objectives, in areas such as economic development, tourism
<strong>and</strong> accessibility.
4.3 It is significant that the established statutory basis for the Chester <strong>Travel</strong>card scheme has been
demonstrated to possess the flexibility for geographic <strong>and</strong> functional expansion, <strong>and</strong> to continue to provide
a sound basis for the existing scheme as well as its ITSO development.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
5.1 In London, growth of the successful Oyster scheme demonstrates clearly the potential for such
schemes, when promoted within a stable, regulated environment. Outside the London regulatory
framework, the volatility in particular of the commercial bus network represents a material disincentive to
the development of integrated ticketing schemes <strong>and</strong> the ability to ensure operator participation in them.
5.2 Oyster also clearly demonstrates the technological capability <strong>and</strong> robustness of the requisite
equipment <strong>and</strong> card media, although it does not demonstrate the application of the ITSO st<strong>and</strong>ard.
5.3 In Scotl<strong>and</strong>, there is a single pilot scheme in Shetl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> although a procurement framework exists,
smartcard technology is not yet generally in place. However, the introduction process for the national
concessionary travel card demonstrates the potential for beginning with card procurement <strong>and</strong> subsequently
building the host scheme. The ability of local authorities to act in unison under a national aegis provides
evidence of the eVectiveness of joint procurement routes <strong>and</strong> the accommodation of individual identities,
<strong>and</strong> of the consequent eVect on the market for suppliers of items of ticketing systems <strong>and</strong> equipment.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> The Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
6.1 The County Council’s inspectors do not exercise any powers to penalise passengers. They are
instructed to report any issues of this nature to the company. Bus companies in Cheshire engage their own
inspectors.
6.2 Under the Cheshire Districts <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Scheme, County Council inspectors monitor the
scheme. Any issues discovered here are reported to the operator.
6.3 The legal framework appears to us to be adequate to carry out our due diligence requirements.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
7.1 This is primarily an issue for the bus operators.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
8.1 We cannot comment on this.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
9.1 We cannot comment on this.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 In introducing the current Cheshire scheme there have been a number of issues which raise questions
about the strategy for the introduction of the scheme:
Need for support from the Department for Transport
10.2 As administrators <strong>and</strong> brokers of the scheme, the County Council experienced a number of major
obstacles in negotiating an agreement between the bus operators <strong>and</strong> District Councils. The target of April
2006 was challenging but achievable. While the target was achieved in Cheshire, it would have been helped
by more support from the DfT. For example guidance to operate the scheme did not come out until
December 2005. The published guidance gave local authorities a methodology for working out the

Ev 194 Transport Committee: Evidence
reimbursement which was a source of debate rather than a point of reference to resolve disputes in
negotiation. Even after authorities have received judgements on appeals by the bus operators they still did
not know how much to pay their operators.
10.3 Because the situation has been fast moving, DfT have not been able to answer questions in a
consistent <strong>and</strong> unambiguous way. For example one of the basic concepts of the legislation is that it should
be an objective for the operators to be in a position where they are “no better <strong>and</strong> no worse oV”. This can
be interpreted in a number of ways <strong>and</strong> some operators may have exploited the lack of guidance.
10.4 It would have been helpful to have support from central Government to enable local authorities to
develop a coherent negotiating position. For example in the run up to the new scheme local authorities could
have been oVered funding to employ their own technical <strong>and</strong> legal experts to help them in the negotiations
<strong>and</strong> administration of the schemes. Some kind of information channel could then have been opened up to
enable local authorities to compare notes on the negotiating position they are adopting. Instead the local
authorities have had to resort to phoning round, informal networks etc. Again all this adds to the
administrative overload. For the simple issue of reimbursement there is an alarming variety of
reimbursement formulae. For example:
— Fixed fee schemes such as Nottinghamshire <strong>and</strong> Derbyshire.
— Mileage based schemes such as Surrey.
— Capped schemes such as Essex (now declared illegal).
— Uncapped journey based schemes at a variety of diVerent rates (such as ours, Torbay <strong>and</strong> StaVs).
— “Pooled” schemes such as Merseyside.
— Uncapped in-district schemes with a diVerent reimbursement formula for out of district
concessions.
In some cases this confusion has been to the advantage of the bus operators but in most it has served the
interests of neither side.
10.5 On the other h<strong>and</strong> the bus operators have, after an initial hiatus, through the CPT developed a welloiled
machine with the legal <strong>and</strong> technical resources to fight appeals <strong>and</strong> to dictate the agenda over the
benefits of the scheme as outlined below.
Distribution of funds
10.6 The Cheshire Scheme could have given the operators an adequate settlement had all the money been
allocated to the county tier of Government. There were legislative obstacles to this. The DfT did not have
a mechanism to distribute the funding <strong>and</strong> gave the responsibility to the erstwhile ODPM, now the
Department of Communities <strong>and</strong> Local Government. The formula that was then arrived at was based
largely on variables such as population which only have an indirect link to bus use <strong>and</strong> therefore the levels
of reimbursement required. As a result in most two tier areas that we are aware of at least one district has
been overprovided for <strong>and</strong> one underprovided for. In Cheshire’s case for the 2006-07 settlement:
— Chester City Council received £775,000 but need £1.5 million to meet their share of the costs. Even
with the revenue they had allocated in previous years they only had a “kitty” of £1.25 million,
£250,000 short.
— Congleton Borough Council received £444,000 but only need £344,000 to meet their share. They
therefore have a £100,000 surplus <strong>and</strong> keep the £100,000 they contributed in previous years.
10.7 This problem is compounded by the fact that the revenue is not ring fenced <strong>and</strong>, in spite of it being
suggested numerous times, there is no willingness by the districts to pool the cash.
10.8 In addition the subtleties of concessionary fares financial issues are outside the experience of many
District Treasurers. Due to the relatively small size of District Council budgets, the variance <strong>and</strong> uncertainty
on the concessionary scheme may represent a very high proportional variance. Because of the findings of
the independent arbitrator, their preferred option of capping the risk by oVering a fixed reimbursement has
been disallowed. The fact is that there is considerable financial risk as the level of reimbursement required
is subject to changes in the level of dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> that there is no way of capping these. In the first years of
the operation of a new scheme, this is subject to considerable volatility, which is a challenge to District
Councils which are on fixed budgets. The scheme has of course been so successful that bills are tending to
rise. In Cheshire this is a marked contrast to previous experience when costs of the half fare scheme have
risen only gradually over the 20 years the scheme has operated.
10.9 For 2007–08, the money to pay for concessionary fares (with the addition of 5% for inflation) is no
longer itemised separately in the FSG settlement. This follows the pattern of the Government revenue
funding for the previous half fare scheme where the purpose of the funding is not transparent.

Confusion over what local authorities are expected to deliver
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 195
10.10 One of the points the bus operators make is that there is suYcient money in the pot to deliver what
the Chancellor promised in March 2005: free in-district oV-peak travel. There seems to be a move on their
part to impose this <strong>and</strong> appeal against schemes which oVer enhanced benefits. In Cheshire if the new scheme
had delivered just this, concessionaires would have a scheme which was worse than the previous half fare
scheme. They would lose all cross boundary <strong>and</strong> cross border travel <strong>and</strong> any peak time concessions. For the
scheme to deliver something eVective, cross boundary travel is required where for a significant minority the
nearest market town, hospital or other facility is in the next District. A hybrid of free up to the district
boundary <strong>and</strong> half fare thereafter would have left everyone involved with an administrative nightmare. Even
from the bus operators’ point of view their drivers would be faced with confusion over what concessions to
oVer passengers for each journey. Our estimate is that non-statutory concessionary travel accounts for only
16.5% of the total. If only statutory concessionary fares were available there would also be some transfer as
passengers chose the free alternative.
10.11 The DfT has described these additional benefits as enhancements which should be funded locally.
This shifts the problem on to local authorities <strong>and</strong> has added to the burden of administering <strong>and</strong> negotiating
the scheme.
10.12 The introduction of the national scheme goes some way towards ameliorating this problem but
local authorities will still have to consider maintaining any existing concessions at peak times.
Suggested requirements for the new scheme
10.13 We are less than one year away from the second major change in the scheme in two years. Again
it looks as though the burden for shaping the future scheme will rest with local authorities <strong>and</strong> the support
<strong>and</strong> guidance which needs to be there may again be lacking, late or confusing. We suggest that the following
ought to be considered for the 2008-09 scheme:
10.13.1 Transferring the responsibility <strong>and</strong> funding (including the funding for the half fare scheme) to
the higher tier of local government in two tier areas. We underst<strong>and</strong> that the Department for
communities <strong>and</strong> Local Government has already begun preliminary discussions for the
national scheme based on the current formula. A change in the responsible level of local
government is allowed for in the current Bill but urgent decisions have to be taken if it is to
happen by 2008–09.
10.13.2 Adequate funding to be made available in this financial year to fund pass re-issue <strong>and</strong> the
development of new systems to manage the national scheme.
10.13.3 The Government to take over the responsibility for reimbursement at a national level.
10.13.4 An agreed national rate of reimbursement to operators to be negotiated.
10.13.5 The Government to reimburse local authorities against verified operator claims <strong>and</strong> legitimate
costs for setting up the new scheme.
10.13.6 Discussion with local authority representatives how part of the Government funding can go
to giving them eVective legal <strong>and</strong> technical support <strong>and</strong> much better information.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent
geographical areas?
11.1 The maintenance of a Cheshire-wide concessionary fares scheme for over 20 years has assisted
integration on bus travel for the people of Cheshire. The current scheme allows for concessions for all
journeys beginning or ending in the County.
11.2 However there are a number of significant cross border <strong>and</strong> multi-modal issues:
11.2.1 The County has a long border with Wales. The Welsh scheme is more generous than other
schemes in that it oVers free travel at all times. The reimbursement formula is also more generous
than English schemes in that a higher “generation factor” is paid <strong>and</strong> compensation is based on
single fares rather than taking into account the eVects of returns <strong>and</strong> day tickets.
11.2.2 There is considerable cross border travel with Merseyside using both rail <strong>and</strong> bus. In the initial
transition from the half fare to the full scheme, there was some confusion about passengers’
entitlements but this has been resolved. However post April 2008, diVerent reimbursement
formulas could have an impact on the smooth running of the scheme. This goes beyond the
Welsh issue where the rates are diVerent but the basis for calculation is the same. Merseyside
pay a fixed amount for all operators <strong>and</strong> divide up the “pot” based on survey information. The
problems are exacerbated by the extent of cross border operations by the larger operators.
11.2.3 Cross border links with other areas outside Cheshire are more limited although there are some
issues centring on entitlements to travel. For example the StaVordshire scheme entitles
passengers to free journeys at all times. This can lead to confusion as passengers think that their
entitlement extends beyond their County boundaries.

Ev 196 Transport Committee: Evidence
11.2.4 The principal multi-modal issue is bus-rail. Cheshire has 47 stations but local journeys are
dominated by bus. Most Cheshire districts oVer discounted over-60s railcards <strong>and</strong> rail vouchers
for disabled people but this is the limit of concessionary fares activity.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Eric Martlew MP (TPT 42)
Copy of Letter sent to Eric Martlew MP Regarding <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares from the Town Clerk &
Chief Executive, Carlisle City Council
Dear Ms XXXX
Re <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Options for distributing specific grant for 2008 free “National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares
Scheme”
I refer to your request for comments on the four options being considered for the distribution of specific
grant <strong>and</strong> would comment as follows:
The basis of the grant distribution should take account of:
— The prospective eligible take-up by persons qualifying for the scheme, which will be more in
urban areas.
— Factors that might encourage bus patronage such as shopping centres, attractions increasing
tourist travel to <strong>and</strong> from the area etc.
— The level of bus services provided <strong>and</strong> their destinations, which will influence take up.
Of the four options available I believe option 1 <strong>and</strong> option 4 best meet these criteria ie
Option 1 includes:
— Day visitors, although the information to be used is very old (1991). This is an existing factor in
RSG calculations <strong>and</strong> may be replaced by an “Attractiveness of an Area to Day Visitors” factor
in the RSG calculation in future years.
— Incapacity Benefit <strong>and</strong> Severe Disablement Allowance. Again an existing factor in RSG
calculations.
— Net In-Commuters, reflecting bus patronage.
— Density Area Up-lift to reflect the number of potential destinations available, useful for tourist
related travel, although it is doubtful how relevant it is for local travel.
Option 4 includes:
— Eligible population, obviously helpful to assess the scale of the potential take-up of the revised
scheme.
— Passenger journeys on buses. This is the only indicator within the two options based on locally
provided data <strong>and</strong> is provided by the County Council.
— Overnight visitors—to reflect the potential for travel in tourist areas.
— Retail floor space—to reflect the potential dem<strong>and</strong> for travel to out of town <strong>and</strong> principal shopping
centres. Presumably as the major centre within the area this would benefit Carlisle with in flow
from outside the area <strong>and</strong> cost Carlisle for return journeys.
Unfortunately when the attributes contained in the four options are given values/calculated (based on
your definitions) <strong>and</strong> are presented in cost terms the resulting grant distributed at second tier level is at odds
with the actual pensioner ridership/remuneration to operators.
This is due to the fact that information on ‘say’ passenger ridership is obtained from the Transport
Authority <strong>and</strong> then pro-rata based on population rather than actual district ridership trends.
Cumbria ridership statistics compared with potential grant distribution illustrates the inequitable nature
of using transport authority data <strong>and</strong> then pro rataing it down to district (second tier) level.
Ridership Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
2007–08 * £000 £000 £000 £000
Allerdale 632,843 195 127 187 465
Barrow 1,145,796 253 212 219 222
Carlisle 2,132,664 397 289 395 403
Copel<strong>and</strong> 492,869 222 153 211 203
Eden 68,346 93 118 98 325
S Lakel<strong>and</strong> 507,822 231 176 216 766
*Based on April to October 2007 trends.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 197
Urban Authorities (Carlisle in above table) with up to 30 times the passenger ridership levels due to well
developed bus networks get similar levels of grant (or less grant) as small rural authorities (Eden <strong>and</strong> South
Lakel<strong>and</strong>) with very few buses <strong>and</strong> therefore insignificant concessionary ridership.
The only way to redress this major flaw, (which is the reason why urban authorities (in two tier Authority
areas) are in such financial diYculties in meeting the net cost (after grant) of the 2006 free scheme.) is to
distribute the grant to the Transport Authority rather than individual districts.
Broadly there is likely to be enough specific grant to fund the 2008 enhanced <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme
but unless distributed to the Transport Authority (based on options under consideration) there will be very
big winners (small rural authorities) <strong>and</strong> big losers (urban authorities). Due to the flaw in the calculation
the problems being experienced by urban authorities in funding the 2006 Scheme (£0.5 million overspend
or 8.3% of net budget requirement by Carlisle) will become even more of a problem from 1 April 2008.
Finally if the Department for Transport have come to the view that funding the cost of the enhanced
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme by specific grant is the way forward, surely this should also be the view for
grant funding for the 2006 scheme currently funded via RSG.
I trust the above comments will influence you in deciding on the most equitable way to distribute specific
grant to help fund the 2008 Free “National” <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Scheme.
November 2007
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Transport Salaried StaVs Association (TSSA) (TPT 43)
1. When TSSA Assistant General Secretary, Manuel Cortes, gave oral evidence to the Committee on 5
December 2007, he undertook to try to provide some information on the high profile, multi-agency
approach to fighting crime on public transport in Greater London (Operation Lockstock). Set out below is
information subsequently provided by the British Transport Police:
Operation Lockstock ran from 6 November 2006 to 5 January 2007 targeting assaults on staV
within the London Boroughs. The Operation was organised in partnership with the London
Criminal Justice Board <strong>and</strong> Crown Prosecution Service <strong>and</strong> was underpinned by a Memo of
Underst<strong>and</strong>ing between the CPS <strong>and</strong> BTP to ensure that assaults on staV are appropriately dealt
with. Although the Operation has finished the BTP/CPS protocol continues to ensure appropriate
action is taken in staV assault cases.
The table below summarises performance during the two month period. Recorded crime increased
by 40% <strong>and</strong> detections increased by 3.7% on the same period last year.
RECORDED STAFF ASSAULTS AND SANCTIONED DETECTIONS
06/11/06 TO 05/01/07 WITHIN METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS
Sanction %age Sanction
Crimes Detections Detections
London North 43 27 62.8
London South 78 31 39.7
London Underground 178 71 39.9
Total 2006–07 299 129 43.1
2005–06 total 213 84 39.4
Increase on 2005–06 86 45 3.7
It is believed that the increase in recorded crime may be due to increased confidence of staV after
extensive publicity for the operation.
BTP rolled out the use of conditional cautions as an additional disposal for cases of common
assault against rail staV in London. The BTP will complete a full roll-out of conditional cautions
in London at the same time as the MPS, <strong>and</strong> nationally it will be rolled out, piecemeal’ in line with
the local police force.
During the operation, nine oVences were dealt with by conditional caution. All oVenders were
required to write a letter of apology to the victim <strong>and</strong> were required to pay compensation (eight
cases were required to pay £50 <strong>and</strong> one case £75). There has been 100% compliance with the
conditions to date.

Ev 198 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. It is our underst<strong>and</strong>ing that the increase in clear-up rates were better for more serious crimes than the
overall all figure of 3.7% <strong>and</strong> TSSA particularly welcomes this improvement.
3. A similar operation has recently concluded (5 January 2008) <strong>and</strong> information should be available
shortly.
January 2008
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from Merseytravel (TPT 28A)
As promised, I am responding to various questions raised by the Committee on 5 December 2007, it was
asked what the percentage of TCAs is who already have smartcards.
Question 32
All TCAs will be issuing new concessionary passes in the form of ITSO compliant smartcards, (this
excludes the London Boroughs who have been given an exemption by the Department of Transport until
2010).
There are a number of TCA areas where smartcards have already been implemented. Some of the Smart
card schemes are, what has been described as legacy schemes, that is those that are now compliant with <strong>and</strong>
therefore cannot work with the new concession passes. These have been considered as though they are not
smart in this response, as the new passes will have to be used as flash passes.
ITSO Services Limited has been set up to look after those TCAs who do not have an ITSO compliant
back oYce. The number of TCAs who are expected to or have signed up to this service, <strong>and</strong> who are therefore
considered to be non-ITSO-smart is 253.
The remaining TCAs are or will be soon ITSO compliant <strong>and</strong> are therefore in process of rolling out ITSO
compliant equipment to their busses. On a percentage basis this probably accounts for between 5% <strong>and</strong> 10%
of the bus population of Engl<strong>and</strong> (depending on what defining you use for buses <strong>and</strong> for the total bus
market); around 4,500 buses, expected to be equipped by, say, end 2008. Further take up will depend on
how well Government “encourages” TCAs, <strong>and</strong> their bus operators, to equip their buses with ITSO
compliant smart card equipment.
With the right encouragement it would be possible to have all of the country so equipped within five to
seven years, without causing any major skewing of the equipment market.
Question 53
The Chairman asked for a guide to smartcard types:
There are basically two types of contactless smartcard. These are “memory” cards <strong>and</strong> “microprocessor”
cards.
Memory cards do not contain a processor <strong>and</strong> are therefore only able to store “data” on them. All of the
intelligence (<strong>and</strong> security) is put into the [contactless] smartcard reader. These smartcards come in various
sizes. ITSO has several memory cards in its portfolio of useable card types. Most, but not all of these, are
based on Mifare,R technology. They range is size from about 250 bytes (or characters), of data up to 4
Kilobytes (around 4,000 characters of data). They are usually lower cost than micro-processor cards because
they only contain “memory” <strong>and</strong> do not have any processing capability.
Micro-processor cards are, as their name implies, equipped with a small processor on them. They can
therefore run “applets” (micro-processor speak for programs) that enable them to do more than the basic
memory cards can. They can contain more than one application that can be invoked by the card reader
calling the application via an application identifier. They can be much bigger than memory cards, but
typically in contactless smartcard <strong>and</strong> transport applications they tend to be around 4 Kilobytes in size.
Some of the older types of micro-processor cards can be quite slow.
ITSO can work with either or the above types of contactless smart cards. (There are eight defined types
of contactless smartcard media available in the ITSO Specification.) This is one of the selling points of the
ITSO Specification in that implementers can mix <strong>and</strong> match card types according to the needs of the scheme
<strong>and</strong> of the customer. This includes pretty much every smartcard that is manufactured to the ISO 144443
contactless smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard.

Question 68
Timings of Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO.
This is actually in my view a red herring!
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 199
1. In the first place it is my underst<strong>and</strong>ing that not all transactions within Oyster are done in 200
milliseconds or less. (Apocryphal evidence suggests that some take nearly a second).
2. Secondly Oyster is a closed system with a closed security system. ITSO is interoperable <strong>and</strong> has
therefore to have a peer reviewed security that is capable of much wider use. This will inevitably have a small
impact on transaction times.
3. Thirdly ITSO has a range of smart cards (see above) in its stables <strong>and</strong> some of these are indeed slower
than Oyster, but some are the same platform as Oyster <strong>and</strong> would therefore be expected to be of similar
speed to Oyster.
4. Fourthly, the Department for Transport’s own research has suggested that a transaction time of
anything up to one second is quite acceptable as users of smartcards tend, when they touch their smartcards
to the reader, to leave the smart card in the field for anything up to 1 second. This also is quicker than the
time taken for a magnetic ticket to pass through the magnetic ticket transport (<strong>and</strong> much more reliable).
5. Fifthly users, so long as they are provided with a visual or aural “go”, signal will actually modify their
behaviour (within reason) so that the pass works. (It is much less hassle for it to work than to have to “seek
assistance”.) This is eminently shown in London where some individual transactions take much longer
than others.
ITSO therefore believes that majoring on transaction times is obfuscation, when all of the available
evidence suggests that so long as a transaction is properly completed within less than one second (<strong>and</strong> ITSO’s
benchmark is less than 600 milliseconds). Certainly in London, replacing magnetic tickets with smartcards
would give transaction throughput benefits for everyone. It would be win-win for both users <strong>and</strong> for TfL.
Related to Q84
(The Encyclopaedia Britannica of Buses)
The question relates to fraud. Experience has shown that when a new type of equipment is installed for
the first time in an area revenue tends to increase, with no other changes, by between 10% <strong>and</strong> 15%. This
then tends to fall away as time goes on. One possible explanation that has been given is that this is because
a new ticket machine makes everyone “more honest” until the new machine (<strong>and</strong> its quirks) become known.
This therefore suggests that underlying general losses to unknown events (such as customers not paying or
overriding etc) is to the order of 10% to 15%.
As was inferred in the written evidence in many cases the re-imbursement of concessionary fares does not
relate directly to individual journeys but is related to the results of surveys.
In relation to the previous section (Q83) there is no requirement for personal data to be written into the
card. This data can all be held securely in the back oYce, as currently. The Department for Transport has
provided guidance to TCAs on this in its bulletins.
I trust that this is of assistance to the Committee, please let me know if you need anything else.
January 2008
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from P G Rayner (TPT 44)
The Position as at Early March 2008.
A Personal View: P G Rayner.
Having been actively involved now for over 10 years I am mindful that in some senses “I know too much”
<strong>and</strong> have as a consequence tried to restrict this comment to essentials.
Firstly as the recent history is important if one is to underst<strong>and</strong> the development of concessionary travel
it should be noted for more than 20 years some communities have provided free or reduced rate travel for
their older citizens <strong>and</strong> for those with mobility diYculties. However it was not until the Transport Act 2000
that the half price bus fares were made m<strong>and</strong>atory <strong>and</strong> some of the funding was provided centrally. This
was received with mixed feelings <strong>and</strong> immediately one could see that only those authorities who believed in
the value of such schemes implemented the system without political back biting <strong>and</strong> resistance. This has its
roots in party politics but the pattern has never revealed that to be too much of an influence for many places
out of sympathy with national government of the day have good <strong>and</strong> generous schemes.
So the Transport Act 2000 made some money available but because that was a long time ago <strong>and</strong> the
money was, <strong>and</strong> is, mingled in with the general grants <strong>and</strong> not ring fenced it exists but is frequently forgotten
when the debates rage on how much money this or that authority gets.

Ev 200 Transport Committee: Evidence
Next in 2002 the EU ruled that men should not be discriminated against <strong>and</strong> be eligible aged 60 same as
women <strong>and</strong> money was also provided in the general grant <strong>and</strong> again not ring fenced for that purpose. That
equalising of gender had some disbenefits for a considerable number of men were still at work <strong>and</strong> used the
pass to go to <strong>and</strong> fro, quite legally but it brought forward the statement that the pass was essentially for
leisure <strong>and</strong> pleasure, provided for persons on a pensionable income. That was the start of the “Perk” rather
than “Freedom Pass” as an essential right debate which I shall come back to later.
In his Budget speech of 2005 the then Chancellor announced free bus travel for pensioners to commence
in April 2006 which is the scheme in operation as I sit here on a sunny Sunday morning boring you all with
this. Whilst it was well intentioned <strong>and</strong> it would be churlish to complain the scheme did cause considerable
confusion. The key words “Bus Only” <strong>and</strong> “Local” meant that diVerent authorities interpreted it in diVerent
ways. Some improved on that minimum, others restricted existing schemes of value to pensioners to pay for
the m<strong>and</strong>atory bus free pass which they were obliged to provide. I have over 50 examples of anomalies with
regard to application covering many aspects of the scheme but to list them would be of little value.
£212 million was the figure Central Government put towards this <strong>and</strong> on funding again many arguments
took place about how fair or unfair the allocation was. Again I could quote many examples, over 20 at least.
SuYcient to say the money was not ring fenced <strong>and</strong> it was used in diVerent ways.
These problems are still ongoing but as it will change yet again in a few weeks time I will move to the 2008
position. In doing so may I remind you that NPC in the Pensioner Charter says: “Free nationwide travel on
ALL public <strong>and</strong> local Transport”.
Again in his Budget speech of 2006 the then Chancellor announced free travel nationwide from April
2008. This fundamental change required an Act of Parliament. We therefore examined the Bill as it passed
through both Houses of Parliament <strong>and</strong> proposed for The Bus <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Bill (Engl<strong>and</strong>) several
amendments to improve what we saw as shortcomings. One needs to note the words “Bus” <strong>and</strong> “Engl<strong>and</strong>”
in the title. We essentially wished to broaden the definition from Bus to Public Service Vehicle but our eVorts
were in vain. We had a number of other amendments <strong>and</strong> concerns but again space prevents my listing them.
When it was clear we would get no change to the Act I along with our President Frank Cooper was able
to see the Minister Rosie Winterton MP <strong>and</strong> leave with her <strong>and</strong> her advisers a detailed document. Part of
that document is given below so you should see that we have tried to cover everything we can reasonably
cover without appearing too unappreciative of the intention.
There will still be no equality across the country, <strong>and</strong> even across Engl<strong>and</strong>. The exclusion of train, tram,
Metro <strong>and</strong> Underground means confusion <strong>and</strong> uncertainty when people with the new Nationwide Bus Pass
travel within large conurbations.
The potential exclusion of Dial-a-Ride/Taxi Card from the concession remains a genuine concern, not
withst<strong>and</strong>ing Clause 8 which suggests a future Secretary of State could add entitlements <strong>and</strong> modes of
transport. Many older <strong>and</strong> disabled people are unable to use the buses for obvious reasons.
It is also unclear how the Government can agree with another EU State (Republic of Irel<strong>and</strong>) on the issue
of cross border bus, train <strong>and</strong> tram travel for older persons, when the arrangements with Wales <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>
are unclear for bus only.
Likewise, the anomaly that enables a Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> pensioner to cross into southern Irel<strong>and</strong>, but
prevents them from travelling within the rest of the UK, also needs to be addressed.
Local authorities in tourist areas have claimed they will receive insuYcient additional funding for the new
scheme, because it ignores the extra dem<strong>and</strong> that will be generated by older tourists visiting the area.
Teignmouth for example claim they will receive £1.1 million, but need double. Is this genuine concern part
of the overall funding formula? NPC believes local businesses in such resorts benefit from the influx of
Pensioners <strong>and</strong> this cross benefit should be recognised.
The NPC continues to have diYculty in reconciling the claims of the former Secretary of State during
debate that free travel would be allowed, “. . . for example from Cornwall to Cambridgeshire or from Durham
to Dorset” with the fact that coaches will only be obliged to provide the National Concession where their
routes have stops less than 15 miles apart.
It is also unclear whether Park <strong>and</strong> Ride or Tour Buses are included in the concession.
The financial formula is clearly complicated <strong>and</strong> open to diVerent interpretations; which has lead to many
councils already using the pensioner travel issue as a reason for possible Council Tax rises. However,
evidence from Wales suggests that there has been a 10% increase in paid for travel since the introduction of
free travel. Such cross benefits must therefore be used more often to challenge costs.
The NPC also notes that pensioner free travel on trains on the Heart of Wales’s line <strong>and</strong> on the Conwy
Valley has doubled the passengers using the routes <strong>and</strong> some trains have had to be increased in length. The
Heart of Wales Forum stated: “We are seeing over a 1,000 extra journeys a week <strong>and</strong> by encouraging people
to use Public Transport we achieve a number of benefits. Firstly we provide mobility to the many that do not
have access to a car, <strong>and</strong> secondly we are bringing business to the many small communities along the line who
depend on tourism <strong>and</strong> doing this without adding to road congestion”. (Source: Western Mail). The NPC is
therefore concerned that more prominence should be given to these multi modal benefits.

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 201
<strong>Travel</strong> to get to early GP <strong>and</strong> hospital appointments (before 9.30 am) do need separate funding <strong>and</strong>
separate finance. Since the health of the nation’s older people would improve with the inclusion that free
travel allows, then the health services must either give later appointments or separately fund the travel.
There are a number of key issues upon which the Act is unclear. For example Bus travel where there is
more than 15 miles between fare stage stops are not local travel. The position on Dial a Ride <strong>and</strong> Taxi Card
is unclear. Wales Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Irel<strong>and</strong> are excluded <strong>and</strong> yet enjoy themselves other benefits. So from 1April
2008, three weeks time there will still be some areas of uncertainty.
What is clear however is that the Act states Nationwide (Engl<strong>and</strong>) Bus only <strong>and</strong> after 9.30 am. In essence
that is what the government is funding <strong>and</strong> all the Act guarantees. Another £250 million pounds is being
allocated for this extra pensioner movement outside their home localities. I know of course that we all get
something diVerent, many of us because there is no peak travel have no time restrictions, <strong>and</strong> others get
Train, Tram <strong>and</strong> Underground. Everywhere we look it is diVerent.
What to me is the easiest way to describe the position from April 2008 is to say that what you get in your
home location you are not entitled to when you travel away. Your local Bus pass when you get say to
London or Birmingham or Manchester will still only get you on the buses <strong>and</strong> after 9.30 am. Likewise the
large conurbation pensioner when leaving London etc will only get Bus only <strong>and</strong> after 9.30 am away
from home.
Let’s consider the funding since it is such a contentious issue <strong>and</strong> the background to all the bad press <strong>and</strong>
misunderst<strong>and</strong>ings. Remember the 2000 Act money is still in there somewhere <strong>and</strong> along with the extra built
into the grants for the 2002 “men equality of age eligibility” is also still there somewhere. Add to that the
£212 million for the existing concessions <strong>and</strong> the £250 million extra for this April, some ring fenced but not
entirely <strong>and</strong> you have a right old muddle allowing any politician, however straight <strong>and</strong> fair, to pray in aid
shortages. It is a melange of formulae <strong>and</strong> they do not know in my view where they are. In addition there has
always been some local money for most council’s value to some degree the older people in the community. So
that enables Government to say over a £1 billion is put towards pensioner travel.
By querying <strong>and</strong> questions in an attempt to get clarification we are in danger of being seen as ungrateful.
It is clear to me that there will be many places where older people will be unsure of their entitlements at
home <strong>and</strong> away on 1 April. NPC will issue a clarification document <strong>and</strong> this paper is a first attempt to get
the factors down in one document.
Next the Bus Companies themselves are causing a great deal of the problem. The Act intends that they
should break even <strong>and</strong> it says they should be “No Better No Worse” as a consequence. But by the very way
they calculate their fares, by the diVerent ways they issue their tickets <strong>and</strong> by the way they have been able
to alter routes <strong>and</strong> manipulate the market under the deregulated structure that exists has meant they are
making money, <strong>and</strong> at the same time complaining they are not getting enough. Almost impossible for us to
prove our many examples are valid for scrutiny.
Bus Companies have Public AVairs Managers <strong>and</strong> Press oYcers <strong>and</strong> they can <strong>and</strong> do brief journalists,
who will happily run with scare stories. “Granny get your Coat” etc etc. Our attempts to engage national
press has been not very successful <strong>and</strong> in any case it is mostly the local papers that do the damage. Councils
who mistrust or dislike national government <strong>and</strong> who either do not underst<strong>and</strong> the detail of the finance, or
do not want to, also brief the press against us. So it is a problem.
It is best tackled locally so where it comes to notice in your local area of buses altering services, claiming
for longer journeys than actual travel. Bring it to the notice of your council <strong>and</strong> importantly the press, write
letters, get petitions but be sure of your facts. Where NPC can help we will back you up with quotes.
Let me list a few of the sensation seeking items that the press has used. Public Toilets to shut to fund
pensioner travel. Pensioners joyride means people cannot get to work as the buses are full. Council Tax to go
up, other groups in receipt of concessionary fares will lose their entitlement. Many <strong>and</strong> varied are the stories.
Seaside towns, <strong>and</strong> other tourist centres despite spending millions on advertising their facilities to get
people to visit, have the cheek to say the funding for visitors is insuYcient.
So we are up against it. It’s a dog’s breakfast <strong>and</strong> no other large organisation is fighting. Help the Aged
<strong>and</strong> Age Concern <strong>and</strong> others are all relatively non critical. Some even encourage taking £37 of Tokens rather
than the Pass, which may suit some very restricted people but is of far less value if one travels away from
home. How therefore do we proceed? My stance is not that we have a “Right to Free <strong>Travel</strong>” because we
are old, but that we contribute to society <strong>and</strong> we therefore have a “Case for Free <strong>Travel</strong>” to make.
We need to be able to list those benefits so that our travel cannot be dismissed as a perk. It is easy to see
Pensions, Health, Carers, Carer’s Allowances as rights. But free travel can be less easily justified.
A sample list of advantages to society to make our case are:
— Transport has a major part to play in enabling older people to continue to live in their own homes
<strong>and</strong> participate fully in the life of their local community.
— The presence of pensioners in the town centres is good for local business.
— Older people travelling out of peak times can improve the marginal costs of services <strong>and</strong> thus retain
services to the good of the community as a whole.

Ev 202 Transport Committee: Evidence
— The need for transport increases with age. The use of cars for short journeys is a high pollution
factor <strong>and</strong> an accessible free transport system would solve both problems.
— There is a proven link between improved health <strong>and</strong> the ability to be included in the community
rather than isolated at home.
— The administrative cost of the many diVerent schemes, which takes up several hundreds of
administrators <strong>and</strong> revenue protection people issuing tickets <strong>and</strong> tokens, could for the most part
be saved by a central scheme.
— Older people could provide unpaid, well informed persons to contribute to committees on services,
mobility <strong>and</strong> other older peoples’ issues. By this we do not mean more attendance at “Stakeholder
Groups”, but real inclusion, involvement <strong>and</strong> participation.
— In Wales it has been proved that “paid for” travel has increased by as much as 10%.
— Marginal costs on some routes can be improved <strong>and</strong> the service retained for all.
We should stress we do not believe we are asking for an uneconomic alternative. Older people do not want
charity <strong>and</strong> something for nothing. Older people for the most part have contributed to society <strong>and</strong> in their
retirement if they are “included” will feel they are still able to contribute by that inclusion.
Apart from the contribution to the debate on travel arrangements, ie access to vehicles <strong>and</strong> premises,
vehicle design, staV training, location of pick up points etc, there are many other subjects on which Older
Persons <strong>and</strong> Disabled people could contribute. To my personal knowledge there are many older people on
voluntary work—Samaritans being one such example, or another case where an older person is passing on
his skills by teaching woodwork to blind people.
There is a vast untapped resource out there <strong>and</strong> if the Government recognised the cross departmental
benefits that accrue from the Freedom Pass—to health, to increased economic activity, to voluntary work
<strong>and</strong> had the political will to achieve those desirable things—Mobility is the key.
Best of luck in your local campaigns. Sorry for the length of this document but it is produced so we can
get out a brief <strong>and</strong> Press Release for the 1 April 2008 launch.
March 2008
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited
4/2008 376402 19585