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

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.