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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2:
House of Commons Transport Committe
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Report Page 1 Introduction
Page 5 and 6:
4 5. Smartcards offer a range of ne
Page 7 and 8:
6 Integrated bus ticketing 10. Thro
Page 9 and 10:
8 Long distance coach services are
Page 11 and 12:
10 strategy, including those in the
Page 13 and 14:
12 long-distance rail passengers ma
Page 15 and 16:
14 services have not been put in pl
Page 17 and 18:
16 Oyster on rail services in Londo
Page 19 and 20:
18 4 Revenue protection and
Page 21 and 22:
20 Staff safety 61. Transport staff
Page 23 and 24:
22 66. An integrated ticketing syst
Page 25 and 26:
24 Transport should commission an e
Page 27 and 28:
26 concession authorities that attr
Page 29 and 30:
28 operators and a
Page 31 and 32:
30 List of recommendations Integrat
Page 33 and 34:
32 Concessionary t
Page 35 and 36:
34 Formal Minutes Clive Efford Mrs
Page 37 and 38:
36 List of written evidence 1 Dr Ro
Page 39 and 40:
38 List of Reports from the Committ
Page 41 and 42:
Oral evidence Taken before the Tran
Page 43 and 44:
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, M
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 11
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
14 November 2007 Mr Keith Halstead
Page 59 and 60:
definition of severe disability <st
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
about how the data on the smartcard
Page 73 and 74:
things around it. We have got over
Page 75 and 76:
which comes out of the usage of the
Page 77 and 78: the impact of their behaviour on ot
Page 79 and 80: 5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, M
Page 81 and 82: 5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, M
Page 83 and 84: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 43
Page 93 and 94: Mr Harris: I am sorry, I am not goi
Page 95 and 96: 12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <
Page 97 and 98: Q464 Chairman: Is Transport Direct
Page 103 and 104: 3.2 Conclusion—Smartcard St<stron
Page 119 and 120: Integrated Transport Memora
Page 127: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 87
Page 153 and 154: Lostwithiel to Liskeard Transport C
Page 159 and 160: Is the legal framework within which
Page 161 and 162: The Use of Smartcard Technologies I
Page 163 and 164: Executive Summary Memorand<
Page 165 and 166: Integration Nationally Transport Co
Page 169 and 170: — Ensure the confidentiality of d
Page 175 and 176: 7. What appeal mechanisms exist for
Page 177 and 178: 8. Are the rights of passengers <st
Page 179 and 180:
Concessionary Fare
Page 181 and 182:
Introduction Memorand</stro
Page 183 and 184:
4. Does the ITSO System cater for t
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
March 2007 1. Summary Transport Com
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
9. Do operators of public transport
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Concessionary Fare
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Ferry Transport Committee: Evidence
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Confusion over what local authoriti
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Question 68 Timings of Oyster <stro
Page 241 and 242:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?