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

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