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

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.