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

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.