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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 97 The gates used on the national rail network, being based on those designed for the London Underground, only work on the credit card size ticket, <strong>and</strong> can only check fairly basic information from the magnetic stripe. The only gate design for ATB format is that used by Eurostar, which have a quite diVerent function <strong>and</strong> are much slower, being linked to the train reservation system so they are actually checking each train in. TOC gates cannot do that, so there is no prospect of doing a check at stations related to the train used. We now have Oyster cards in London (<strong>and</strong> the ITSO problem), mobile phones (barcode scanner needed) <strong>and</strong> print-at-home (like ticketless airline travel bought via the internet) where 2D barcodes are used. Eurostar <strong>and</strong> European railways for Inter City travel are moving to the latter in place of the current ATB with magnetic stripe (coding is not just for reading by gates but is to protect against fraudulent ticket production). All this means that while ATB may wither away, other ticket types <strong>and</strong> media will come along that are not gate compatible, or even if they could be, there is a large system development task to get that to happen. With the multiplicity of uncoordinated gate installations on the TOCs over the past ten years, the evidence suggests that the integration of new ticket media, even if they are technically machine readable, will not easily be achieved. January 2008 Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Mr Kevin Chapman (TPT 13) 1. I write this submission as a public transport user in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s conurbation, but I am also a supporter of the sustainable transport group Transport 2000. I do not drive <strong>and</strong> make the vast majority of journeys over a mile by bus <strong>and</strong>/or rail. It may be helpful for the committee to have comments regarding ticketing, revenue protection <strong>and</strong> concessionary fares within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s. 2. Multi-modal ticketing was introduced by the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s Passenger Transport Executive (now Centro) in the 1970’s, with the introduction of “<strong>Travel</strong>card”, valid on bus services operated by WMPTE <strong>and</strong> the National Bus Company <strong>and</strong> local British Rail services within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County. WMPTE was amongst the first transport organisations in the UK to introduced integrated ticketing, <strong>and</strong> over the years concessionary travel schemes for school children, students, the disabled <strong>and</strong> senior citizens have been included within the integrated ticketing scheme. 3. Integrated ticketing in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County has survived deregulation of bus services in 1986 <strong>and</strong> privatisation of the bus <strong>and</strong> rail industry in the 1990s, although a small number of bus operators do not participate in the scheme (although they do participate in the concessionary scheme). The scheme is now marketed by Centro under the “Network West Midl<strong>and</strong>s” banner. The products include an “nNetwork” ticket (valid on bus, rail <strong>and</strong> “Midl<strong>and</strong> Metro”), “nBus” (valid on buses) “nTrain” (valid on local rail services) <strong>and</strong> tickets aimed at the leisure market “nDaytripper”, valid at “oV-peak” times <strong>and</strong> an oV-peak version of the “nNetwork” ticket. 4. The position within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County compares favourably with that outside of the county, within the Shire counties where no integrated tickets can be purchased. It is possible to buy an “nNetwork” ticket for an origin station outside of the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s county. This would allow the purchaser to use connecting bus services within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County to complete their journey, but not a bus service to their origin station. 5. The major bus operator in the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s County is <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s (the successor to the WMPTE bus operation), who operate 95% of the commercial mileage. This is in contrast to the position in other metropolitan areas where the PTE bus operations were split to enable competition (which has only happened on trunk corridors), but which has resulted in fragmentation of a former unified network between two or three operators. Take up of pre-paid tickets has been much greater within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s; the vast majority of tickets purchased being those designed <strong>and</strong> marketed by, <strong>and</strong> only valid on, <strong>Travel</strong> West Midl<strong>and</strong>s. The proportion of passengers who pay their fare on the bus is much smaller within the West Midl<strong>and</strong>s than in other parts of the country. 6. It is possible to buy some integrated tickets, such as a one day version of the “nNetwork” ticket on bus. As each of the bus operators use diVerent ticketing systems then a “nNetwork” ticket will look diVerent depending on what operators bus it is purchased on—<strong>and</strong> it will look similar to the operators own one day ticket (valid on their services only). If the driver or inspector is not aware of the design of ticket then its validity could be questioned, even though it may be perfectly valid for use on the service concerned. 7. The West Midl<strong>and</strong>s does participate in the “PlusBus” scheme, as do other areas in the country. From my travels around the country I would comment that promotion <strong>and</strong> operation of the “PlusBus” scheme is often poor—there is usually a map at the station showing the validity but there will be no sign on participating bus saying that “PlusBus” tickets are accepted. (Indeed not all operators participate in “PlusBus”.) I often book train travel on-line, utilising TheTrainLine.com website. If you book your ticket via TheTrainline then at the time of writing you will not find reference to fares that include a “PlusBus”
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:
Page 85 and 86: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 45
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 135: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 95
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 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?