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

Lostwithiel to Liskeard
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 113
Train takes 18 minutes <strong>and</strong> National Express 500 service connects the two. There is no bus service.
Other Examples
There will be many other examples.
March 2007
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from North-East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable (NECTAR) (TPT 16)
General Points
The answers to all the sets of questions vary according to:
(i) which mode of transport is considered, <strong>and</strong>
(ii) whether the viewpoint is that of the passenger or of the service-provider.
Our response tries to consider conditions on buses <strong>and</strong> on trains from both viewpoints wherever possible.
Specific Questions as Posed
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated (a) across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> (b) between diVerent
geographical areas?
(a) No, not even in the London area, although it is better there than in most places. Oyster cards are
not (yet) valid on several local rail services within the TfL area. In the provinces, the term
“integration” is variously defined: some rail companies oVer flat-fare add-ons for bus use at
destination, but this does not help those whose rail-journeys are prefaced by a bus ride. PTEs do
better on this than towns <strong>and</strong> cities without PTEs: for instance, Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear oVers
“TransFares” on bus or metro for those changing modes as part of their journey, <strong>and</strong> Merseyside
has Day Rover tickets for useon buses, trains <strong>and</strong> ferries. Apart from isolated examples such as
these, little is done, particularly in non-PTE areas, to allow passengers using two buses for one
journey to take one ticket rather than re-booking on the second bus.
Nowhere in continental Europe expects anything like this. In fact, bus tickets as such are flat-fare
<strong>and</strong> valid for a stated period of time, without being confined to one bus journey or (where relevant)
one mode of travel. Yet, in principle, integrated ticketing is (in our view, anyway) vital if public
transport is to attract more people to use it—<strong>and</strong> in theory its introduction should cost very little.
As public transport providers are hopelessly fragmented, however, aiming to maximise profits
rather than to carry more people, ticket integration is diYcult to introduce, especially if operators
see it as a potential loss of revenue in the short term.
(b) It depends if this means “one <strong>and</strong> the same ticket may take a passenger through a series of bus/
rail/bus changes over a long distance” or “facilities in one conurbation match/diVer from those
oVered in another”. Thus, in the North-East region, through-ticketing allows transfer from
“heavy” rail to Tyne <strong>and</strong> Wear metro, though this does not always receive the publicity that it
should: but no such through ticketing exists any-where in Tees-side. There are even cases of buses
that run as one route <strong>and</strong> then regularly change their identity to another route, in central Stockton
or Middlesbrough: but no passengers travelling along parts of both these routes, <strong>and</strong> on the same
bus, are ever allowed to book a through ticket when first they board the vehicles.
The only circumstances in which any form of consistency between diVerent areas occurs are those
of free OAP travel, except that, until 2008, such travel may only be in the pass-holder’s local area.
For those not entitled to OAP rates, however, it is notable that fares-levels on bus <strong>and</strong> train have
risen far further than have motoring costs, both perceived <strong>and</strong> actual. This alone must discourage
many from changing from car use to buses <strong>and</strong>/or trains.
[See also answers to Questions 10 <strong>and</strong> 11]