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

Ev 136 Transport Committee: Evidence
number of students, a particular problem is the lack of validity of young-persons railcards for local journeys
before 09.30. Overall, the net result is a high level of confusion which is a deterrent to choice of public
transport.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
For the average traveller, there is little evidence to suggest that the Government has any strategy at all,
<strong>and</strong> certainly in the Stockport area, there has been no visible progress. There is nothing inherently wrong
with having a number of operators, but without a comprehensive integrated approach to service planning,
routes, frequencies <strong>and</strong> ticketing, passenger numbers will continue to decline. Locally, this might logically
be addressed through the SEMMMS strategy (Southeast Manchester Multi-Modal Study) but real progress
seems painfully slow <strong>and</strong> largely road-orientated. Until the Government requires local action in addition to
fine words, we fear that nothing will actually happen.
The Use of Smartcard Technologies
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately?
Smart card technology has been available <strong>and</strong> in use for many years but transport operators for the most
part seem to be very slow in taking this—literally—on-board. One particular issue which aVects many of
our students <strong>and</strong> staV is the total lack of flexible tickets suitable for part-timers. Operators seem reluctant
to even consider some form of carnet system (eg valid for 10 journeys within a month) claiming to be waiting
for smart-card introduction. But progress locally seems to be non-existent. The same principle is relevant
to encourage flexibility in choice of mode. Car drivers may not actually require use of a car every day, but
there is no real incentive to encourage use of public transport on, say, one or two days per week. Similarly,
in good weather, some staV <strong>and</strong> students may choose to walk or cycle, but would value the opportunity for
flexible use of public transport when needed.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers?
The objectives of the ITSO project are laudable but at this stage it is not clear whether restrictions will
still apply—for example in respect of advance purchase discount tickets. It must also cater fully for the needs
of part-timers <strong>and</strong> to promote modal choice <strong>and</strong> needs to be suYciently flexible to cater for pay-when-youtravel
needs.
5. What can be learned from the experiences of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology
is already in place?
“Oyster” appears to be working well in the London area, but its success is in part a reflection of the
integrated approach to public transport as a whole <strong>and</strong> in particular the widespread availability <strong>and</strong> validity
of zonal tickets for all modes. The obvious first extension is to promote, or preferably require, a similar
approach in PTE areas by extending the powers of PTEs. Zones should reflect natural catchment areas <strong>and</strong>
not be artificially restricted by arbitrary administrative boundaries.
Revenue Protection <strong>and</strong> the Powers of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
We do not feel qualified to comment on this issue.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers, <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
Again, we do not feel able to comment in any detail, but as a matter of principle, operating companies
should be more willing to accept full responsibility when they are at fault <strong>and</strong> not hide behind the small print.
There should also be an obligation for a company to make reasonable arrangements to assist str<strong>and</strong>ed
passengers, which should include making arrangements with an alternative operator. There also needs to
be a clear <strong>and</strong> consistent mechanism for redress when the failure of one company aVects onward travel by
another—eg missed connections. A major consequence of the current system of semi-independent operators
is the endemic culture of blaming someone else: it is always the customer who suVers.