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

4. Does the ITSO System cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> transport providers?
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 143
4.1 For the customer, the ability to purchase a variety of travel modes through a single smartcard in a
number of diVerent locations creates a truly integrated oVering. For transport providers, it also gives a
similar re-assurance that they are investing in hardware <strong>and</strong> software that has universal application.
4.2 Although the ITSO platform can accommodate all existing travel products, we do not necessarily see
other payment channels being eliminated by ITSO. Smartcards are most likely to have application for
frequent users probably making local journeys. The extent to which smartcards may have applicability to
less frequent users such as foreign tourists or very occasional public transport users depends on the ability
to store value over long periods of time <strong>and</strong> to create a simple, cheap <strong>and</strong> easy to underst<strong>and</strong> registration
process.
4.3 In the longer term other developments in the banking <strong>and</strong> retail sectors will determine the continuing
role of ITSO. For example the concept of stored value integrated onto existing debit cards for occasional
low value cash transactions is coming soon <strong>and</strong> the implications of this need to be borne in mind.
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?
London
5.1 Oystercard was introduced en masse in London in October 2003 <strong>and</strong> FirstGroup has been close to
the product as an operator of contracted bus services in London <strong>and</strong> franchised train services where Oyster
<strong>Travel</strong>cards have been valid from the start.
5.2 TfL is best placed to observe on successes <strong>and</strong> failures but from our point of view the key issue is
that the absence of ITSO compatibility of Oyster will cause diYculty as ITSO rolls-out on other parts of the
National Rail network <strong>and</strong> other modes of transport. In addition to the costs incurred in retro-fitting ITSO
technology such an approach is likely to create a certain level of customer confusion. This illustrates the
need for a national st<strong>and</strong>ard like ITSO.
Scotl<strong>and</strong>
5.3 Scotl<strong>and</strong> is yet to go live but some interesting lessons have emerged from the process so far:
— Technical complexity has led implementation timescales to being a lot longer than originally
anticipated.
— The procurement of a replacement fleet of smartcard enabled ticket machines for all of Scotl<strong>and</strong>’s
local bus services has led to production eYciencies <strong>and</strong> therefore capital cost savings.
— The procurement <strong>and</strong> manufacture of the smartcards through one agency (Transport Scotl<strong>and</strong>)
has given them the same look <strong>and</strong> feel which is good for bus driver recognition <strong>and</strong> has eliminated
the risk of manufacturing inconsistencies between diVerent suppliers.
Revenue Protection And The Powers Of Ticket Inspectors
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket inspectors function appropriate?
6.1 Railway revenue protection staV work within the framework of the Railway Byelaws <strong>and</strong> the
Regulation of the Railways Act 1889. Under these byelaws they may require a person refusing to pay the
appropriate fare to give their name <strong>and</strong> address. StaV will often use appropriate agencies to verify the name
<strong>and</strong> address given. After that rail companies will follow normal debt collection approaches, starting by
writing to request payment.
6.2 Bus operators have powers to inspect tickets but there is a diVerence in the sanction that can be
imposed. Under the Railways Act 1993 <strong>and</strong> Penalty Fares Regulations 1994 rail companies in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
Wales (<strong>and</strong> buses inside Greater London) have the power to impose on the spot Penalty Fares. The current
penalty fare is £20. (The fare is a set maximum for all TOCs <strong>and</strong> is approved by the Secretary of State.) Bus
companies have no powers of arrest or sanction of penalty fares. Some of our companies overcome this
where a st<strong>and</strong>ard fare of £20 is advertised but only applied if the ticket holder does not have the appropriate
ticket for the journey being made.
6.3 The power of bus companies is therefore severely curtailed compared to rail <strong>and</strong> the ability to secure
a conviction for fare evasion relies on police intervention. Underst<strong>and</strong>ably interest tends to be low because
individual journey oVences tend to be low value <strong>and</strong> this means the deterrent of a criminal oVence rarely
occurs. We do therefore consider the legal framework in buses to be inappropriate.
6.4 The railway penalty fare of £20 was last increased in January 2005 (up from £10) The issue here is
getting a balance between the level being set at a rate which is a suYcient deterrent against one which is so
punitive (perhaps £50) that the chances of an inspector extracting this are lessened particularly without the
potential of conflict. Overall though we consider the legal framework to be appropriate.