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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 148 Transport Committee: Evidence groups in particular -groups currently run services for isolated people in Salisbury mainly to help them access local shops, <strong>and</strong> both have to charge their concessionary pass holding passengers for journeys which they would otherwise get free if there was a registered bus route which served them. At Gr<strong>and</strong> Committee Stage cost was also cited by the Government as the reason for rejecting an amendment to extend the scheme to community transport. The Government also pointed out that local authorities would continue to have the discretion to provide concessionary fares on door to door transport <strong>and</strong> that the legislation would allow for an extension in this area at a latter date by Regulations. At Report a further argument was oVered that such an amendment would eVectively provide for buses to be replaced by community transport in rural areas. We do not believe that would be the eVect. The purpose is to ensure that those disabled people who because of their impairment could not access local bus services, or who live in areas that are not served by bus services, would be able to enjoy free travel on community transport services in their area. As a safeguard the Secretary of State could be required to issue guidance which could also address the Government’s concerns about the definition of community transport for the purposes of concessionary fares legislation <strong>Travel</strong>ling With a Companion Some disabled people need a companion to travel with them on public transport. We would argue that concessions should be available to allow a companion to travel free of charge, where this is necessary to enable the disabled people to access the service. This provision already applies under both the Welsh scheme <strong>and</strong> the Dorset scheme. Whilst we appreciate the Government’s estimate that this extension would cost £10 million we would point out that as the proposed additional concession would only apply to those who cannot access public transport without the support of a companion, the number of people that would be brought into the scheme is likely to be relatively small. The Government has also pointed out that the term “companion” could be open to abuse but we would be happy for an alternative term to be used such as “personal assistant.” Adding People with Mental Health Difficulties to Those Eligible for <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares The issue of the eligibility of people with mental health diYculties remains a problem. Currently, people with mental health issues who qualify for concessionary fares do so by virtue of the fact that they would, if they applied, be refused a driving licence under Part 3 of the Road TraYc Act 1988 pursuant to section 92 of the Act. Section 92 of the 1988 Act refers to five categories of people who would be refused a driving licence. The second of these are people with a “severe mental disorder”. Eligibility for concessionary fares is one of the major factors in determining an individual’s chance of recovery <strong>and</strong> re-integration into society. Severe mental ill health often leads to social <strong>and</strong> physical isolation, discrimination <strong>and</strong> an inability to play a full part in economic <strong>and</strong> community life. Access to community centres, drop-in therapeutic communities, counselling or self-help groups can be essential to recovery. To access those services many people rely on public transport. Research in the Report Focus on Mental Health, An Uphill Struggle: Poverty <strong>and</strong> Mental Health (London, Mental Health Foundation 2001) suggests that some people have not been able to get help from mental health services because of their inability to pay for transport. Even where they still hold a driving licence, poverty <strong>and</strong> a fluctuating health condition may make driving impossible. The ability to travel to education centres, to take up job opportunities <strong>and</strong> to access community health <strong>and</strong> social care facilities is vital. The inability to access these can lead to serious consequences for the individual. These quotes from experiences reported to Mind show the diYculties: A service user writes from the Midl<strong>and</strong>s: “Initially I came up against a lot of aggravation when I applied for concessionary fares. Now I hold a bus pass <strong>and</strong> come up against hostility with a few bus drivers questioning my right to hold a pass”. One city Patient Council representative from the West of Engl<strong>and</strong> writes that “even where there is no current problem in claiming in the city there are constant problem(s) on buses of drivers’ prejudice, eg ‘Why have you got a pass, you don’t look ill?’” The evidence suggests that the definition is causing a problem <strong>and</strong> for that reason we believe the Government should act now to introduce a new definition to cover explicitly people with mental health issues. Our suggested definition is based on the definition used for the Scottish <strong>Concessionary</strong> fares scheme. In addition, a new definition could cover people with a social <strong>and</strong> communication disability—such as those with Asperger syndrome. Since most people with Asperger syndrome do not have a learning disability, they may be excluded by a strict interpretation of the definition in the Transport Act 2000. While people with Asperger syndrome are not generally refused a driving licence, they must notify DVLA of their condition <strong>and</strong> cases are assessed on an individual basis; this may make car insurance unaVordable, especially for young people. The diYculties experienced by some people with Asperger syndrome in anticipating the actions of other road users mean that some individuals choose not to drive.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 149 Our organisations have welcomed the Government’s commitment to look at this issue <strong>and</strong> consult with its <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Stakeholder Group. We believe that the consultation could also usefully cover the issues of stigma faced by people with mental health problems receiving concessionary fares (eg being questioned because they do not “look disabled”) <strong>and</strong> how to maximise take up of concessionary fares amongst those people with mental health diYculties who are entitled to them. The recommendation of the Social Exclusion Unit’s Report, Mental Health <strong>and</strong> Social Exclusion was to consider the case for revisions to the statutory guidance on giving concessionary fares to people with mental health diYculties by the end of 2004. How has the 2004 recommendation been taken forward? We look forward to the early completion of the new review which the Government have announced. March 2007 Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> Memor<strong>and</strong>um from <strong>Travel</strong>Watch Northwest (TPT 25) 1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas? Within Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) areas integrated ticketing is well established <strong>and</strong> relatively easy to use. When the ticket is of a st<strong>and</strong>ard design produced by the PTE it is easily recognised <strong>and</strong> accepted by staV of all operators. If a similar multi-modal <strong>and</strong> multi-operator ticket requires the issue of a ticket from a company machine which will bear the issuing company’s logo, passengers often have problems convincing other operators staV that the ticket is valid on their services. Whilst PTEs have usually managed to persuade operator consortia to take part in multi modal ticketing schemes this has often been at the cost of them being more expensive than operator’s own multi journey tickets. Outside PTE areas, integrated ticketing is virtually unknown with just a few isolated examples such as Derbyshire County Council’s “Derbyshire Wayfarer” product. Integrated tickets are usually only available within a restricted area <strong>and</strong> do not extend into adjoining areas. There is also a lack of integration within bus travel let alone across modes. In many instances it is not possible to turn up <strong>and</strong> buy a ticket for a through journey when it involves a change of bus. For example a journey from Milnthorpe in Cumbria to Morecambe in Lancashire (about 12 miles) requires change of bus at some point <strong>and</strong> two fares have to be purchased. This does not encourage the car to be left at home. <strong>Travel</strong>Watch NorthWest’s predecessor the North West Public Transport Users Forum (NWPTUF) produced a report in December 2005 on Multi Modal <strong>Ticketing</strong> which highlighted shortcomings with integrated ticketing as well as highlighting best practice. This is attached. 27 Pricing should also be considered. Outside metropolitan areas the perception of public transport is as an expensive mode compared to the car. In some areas a 10 minute return bus journey can be around £5. Contrast this with the cost of a journey across the breadth of Greater Manchester for about half the price. Until some national consistency on fares can be achieved <strong>and</strong> promoted bus travel will be unattractive to future generations in many rural areas where the convenience of the car will remain unchallenged. 2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems? Government policy is ineVective <strong>and</strong> will continue to be so until the role of the OYce of Fair Trading is revised to allow operators to discuss integration without the fear of prosecution. Such co-operation is vital <strong>and</strong> there can be no meaningful integration whilst this interference continues. There is a need to look more acutely at the future. The whole marketplace for travel <strong>and</strong> consumerism will change in the next 10 years as the “baby boomers” (those born between 1945 <strong>and</strong> 1960) form the majority of the retired population. Post war attitudes to life that include the many conveniences enjoyed by this generation in contrast to the previous generation will bring a very diVerent set of dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards. Unless public transport gets its act together, particularly for short distance travel, to meet the new expectations <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s, it will be in danger of dying of neglect <strong>and</strong> underuse. 3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately? With the exception of London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong>, smartcards are only being developed <strong>and</strong> used on very local schemes <strong>and</strong> are only introduced after long trials of the technology even though the technology has been used in other places for years. 27 Not printed.
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:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
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 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
3.2 Conclusion—Smartcard St<stron
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Integrated Transport Memora
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 97
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: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 14
Page 199 and 200: March 2007 1. Summary Transport Com
Page 205 and 206: 9. Do operators of public transport
Page 223 and 224: Concessionary Fare
Page 227 and 228: Ferry Transport Committee: Evidence
Page 235 and 236: Confusion over what local authoriti
Page 239 and 240:
Question 68 Timings of Oyster <stro
Page 241 and 242:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?