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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 152 Transport Committee: Evidence 2. The Government appears to have no strategy for the development of integrated ticketing. 3. Outside London, <strong>and</strong> to a lesser extent Scotl<strong>and</strong>, the industry is proving very reluctant to adopt Smartcard ticketing. Many smaller operators do not even possess or use ticket machines. In North StaVordshire <strong>and</strong> rural Northumberl<strong>and</strong> return tickets are h<strong>and</strong>written <strong>and</strong> no ticket is issued for single journeys. Derbyshire County Council has attempted to overcome this by leasing modern ticket machines to smaller operators in order to apportion concessionary fares revenue <strong>and</strong> monitor use of tendered services. TrentBarton are trialling a new Smartcard based ticketing system this summer but this does not appear to be compatible with the Smartcards issued by Nottingham City transport for season tickets although many routes overlap. Furthermore concessionary fare holders in Nottinghamshire have a separate Smartcard to permit free oV-peak travel but have to pay for peak journeys by cash. 4. I believe that this issue is open to debate <strong>and</strong> do not feel able to comment upon it at present. 5. Smartcards work very eYciently on gated systems such as Tube/Rail stations with automatic barriers <strong>and</strong> on buses as season tickets or with a flat fare provided there is just one entry point to the bus with a Smartcard reader monitored by the driver. However they are cumbersome to read with h<strong>and</strong> held machines on multiple entrance vehicles such as articulated buses in London <strong>and</strong> trams in Nottingham. This leads to a substantial (<strong>and</strong> unquantifiable) revenue loss especially at peak times. 6. Discretion needs to be exercised as appropriate to avoid genuine honest passengers being deterred from using public transport for a fear of being penalised for inadvertently using the wrong ticket or service. 7. The need for, <strong>and</strong> frequency of, appeals should be at an absolute minimum. 8. Yes, provided that discretion is exercised by ticket inspectors when appropriate. 9. Many rail operators fail to ensure that on-train staV make regular ticket checks whilst few bus companies now employ ticket inspectors <strong>and</strong> drivers have neither the time nor power to check tickets after the passenger has boarded to prevent “over-riding”. 10. The Government’s concessionary fares policy is an unaVordable disaster. It is a subsidy to both bus operators <strong>and</strong> those over 60’s <strong>and</strong> disabled persons fortunate enough to both live close to a bus route taking them where <strong>and</strong> when they want to travel <strong>and</strong> be in suYcient good health to travel by bus. It leads to overcrowding between 0930 <strong>and</strong> 1030 which deters other potential paying customers <strong>and</strong> it will result in single fares increasing at a greater than expected rate whilstever reimbursement to operators is based upon an agreed proportion of the single fare. It will do nothing to encourage operators to oVer integrated ticketing as it removes up to 50% of the oVpeak market <strong>and</strong> therefore makes the administration of such schemes even less commercially attractive. It will also lead to a deterioration in service quality as customers travelling free are less likely to complain about the service oVered <strong>and</strong> will exhibit less br<strong>and</strong> loyalty to a particular operator. EVectively free travellers will catch the first available bus <strong>and</strong> it is likely that the viability of “all day” routes will be undermined by low quality operators targeting free oV-peak passengers possibly between school journeys. 11. There is a danger that free bus travel will reduce oV peak use of parallel rail services, especially for medium distance inter-urban journeys where journey time is of less importance. The proposed Engl<strong>and</strong>-wide free bus travel has significant cost implications for tourist areas where “outsiders” will seasonally outnumber “locals” yet it appears that the local authority will be expected to foot the bill. It is to be hoped that this will not lead to cuts in supported bus services which local residents rely upon to reach essential services such as health <strong>and</strong> shopping, whilst “over 60” leisure travellers <strong>and</strong> holidaymakers enjoy free travel. I must stress however that the solution to this problem is not to oVer free “local” rail travel but to withdraw the exorbitantly expensive free bus travel scheme <strong>and</strong> replace it with a UK concessionary half fare scheme available on all modes at all times using Smartcard technology. Operators should be oVered a flat rate administration fee per passenger carried (paid by Central Government) <strong>and</strong> savings should be diverted to installing compatible Smartcard readers on all buses <strong>and</strong> at all rail stations with all concessionary passes being Smartcard based. This would reduce boarding times <strong>and</strong> provide a robust, reliable means of tracking the use of concessionary travel passes. It would also restore an element of competitiveness in the market <strong>and</strong> allow the continued use of well established elasticity theory; free concessionary travel invalidates such theory <strong>and</strong> will inevitably lead to some fares increasing at a higher rate. March 2007 Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Scheidt & Bachmann (TPT 27) Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann GmbH is a global provider of intergrated <strong>and</strong> automated fares systems for public transport services. In the United Kingdom the company is a major provider to the National Rail Passenger Franchise operators <strong>and</strong> is currently delivering the DfT funded Yorkshire multi modal smartcard ticketing programme Yorcard to the ITSO St<strong>and</strong>ard.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 153 Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann would wish to submit the following response to the questions outlined by the Committee <strong>and</strong> would welcome the opportunity to provide further information based on both its UK <strong>and</strong> international experience. For convenience, the Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann response to the Call for Evidence has been summarised using the section <strong>and</strong> paragraph headings <strong>and</strong> numbering that was used in the Call. The response provided has been limited in order to meet the request for six pages or less. Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann GmbH accept that the information may be published <strong>and</strong> at this stage have no contributions that it would consider confidential. Section 1—Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong> 1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical areas? In Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s opinion whilst there are areas where ticketing is well integrated, notably in the major cities where a PTE body manages the processes, integration between modes is limited <strong>and</strong> the geographic integration is generally restricted to defined areas with less “cross boundary” integration than is ideal. 2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems? Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann welcomes the Government’s clear interest in this very important topic <strong>and</strong> would express the view that whilst the Government has a very clear vision of the requirements <strong>and</strong> benefits that integrated ticketing systems oVer to the citizen the strategy remains to be completely defined. An example of this would be the current call for Expressions of Interest in the English Concession Card provision which will take a very important step forward, especially if it exploits the ITSO smartcard technology but is silent on multi modal travel. The Use of Smartcard Technologies 3. Is the industry taking up midern smartcard technologies adequately <strong>and</strong> appropriately? Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view would be that whilst some areas, such as Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, have either implemented or are proceeding to implement smartcard technology in a limited way, only London, benefiting from its revenue risk <strong>and</strong> management regime has demonstrated fully the benefits of the technology. The area of most concern, especially in a national context, is the passenger rail services which have only recently started to consider how to implement the technology <strong>and</strong> that is because the Department for Transport has m<strong>and</strong>ated its use in new franchises. 4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers? Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann believe that the ITSO approach has the capacity to cater for all the needs of all passengers <strong>and</strong> travel providers <strong>and</strong> that over a period of time it can become the basis of providing best value ticketing across all modes for both citizens <strong>and</strong> transport service providers. 5. What can be learned from the experience of areas such as London <strong>and</strong> Scotl<strong>and</strong> where smartcard technology is already in place? It is Scheidt <strong>and</strong> Bachmann’s view that the main lesson that can be learnt from both of these schemes is that successful implementation of integrated fares systems that use new technologies requires clear <strong>and</strong> focused leadership from a single body. In each case that has been identified, a single body, the Scottish Executive or Transport for London has defined the requirements clearly <strong>and</strong> contracted for them on behalf of the transport service providers. This has meant the funding of the programmes to ensure speedy <strong>and</strong> common adoption with the benefits being derived in the longer term, <strong>and</strong> approach that public bodies can take more easily than the private sector.
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:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 10
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 191: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 15
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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?