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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 158 Transport Committee: Evidence Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced? Yes, for example, rail passengers can only be charged a penalty fare if ticket facilities were unavailable where they joined the train. However, it is important that passengers rights are protected by ensuring that, for example, if a passenger says that they could not buy a ticket an inspector is able to verify whether that is the case. Inspectors need real time information on whether ticket oYces are open or machines are working properly so that they can exercise discretion in appropriate cases. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue? The extent to which operators take steps to protect fare revenues is likely to vary according to their dependence upon “fare box” revenue. Where operators have accepted little or no revenue risk, there is disincentive to ensure that the correct fares paid or that tickets or passes are valid. <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy? Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus travel, adequate? Merseytravel welcomes the introduction of an Engl<strong>and</strong>-wide scheme for free oV-peak bus travel, applicable to disabled people <strong>and</strong> those over 60 <strong>and</strong> is keen to work with the Government to ensure its successful implementation. Merseytravel believes the Government’s mechanism for allocating funding for the concessionary fares scheme presents significant challenges, particularly in Engl<strong>and</strong>’s metropolitan areas. Government funding, although reflective of the actual cost of the scheme, will be allocated as part of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) process meaning that allocations are not reflective of local passenger numbers or need. Channelling funds through the RSG is particularly detrimental to metropolitan areas where passenger numbers are naturally higher, making the cost of implementation higher. This problem is not reflected in the RSG <strong>and</strong> can only be resolved by Transport Authorities cutting services or quality. In Metropolitan areas, funding allocated for the scheme does not go directly to PTEs. It goes to Metropolitan District Councils as part of the RSG process, who are under no obligation to pass on the additional funding to the PTEs. Another funding issue arises because the scheme follows Barnett principles, meaning a proportion of the funding for the English scheme will go to Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales—even though those schemes are fully funded already via their respective Assembly <strong>and</strong> Executive. One significant area of concern is the impact of the recent round of Appeals by bus operators against PTA Participation Notices. All the PTAs aVected have had to make provision in their budgets for the potential outcomes. This means that there is uncertainty in the budget, but also that budget plans could be seriously aVected by the outcome of the Appeals process, eg PTAs have faced increased payments to bus operators in the region of £1.5 million to £5.0 million per annum. Decisions by the Secretary of State are potentially undermining the sovereignty of PTAs to determine their own budgets. However, the reality is that the DfT funding to the PTAs <strong>and</strong> <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Authorities is fixed: so there is one rule for the DfT <strong>and</strong> another for reimbursing Authorities! ITSO provides a flexible <strong>and</strong> interoperable scheme basis which allows many of the current issues to be resolved: — Recognising a valid card. — As much data as you want. — Whose scheme is it? — Issuing the cards at where? — Local add ons. — Commercial add ons. — Cross Border. — Future proofing. Are concessionary fares schemes suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> diVerent geographical areas? — For the <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme to be applied on a national scale, it is essential that eligible passengers are able to travel with ease, Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) are able to gather reliable data about passenger numbers <strong>and</strong> travelling trends, <strong>and</strong> fraud can be minimised. Merseytravel recognises the opportunity to ensure that technology supports inter-operator
March 2007 1. Summary Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 159 ticketing not only across types of transport but also over areas <strong>and</strong> regions. Schemes using ITSOcompliant smartcard technology ensure complete interoperability <strong>and</strong> eYcient management of the movement of people <strong>and</strong>, if applied nationally, would ensure a “seamless journey” for the traveller regardless of mode or LTA boundary. Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport for London (TPT 29) 1.1 The Oyster smartcard has provided substantial benefits to passengers on all TfL modes since it was introduced in 2002. Passengers can move faster around the city. TfL’s losses from fraud have been reduced. And it has been the foundation for a transformation in TfL’s relationship with its regular customers. But it is important to recognise that Oyster may no longer represent a state-of-the-art smartcard system, as developments in related industries open up attractive alternative models. 1.2 TfL actively tackles fare evasion through the provision of dedicated revenue protection teams <strong>and</strong> believes that these teams generate net revenue. But it is still not satisfied with the rigour applied to revenue protection especially on buses. Further steps can be taken to make the law in this area more relevant to modern technologies. 2. Introduction 2.1 TfL welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into <strong>Ticketing</strong> on Public Transport. With four year’s worth of experience in running the Oyster smartcard system alongside its older paper ticket system, TfL feels it has useful perspectives to oVer on the subjects of smartcard technologies <strong>and</strong> revenue protection. TfL has also contributed to a separate submission by the Mayor of London that focuses on integrated ticketing <strong>and</strong> concessionary travel. 2.2 Overall, TfL considers that the introduction of the Oyster smartcard has been unambiguously positive. It has improved the customer experience in many ways. Certainly customers can proceed through TfL stations <strong>and</strong> board TfL buses much more quickly than used to be the case, <strong>and</strong> they are unanimously positive about this. But that is only the start. Customers now have a wider choice of travel products including the Oyster Pay As You Go stored value product which was impossible to deliver using paper tickets. They can also register their possession of a given Oyster card with TfL <strong>and</strong> thereby access an improved range of customer services <strong>and</strong> benefits. There is no interest within TfL in returning to paper tickets. 2.3 The Transport Policing & Enforcement Directorate’s (TPED’s) Bus Enforcement section is responsible for operational <strong>and</strong> procedural bus enforcement, including managing TfL’s approximately 295 Revenue Protection Inspectors 29 (RPIs), ticketing <strong>and</strong> policy input on revenue, <strong>and</strong> investigation <strong>and</strong> prosecution delivery for Surface Transport. Public transport providers have a duty to ensure that public <strong>and</strong> private monies are protected <strong>and</strong> paying customers are supported through eVective revenue protection <strong>and</strong> prosecution activities. 2.4 The pattern <strong>and</strong> methods of fare evasion have changed to adapt to new technology <strong>and</strong> ticketing requirements, particularly in the last two years. Fare evasion has also increased on the bus network over the same period. This has been driven by operational <strong>and</strong> ticketing changes which reinforce the need for appropriate legislation <strong>and</strong> eVective sanctions delivery. Fare evaders are often involved in other forms of crime. EVective fare evasion detection provides judicial access to these oVenders. 3. The Use of Smartcard Technologies 3.1 The Oyster contactless smartcard was launched by TfL in 2002 <strong>and</strong> since then has grown to be the largest transport smartcard scheme in the United Kingdom. To date, more than 11 million cards have been issued to TfL customers, <strong>and</strong> they use their cards for almost 7 million journeys on TfL <strong>and</strong> train operating company services every day. 82% of journeys on TfL services are now made using Oyster. But such a scheme does not come cheap: TfL pays its PFI contractor substantial service charges to provide <strong>and</strong> operate the Oyster system. There are broadly three lessons from London’s experience with Oyster. 3.2 First, Oyster has allowed passengers to move significantly faster around the city by reducing queues both for ticket purchase at ticket oYces <strong>and</strong> retail outlets <strong>and</strong> for London Underground gate-lines <strong>and</strong> bus entrances (maximum throughput for gates was increased from 15 passengers per minute to 40 on the 29 The main aims of RPIs are to: — Detect <strong>and</strong> minimise fare evasion on the London bus network. — Develop <strong>and</strong> eVectively use technology to ensure eVective resource targeting <strong>and</strong> data analysis. — Provide a visible, uniformed presence to deter fare evasion <strong>and</strong> other criminal behaviour. — Provide staV <strong>and</strong> passenger safety <strong>and</strong> security reassurance <strong>and</strong> to assist <strong>and</strong> guide as needed.
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:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148: 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 197: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 15
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?