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

Ev 162 Transport Committee: Evidence
5. Conclusion
5.1 TfL’s experience of Oyster suggests that contactless smartcards are the best way to h<strong>and</strong>le ticketing
in highly-congested urban centres like London. And encouragingly, the smartcard industry will soon be able
to oVer transport operators a range of contactless technologies derived from the payments <strong>and</strong> mobile phone
industries that will be much cheaper than the transport-specific technologies that have been available to
date.
5.2 TfL is firmly of the view that proactive revenue protection is a value-creating activity, but is concerned
that it has yet to achieve the levels of performance in this area to which it aspires. TfL requires support in
its work to control the revenue lost to bus network fare evasion <strong>and</strong> fraud annually. Further legal rights
would allow RPIs to better tackle to this issue to allow significantly increased revenue for reinvestment in
London’s public transport network. There are some characteristics of the legislation surrounding revenue
protection that require updating <strong>and</strong> which currently mitigate against the most eVective revenue protection
at present. TfL would encourage the Committee to consider how these might be re-visited <strong>and</strong> made wholly
relevant to both recent technological developments <strong>and</strong> varied operational requirements. Public transport
service providers have a duty to ensure that public <strong>and</strong> private monies are protected <strong>and</strong> paying customers
supported through eVective revenue protection <strong>and</strong> prosecution activities. A consistent approach to the
detection <strong>and</strong> deterrence of fare evasion <strong>and</strong> fraud by national operators together with a consistent
approach by the judicial services is needed to adequately address these errant behaviours.
March 2007
1. Introduction
Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from Transport for London (TPT 29a)
1.1 Our response to the request for additional information that was made by the Committee during our
oral evidence session regarding the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme, the Freedom Pass <strong>and</strong>
Revenue Protection OYcers is set out below. We have also included information about London
Underground’s <strong>Ticketing</strong> Strategy which was raised later during that session.
2. The Impact of the English National <strong>Concessionary</strong> <strong>Travel</strong> Scheme on Dem<strong>and</strong> for London
Bus Services
2.1 Reliable information on current London bus usage by non-London concession holders is diYcult to
obtain. We have agreed an estimate with the Boroughs on which to base provisional payments in 2008–09
until actual data comes through from the on-bus surveys. The Boroughs will pay us £25 million on the basis
there are currently 25 million paid for journeys, which will rise to about 40 million as a result of free travel
(ie generation of about 15 million journeys, or about 0.75% increase in total bus traYc of 2200 million). The
payment will be retrospectively adjusted once actual usage figures come through. A further factor here is
that the government formula for distributing the additional grant for the out-of-area travel (£212 million
for Engl<strong>and</strong>) looks likely to give the Boroughs £60 million!, compared with our £25 million cost estimate.
This occurs mainly because the London scheme has always included out-of-Borough travel—so the
Boroughs would argue is simply putting right many years of injustice, not h<strong>and</strong>ing them a windfall.
3. London Boroughs <strong>and</strong> Payment for the Freedom Pass
3.1 London Councils is responsible for managing the Freedom Pass <strong>and</strong> would be able to provide further
information about how the scheme is funded.
4. Revenue Protection Officers
4.1 In 2006–07 there were 21 recorded major staV assaults on revenue protection oYcers on the bus
network, ie those assaults leading to over 3 days sick leave <strong>and</strong> 115 minor assaults. Up to the end of period
9 this year (8 December 2007), there have been 17 major assaults <strong>and</strong> 72 minor assaults. This is in the context
of additional revenue staV operating on the network <strong>and</strong>, currently, there is no year-on-year increase in
assaults per hours of ticket checking on buses.
5. London Underground’s <strong>Ticketing</strong> Strategy
5.1 Oyster currently represents nearly 70% of all London Underground (LU) ticket sales. Its success has
provided an opportunity for LU to look at the best ways of deploying its staV to the benefit of all passengers,
especially in the context of the huge rise in numbers currently being experienced. By moving some staV from
positions in ticket oYces to more customer-facing positions, LU believes that its service will be improved.