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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 196 Transport Committee: Evidence 11.2.4 The principal multi-modal issue is bus-rail. Cheshire has 47 stations but local journeys are dominated by bus. Most Cheshire districts oVer discounted over-60s railcards <strong>and</strong> rail vouchers for disabled people but this is the limit of concessionary fares activity. March 2007 Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Eric Martlew MP (TPT 42) Copy of Letter sent to Eric Martlew MP Regarding <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares from the Town Clerk & Chief Executive, Carlisle City Council Dear Ms XXXX Re <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Options for distributing specific grant for 2008 free “National <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Scheme” I refer to your request for comments on the four options being considered for the distribution of specific grant <strong>and</strong> would comment as follows: The basis of the grant distribution should take account of: — The prospective eligible take-up by persons qualifying for the scheme, which will be more in urban areas. — Factors that might encourage bus patronage such as shopping centres, attractions increasing tourist travel to <strong>and</strong> from the area etc. — The level of bus services provided <strong>and</strong> their destinations, which will influence take up. Of the four options available I believe option 1 <strong>and</strong> option 4 best meet these criteria ie Option 1 includes: — Day visitors, although the information to be used is very old (1991). This is an existing factor in RSG calculations <strong>and</strong> may be replaced by an “Attractiveness of an Area to Day Visitors” factor in the RSG calculation in future years. — Incapacity Benefit <strong>and</strong> Severe Disablement Allowance. Again an existing factor in RSG calculations. — Net In-Commuters, reflecting bus patronage. — Density Area Up-lift to reflect the number of potential destinations available, useful for tourist related travel, although it is doubtful how relevant it is for local travel. Option 4 includes: — Eligible population, obviously helpful to assess the scale of the potential take-up of the revised scheme. — Passenger journeys on buses. This is the only indicator within the two options based on locally provided data <strong>and</strong> is provided by the County Council. — Overnight visitors—to reflect the potential for travel in tourist areas. — Retail floor space—to reflect the potential dem<strong>and</strong> for travel to out of town <strong>and</strong> principal shopping centres. Presumably as the major centre within the area this would benefit Carlisle with in flow from outside the area <strong>and</strong> cost Carlisle for return journeys. Unfortunately when the attributes contained in the four options are given values/calculated (based on your definitions) <strong>and</strong> are presented in cost terms the resulting grant distributed at second tier level is at odds with the actual pensioner ridership/remuneration to operators. This is due to the fact that information on ‘say’ passenger ridership is obtained from the Transport Authority <strong>and</strong> then pro-rata based on population rather than actual district ridership trends. Cumbria ridership statistics compared with potential grant distribution illustrates the inequitable nature of using transport authority data <strong>and</strong> then pro rataing it down to district (second tier) level. Ridership Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 2007–08 * £000 £000 £000 £000 Allerdale 632,843 195 127 187 465 Barrow 1,145,796 253 212 219 222 Carlisle 2,132,664 397 289 395 403 Copel<strong>and</strong> 492,869 222 153 211 203 Eden 68,346 93 118 98 325 S Lakel<strong>and</strong> 507,822 231 176 216 766 *Based on April to October 2007 trends.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 197 Urban Authorities (Carlisle in above table) with up to 30 times the passenger ridership levels due to well developed bus networks get similar levels of grant (or less grant) as small rural authorities (Eden <strong>and</strong> South Lakel<strong>and</strong>) with very few buses <strong>and</strong> therefore insignificant concessionary ridership. The only way to redress this major flaw, (which is the reason why urban authorities (in two tier Authority areas) are in such financial diYculties in meeting the net cost (after grant) of the 2006 free scheme.) is to distribute the grant to the Transport Authority rather than individual districts. Broadly there is likely to be enough specific grant to fund the 2008 enhanced <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme but unless distributed to the Transport Authority (based on options under consideration) there will be very big winners (small rural authorities) <strong>and</strong> big losers (urban authorities). Due to the flaw in the calculation the problems being experienced by urban authorities in funding the 2006 Scheme (£0.5 million overspend or 8.3% of net budget requirement by Carlisle) will become even more of a problem from 1 April 2008. Finally if the Department for Transport have come to the view that funding the cost of the enhanced <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares scheme by specific grant is the way forward, surely this should also be the view for grant funding for the 2006 scheme currently funded via RSG. I trust the above comments will influence you in deciding on the most equitable way to distribute specific grant to help fund the 2008 Free “National” <strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares Scheme. November 2007 Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from the Transport Salaried StaVs Association (TSSA) (TPT 43) 1. When TSSA Assistant General Secretary, Manuel Cortes, gave oral evidence to the Committee on 5 December 2007, he undertook to try to provide some information on the high profile, multi-agency approach to fighting crime on public transport in Greater London (Operation Lockstock). Set out below is information subsequently provided by the British Transport Police: Operation Lockstock ran from 6 November 2006 to 5 January 2007 targeting assaults on staV within the London Boroughs. The Operation was organised in partnership with the London Criminal Justice Board <strong>and</strong> Crown Prosecution Service <strong>and</strong> was underpinned by a Memo of Underst<strong>and</strong>ing between the CPS <strong>and</strong> BTP to ensure that assaults on staV are appropriately dealt with. Although the Operation has finished the BTP/CPS protocol continues to ensure appropriate action is taken in staV assault cases. The table below summarises performance during the two month period. Recorded crime increased by 40% <strong>and</strong> detections increased by 3.7% on the same period last year. RECORDED STAFF ASSAULTS AND SANCTIONED DETECTIONS 06/11/06 TO 05/01/07 WITHIN METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS Sanction %age Sanction Crimes Detections Detections London North 43 27 62.8 London South 78 31 39.7 London Underground 178 71 39.9 Total 2006–07 299 129 43.1 2005–06 total 213 84 39.4 Increase on 2005–06 86 45 3.7 It is believed that the increase in recorded crime may be due to increased confidence of staV after extensive publicity for the operation. BTP rolled out the use of conditional cautions as an additional disposal for cases of common assault against rail staV in London. The BTP will complete a full roll-out of conditional cautions in London at the same time as the MPS, <strong>and</strong> nationally it will be rolled out, piecemeal’ in line with the local police force. During the operation, nine oVences were dealt with by conditional caution. All oVenders were required to write a letter of apology to the victim <strong>and</strong> were required to pay compensation (eight cases were required to pay £50 <strong>and</strong> one case £75). There has been 100% compliance with the conditions to date.
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:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Lostwithiel to Liskeard Transport C
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
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 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
— Ensure the confidentiality of d
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
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 185 and 186: 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: 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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?