Memorandum from Dr Roger Sexton, Academic
Legal Studies, Nottingham Trent University (TPT 01)
1. INTRODUCTION—THREE
SEPARATE INQUIRIES?
The terms of reference of the inquiry divide
into three very distinct issues:
A Integrated ticketing—including smartcards;
C Free Public Transport for Seniors (and
other "socially disadvantaged" groups).
2. INTEGRATED
TRANSPORT IMPOSSIBLE
IN BRITAIN
The legal regimes governing British public transport
(bus deregulation and over-centralised rail franchising) means
that it is impossible to integrate public transport in the way
it is done by the Swiss and by some of our EU partners (notably
the Germans and the Swedes).
2.1 European Best Practice
As I have explained in previous memoranda, the
integration in Sweden is achieved by organisations called Lanstrafiken
(regional PTEs). Each Lanstrafiken controls all the local public
transport in its area. The control extends, of course, to ticketing
and fares. There is one ticketing system for the whole of a Lanstrafiken
region. The Lanstrafiken tickets are valid on all operators (except
certain long distance inter-city services).
Similarly, every major German-speaking conurbation
in Europe has a "Verkehrsverbund" controlling all public
transport within its area. Eg the Rhein-Ruhr Verkehrsverbund covers
the whole of the industrial Ruhrgebiet. There is one ticketing
system for the whole of this vast region; the tickets are valid
on all public transport except Inter-City long-distance trains.
2.2 Integrated Ticketing Impossible in Britain
As I have explained in previous memoranda, bus
deregulation, with operators competing against each other, is
the antithesis of integration. Each bus operator has its own fare
structure and its own tickets, and (except in rare cases) tickets
are not inter-available between operators..
Tickets which are valid on both buses and trains
(the norm with Lanstrafik or Verkehrsverbund tickets) are very
rare in Britain.
2.3 Conclusion—Integrated Ticketing
Through Franchising
The only practical way of achieving a comprehensive
integrated ticketing system is to have all public transport controlled
by franchising bodies. The franchising structure I would adopt
in Britain is set out in my memorandum to the committee regarding
Rail Franchising—see page 212 of your report on that subject.
3. SMARTCARDS—LOOK
ABROAD
I am not qualified to comment on the technological
issues raised by your questions 3, 4 and 5. I would however urge
the committee to look for lessons from abroad, as well as looking
at the London and Scottish schemes.
In particular, the committee should pay a study
visit to the Väst (West) region of Sweden (main city Gothenburg)
where the existing ticket system is being replaced by smartcards.
ALL passengers on ALL local and regional public transport (buses,
trains, trams and ferries) will be using the same type of smartcard.
3.1 Nottingham— Two Operators—Two
Different Systems of Smartcards
For many years now, my "easyrider"
season ticket on Nottingham City Transport has been in the form
of a smart-card which I hold against a reader as I get on the
bus. (On the tram I hand it to the conductor who holds it against
his portable reader.)
The other major bus operator in Nottingham (Trentbarton)
is about to introduce an apparently totally incompatible smartcard
system. The Trentbarton cards will have to be held against the
reader both as the passenger gets on and as he/she gets off. (Check
in—check out.)
3.2 Conclusion—Smartcard Standards Prescribed
by Legislation
The Nottingham example I have just given is
not known nationally. By contrast, every one knows that Mayor
Livingstone was having problems (possibly now resolved) getting
Train Operating Companies to accept Oystercards.
The truth is that the current legal structure
of British public transport is such that each public transport
operator will opt for whatever smartcard (if any) it considers
best suits its commercial purposes.
If Britain wants to achieve an integrated ticketing
system through the use of smartcards, then (whatever other legal
regulation there may or may not be) legislation will have to be
passed (a) compelling operators to accept smartcards, (b) laying
down uniform technical standards for smartcards.
4. REVENUE PROTECTION—COMPLEX
LEGAL ISSUES
The committee's questions 6, 7 and 8 require
a lot of empirical research which it would be impossible for anyone
to accomplish in the four weeks allowed for the preparation of
memoranda. I will therefore confine myself to a few remarks of
a rather general nature.
4.1 Level of Penalty Fares
In the few places in Britain where there are
spot fines for ticketless travel, the fine is, typically, ten
pounds. This is much lower than elsewhere in the EU, where the
spot fine is now (typically) 60 (or even 80) Euros.
I would (however) be unhappy with granting privately
owned democratically unaccountable bus operators the powers to
impose "fines" in the region of £45.
Spot fines are acceptable, but only if they
are administered by inspectors working for a democratically accountable
body such as a regional PTE.
4.2 The Adequacy of Revenue Protection Measures
Taken by Operators
Question nine is of a very different nature
from questions six, seven and eight. The short answer to question
nine is that some operators take adequate measures, others do
not.
4.3 Revenue Protection by Rail Operators
Those operators (including the London Underground)
which have "gated" their stations obviously take revenue
protection very seriously.
Where stations are not "gated", then
it is essential to have an adequate number of roving conductors
on the train (or tram).
There is a major problem in the mornings (and
on Saturdays) on lines which have busy unmanned stations (or stops).
The conductor does not have time to collect all the fares. This
problem would be ameliorated by employing (part-time) staff to
man the otherwise unstaffed stations. The exact hours of staffing
would depend on local conditions.
4.4 Revenue Protection by Bus Operators
The old-fashioned bus inspector is almost extinct.
With all passengers boarding past the driver, the driver can normally
ensure that everyone has a ticket (or pass) of some sort. But
the driver has no time to check for forgeries. (I gather this
is a problem in some areas, even with Seniors' passes.)
On busy routes, the driver has only a limited
chance to check against overriding, ie the passenger traveling
further than they have paid for.
4.5 Effect of Free Travel for Seniors on Payment
Morale of Other Passengers
There are already some bus routes where Senior
passengers (who go free) outnumber fare payers. Many of those
fare payers are likely to be between 18 and 25, and either unemployed,
in low-pay employment, or students running up five-figure debts.
Increasingly, I fear that this younger generation
will be thinking, "Why should I pay for my ticket when others—more
well-off than me—go free?" They will be increasingly
tempted to evade payment.
5. FREE TRAVEL
FOR SENIORS
AND OTHER
"DISADVANTAGED" GROUPS
I would again first ask the committee to re-read
what I said in section 10 of my memorandum to the inquiry on public
transport overcrowding. I continue to adhere to those views, even
though they have now been very much overtaken by events.
The free bus travel for pensioners has in England
(as it did in Scotland and Wales) produced an upsurge in bus usage,
especially on inter-urban routes. But it is to the long-term detriment
of buses as a means of public transport.
5.1 The Social Services Image of Bus Travel
Outside London, many British citizens view buses
as a means of transport only used by the less wealthy. Buses full
of people over sixty strengthen that perception.
5.2 Things are Worse for Existing Fare-paying
Passengers
There are three aspects to this. Firstly, there
is the danger (which has now materialised on long inter-urban
routes such as the Nottingham-Manchester "Transpeak")
that fare-paying passengers wanting to get on at intermediate
stops are crowded off by the "freebies".
Secondly, there is the effect of the "freebies"
on the level of fares. In most areas, re-imbursement to the operator
is on the basis of a percentage of the adult fare. The higher
the fare, the greater the re-imbursement. If (as happens on some
routes) the majority of passengers are "Seniors", the
operator will be tempted to set the normal adult fare as high
as possible.
Thirdly, there are signs that operators are
now deliberately targeting the Senior "market". In particular,
the elderly do not like going out in the evenings. Operators who
focus on the Senior "market" will have their buses back
in the depot by 1900. The (fare-paying) younger generation want
buses which run 18 (or even 24) hours a day.
5.3 A Massive Subsidy to Democratically Unaccountable
Bus Operators
As a matter of pure legal theory, free travel
for pensioners is meant to be a subsidy for pensioners, not bus
operators. The practical reality is now very clearly otherwise.
Throughout most of Britain, enormous sums of taxpayers' money
are now being paid to bus operators who (unlike their continental
or London counterparts) can decide when they are going to run
their buses and the fares that that they are going to charge.
5.4 Subsidising Seniors' Inter-Urban Journeys
Most (but not all) of the current English schemes
already allow free direct bus journeys from a Senior's home district
to towns which are on a direct bus route from that home district.
I personally see a lot of Seniors making long free inter-urban
journeys, eg Nottingham to Chesterfield or Lincoln to Skegness.
Is it right that the taxpayer should pay for
such trips?
I answer this question with a resounding "No!"
And I give that answer even though I am in my sixtieth year, and
I am retiring at the end of September. I do indeed intend to spend
some of that retirement travelling around the country on buses,
but I do not think that my fellow tax-payers should pay for my
joy-riding.
5.5 The Cost of Free Travel for Pensioners
Partly as a result of the "inter-urban"
phenomenon just mentioned, the free bus travel for Seniors is
already (in England) costing more than anticipated. There are
also a large number of disputes regarding re-imbursement rates
for operators.
Free travel for Seniors (and I shall soon be
one) is becoming an unacceptable burden on taxpayers. It is particularly
unfair on rural areas, and on Seniors who (for any reason) are
unable to use bus services.
5.5 Conclusion—Abolish Free Travel for
Seniors
Free travel concessions (except perhaps for
the disabled) should not be expanded. Rather, they should be abolished.
To soften the blow (and the potential political
consequences) I would enact two straightforward proposals:
A. All public transport operators (train,
bus, tram and ferry but not air) must charge the over-60s half
the fare a normal adult would pay. There would be no time restrictions
on this concession, and there would be no reimbursement for operators.
B. At least two-thirds of the money
saved by the abolition of free travel should be used to increase
the basic state pension payable to those who do not have a private
pension. These "poor" pensioners lose their free bus
travel, but they get more money to spend as they wish.
February 2007
| 
