Memorandum from Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Authority and Executive (GMPTAE) (TPT 08)
SUMMARY
— The range and pricing of public
transport tickets available in Greater Manchester is over-complex
and acts as a disincentive for passengers to travel and to change
between modes or services.
— On-bus cash fares and ticket
sales cause significant boarding delays and can negate much of
the investment that has taken place in bus priority measures.
— Premium pricing of all operator
bus tickets, together with discounting of single operator tickets
mean that, in Greater Manchester, only 12% of all paid-for tickets
are valid on all buses
— We believe that developing an
easy-to-understand, easy-to-use ticketing system is a key factor
in determining the attractiveness and efficiency of public transport
services.
— However, even with the simplest
of schemes, tickets must remain affordable. There is evidence
in Greater Manchester that ticket complexity and fare levels restrict
the mobility of the most disadvantaged members of the community.
— ITSO compliant Smartcards have
the potential to facilitate better inter-operability, interchange
and cross-boundary travel. The government should fully fund the
roll out of ITSO smartcards in England as has happened in Scotland
and Wales.
— In pursuit of our social inclusion
objectives, Passenger Transport Authorities should have the power
and funding to grant concessions to groups other than the elderly,
disabled and children, including unemployed people, those on low
incomes and young people.
B. BACKGROUND
B.1 GMPTA/E, working with its partners,
the district councils, are responsible for the planning, co-ordination
and development of the public transport network in Greater Manchester.
Public transport services are however, provided largely on a commercial
basis by private operators, including around 70 bus operators,
each responsible for their own fares and ticketing arrangements.
GMPTA/E has an aspiration for a ticketing system that is "easy-to-understand
and easy-to-use", but the reality is very different; there
are approaching 100 different ticket products available to passengers,
not counting individual operators' single trip tickets
B.2 In common with other transport authorities,
our Local Transport Plan represents the policy framework and scheme
programme for the conurbation over a five-year period. However,
our long term vision and strategic direction is provided by the
Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy (GMITS) which
was produced jointly by GMPTA/E and the local authorities in April
2005 and forms the basis for our Transport Innovation Fund (TIF)
bid currently being prepared for submission to Government in July
2007. GMITS emphasises the importance of transport investment
to secure future economic growth, regeneration and quality of
life improvements across the conurbation. A range of measures
is proposed to deliver a sustainable network which reduces car
dependency through a combination of demand management measures
and extensive investment to improve the quality and coverage of
the public transport system. The development and design of a ticketing
and fares system is identified as a key factor in determining
the attractiveness and efficiency of the future public transport
network so as to achieve our modal split and social inclusion
objectives.
B.3 GMTL[18]
provides a range of tickets valid on all operators' services.
However, it is widely regarded that the complexity of tickets
and fares is a major disincentive to using public transport, which
then limits the potential to increase the modal share of public
transport. Ticketing and fares for local bus services are particularly
complex, with differences in the level and structure of fares
levied by individual operators and a number of single-operator
period tickets offered.
B.4 On average, buses in Greater Manchester
spend a third of their journey time stationary or moving slowly.
Boarding and alighting accounts for about a third of this (11%
of overall journey time). There is considerable variation in individual
passenger boarding times, ranging from an average of around four
seconds for pass users, to six to nine seconds for a single or
return ticket and 12-15 seconds for the initial on-bus sale of
day/weekly tickets. A high proportion of single-operator weekly
tickets are sold on Monday mornings leading to a significant variation
in boarding times over the course of the week. GMPTE is currently
working with bus operators in Greater Manchester to identify ways
of improving boarding times by increasing the level of rules of
off-bus tickets, including the provision of on-street ticket machines.
B5 Developing a pilot ITSO compliant smartcard
project.
A pilot scheme with a local bus operator to
promote off-bus ticket sales.
B.6 It is against this background that GMPTA/E
offers the following comments on the questions posed in the Committee's
Terms of Reference and Call for Evidence.
INTEGRATED TICKETING
Q1. Is ticketing sufficiently integrated
across different modes of transport between different geographical
areas?
1.1 Within Greater Manchester there is a
fairly comprehensive range of inter modal tickets covering day,
weekly and longer period travelcards. However, there are still
gaps in coverage—for example there is no ticket that is
available to peak travellers that covers all modes.
1.2 Overall there is insufficient integration
amongst modes. This in part stems from the fact that ticketing
policies are different between bus and the other modes. On train
and tram, it is nearly always possible to buy a through ticket
from any point on the network to any other point—"one
journey, one ticket". This has made it easier to have through
ticketing between train and Metrolink in Greater Manchester.
1.3 In contrast, bus passengers have to
buy a new ticket every time they change bus routes, unless it
is cheaper to buy a day ticket (if one is available). This discourages
interchange and integration as there is not full ticketing integration
across bus as a mode. For many passengers this is more important
than inter-modal integration. Journeys requiring interchange can
be even more difficult where they involve travel across local
authority boundaries.
1.4 Apart from the national rail network,
different operators have their own ticketing systems and this
can lead to problems with automated ticket checking. Where there
are inter-modal, integrated tickets they are always priced at
a significant premium to other tickets valid only on one mode
or for one operator. For example, the two main bus operators in
Greater Manchester, First and Stagecoach, offer weekly tickets
priced at £13.00 and £9.50 respectively whereas the
all operator bus weekly is £15.00. As a consequence, only
12% of all paid bus journeys (ie excluding use of concessionary
passengers, school and employee passes) involve a ticket valid
on all buses. There is evidence in Greater Manchester that some
passengers avoid travelling outside the territory of their local
dominant bus operator because they cannot afford to buy a more
expensive multi-operator ticket. Because making an inter modal
journey or even changing buses often carries a financial penalty
few passengers interchange—hence operators argue that there
is no demand for interchange.
1.5 GMPTA is one of the few Authorities
that has made a statutory Ticketing Scheme under the provisions
of S.135—138 of the Transport Act. However, whilst we have
powers to require integrated tickets we cannot control the price
of those tickets as in a deregulated bus market, operators are
free to set their own fares.
Q2. Does the Government have an adequate
strategy for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
2.1 We are unaware of any overall government
strategy for integrating ticketing systems. DfT has supported
the development of the ITSO specification for Smartcards (which
can facilitate but not in themselves create integrated ticketing).
The Department has insisted that it will not fund smartcard ticketing
systems that are not ITSO compliant.
2.2 However, this is, in many ways, negative.
There does not appear to be any strategy to encourage development
of integrated ticketing—this is left to PTA/Es and operators.
However, bus operators are still more concerned with maximising
market share than with increasing the overall market for public
transport through better integration.
THE USE
OF SMARTCARD
TECHNOLOGIES
Q3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard
technologies adequately and appropriately?
3.1 A number of Authorities started work
on adopting smartcard ticketing technology in the early 1990s,
an example being TfLs Oyster card system which was launched in
1998.
3.2 It was quickly recognised that interoperability
of ticketing schemes between authorities, operators, transport
modes and with other applications was essential and ITSO was established
as a consequence in 1998. ITSO is the most comprehensive and secure
ticketing interoperability ticketing standard in the world. However,
with the benefit of hindsight it took too long to develop and
did not involve industry suppliers early enough in its development.
The outcome is that there have been too many latent technical
issues which have delayed its implementation and wider adoption.
During the development of ITSO those authorities who were contemplating
the introduction of smartcard ticketing decided correctly to defer
its introduction until the final specification of ITSO was published.
The cost of migrating a non or partial ITSO system to full ITSO
certification is substantial, as TfL has found. Those authorities
which had an existing smartcard system essentially required funding
support from DfT to migrate to ITSO compliance.
3.3 The extent of the technical modifications
since the final ITSO specification was published in March 2003
has caused a number of authorities to defer a decision on adopting
ITSO until they see it operating successfully on more than the
current handful of individual bus routes.
3.4 The only major smartcard ticketing systems
which have proceeded since ITSO was launched have been in Scotland
and Wales where the funding has been provided by the Scottish
Executive and the Welsh Assembly respectively. Thus the industry
is not currently taking up smartcard ticketing technology adequately
because it recognises the inherent risk. Scotland and Wales are
proceeding because the risk has been minimised by the provision
of full funding.
3.5 Most authorities would like to see ITSO
systems operating successfully on different bus routes involving
multiple bus operators, across boundaries and ideally on multimodal
transport before they will regard the risks to be minimal. One
solution would be for central government to fully fund new ticketing
systems as in the case of Scotland and Wales.
Q4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs
of all passengers and travel providers?
4.1 ITSO has been designed to provide interoperability
across ticket types for different modes of transport and to allow
multiple applications to co-exist including multiple purses. From
a technical perspective ITSO does provide passengers with a secure
multiple choice smartcard and scope to use other media, for example,
mobile phones.
4.2 As there are no ITSO systems currently
operating in UK on a major scale involving multimodal travel across
ticketing authority boundaries there are still some operational
unknowns.
4.3 Some bus operators have expressed concerns
about the level of ITSO licence fees and charges.
4.4 ITSO per se does not solve many of the
practical issues of using a smartcard or a mobile phone for ticketing.
For example, should passengers be asked to validate their journey
when they get on and off a bus (check in/check out) as occurs
in closed rail systems; what time period should be allowed for
passengers to interchange between routes and modes when using
one ticket type. ITSO does provide the technical means to solve
these policy options.
4.5 A stored value ticketing solution is
probably the simplest approach to interoperability for the vast
range of tickets on sale today in UK. The use of ITSO and the
ticketing system software enables the calculation of "the
fairest fare" based on actual usage eg it emulates a single
trip, a daily or weekly ticket based on the journeys undertaken
by the passenger. A passenger buying a weekly or monthly ticket
in advance and then unable to use the full value due to changes
in work requirements or illness would only pay for the journeys
actually made.
Q5. What can be learned from the experience
of areas such as London and Scotland where smartcard technology
is already in place?
5.1 The most obvious and least practised
lesson is to develop standards for interoperability before introducing
new technology. The problem is that technology is commercially
driven and normally develops much faster than standards which
are generally government driven and funded. Where the need for
standards has been legislated by governments in advance, such
as in mobile phones the resulting interoperability has allowed
almost three billion mobile phone users to operate across over
170 countries today.
5.2 The second lesson is that there needs
to be far more consultation both between transport authorities
and with suppliers before introducing major new technology schemes.
5.3 Smartcard ticketing interoperability
would have been achieved far earlier in the UK if each tender
for a new ticketing system had mandated the requirement for open
system interfaces (standards) and included a 10-15% retention
amount which would be held and only paid if interoperability is
fully achieved with other systems within a given time period.
Industry is far more adept at achieving interoperability if there
is a financial incentive.
5.4 Finally, simplified flat fares in London
have been the key to the successful adoption of Oyster card and
have helped to speed up journeys by taking cash fares off buses
in central London.
REVENUE PROTECTION
AND THE
POWERS OF
TICKET INSPECTORS
GMPTA/E has no comments to offer on Q6-Q9.
Q6. Is the legal framework within which ticket
inspectors' function appropriate?
Q7. What appeal mechanisms
exist for passengers and are they adequate?
Q8. Are the rights of passengers and the
powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
Q9. Do operators
of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
CONCESSIONARY FARES—THE
RIGHT STRATEGY?
Q10. Is the Government's concessionary fares
strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 The Government's decisions to firstly
introduce a local free bus fares scheme for pensioners and disabled
people from April 2006 and then, from April 2008, to make this
available on a national basis has been widely welcomed by concessionaires.
In Greater Manchester we have taken the decision to also make
free travel available on local tram and rail services. This scheme
is undoubtedly leading to greater use of public transport and
a reduction in car use, particularly among younger pensioners
amongst whom car ownership and car use has been rising over recent
decades. The local scheme is simple and well understood by users.
The extension of the scheme next year will provide additional
benefits and will be particularly well received by those who need
to make cross boundary journeys on a regular basis or who are
visiting other parts of the country.
10.2 However, the 2008 scheme presents huge
financial risks to authorities that have high visitor numbers
such as Greater Manchester. The Concessionary Bus Travel Bill
requires the authority in which a travel concession journey begins
to reimburse the bus operator. This means that whilst the large
number of visitors who travel in to Greater Manchester by bus
will have their incoming journey reimbursed by their originating
authority, GMPTA will have to pay for the return journey and any
journeys that take place within Greater Manchester during the
period of that visit. Similarly, large numbers of visitors will
continue to travel to Greater Manchester by car or by train and
once within the county boundary they will be able to travel by
bus. In such circumstances, the journey will have originated within
Greater Manchester and it will fall to GMPTA to reimburse the
operator.
10.3 There is also a contrast between the
national scheme which is available for pensioners and disabled
people and the lack of any equivalent scheme for children and
other potentially vulnerable groups. In Greater Manchester the
recent decision of the Government assessor to accept the arguments
of the local bus operators that they should receive additional
re imbursement for participating in the national scheme has meant
that, in order to balance its budget, the PTA has reluctantly
had to increase the child concessionary fare from 50 pence to
70 pence. In addition we, along with other transport authorities,
do not have the power to grant concessions to unemployed people
or others on low income. It should also be noted that many authorities,
including all our neighbours, offer a significantly less generous
scheme for children than Greater Manchester with half fare schemes
being commonplace. In Greater Manchester we estimate that a half
fare scheme would mean that the average child fare would increase
to 85 pence.
10.3 We would argue that there is a case
for reviewing the categories of people who are entitled to concessions
and also for considering whether available national resources
should be more evenly allocated and enabling local transport authorities
to balance the needs of different groups in a more even handed
way. Given that children and young people are potentially the
public transport users of tomorrow concessions which help to develop
the public transport habit could be seen to be a good investment.
There is therefore a need for greater clarity about the overall
objectives of the Government's strategy in these terms. If modal
shift and promotion of public transport is an objective then some
degree of support towards the transport costs of children and
young people is likely to deliver positive outcomes.
Q11. Are concessionary fares schemes sufficiently
integrated across different modes of transport and different geographical
areas?
11.1 Greater Manchester has a history of
offering concessions across all modes of public transport. As
mentioned above the recently introduced free scheme is available
across the bus, rail and tram networks. We recognise however that
not all authorities offer similar schemes and the offer to concessionaires
on local rail and light rail networks is likely to continue to
vary significantly across different areas after April 2008. The
present problems that arise for pensioners and disabled people
making cross boundary bus journeys are likely to be alleviated
once the national scheme is introduced next year but anomalies
are likely to persist for other groups of concessionaires who
are not subject to the national scheme.
March 2007
18 18 Greater Manchester Travelcards Limited, a consortium
of local public transport operators and GMPTE. Back
| 
