Memorandum from North-East Combined Transport
Activists' Roundtable (NECTAR) (TPT 16)
GENERAL POINTS
The answers to all the sets of questions vary
according to:
(i) which mode of transport is considered,
and
(ii) whether the viewpoint is that of the
passenger or of the service-provider.
Our response tries to consider conditions on
buses and on trains from both viewpoints wherever possible.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
AS POSED
INTEGRATED TICKETING
1. Is ticketing sufficiently integrated (a) across
different modes of transport and (b) between different geographical
areas?
(a) No, not even in the London area, although
it is better there than in most places. Oyster cards are not (yet)
valid on several local rail services within the TfL area. In the
provinces, the term "integration" is variously defined:
some rail companies offer flat-fare add-ons for bus use at destination,
but this does not help those whose rail-journeys are prefaced
by a bus ride. PTEs do better on this than towns and cities without
PTEs: for instance, Tyne and Wear offers "TransFares"
on bus or metro for those changing modes as part of their journey,
and Merseyside has Day Rover tickets for useon buses, trains and
ferries. Apart from isolated examples such as these, little is
done, particularly in non-PTE areas, to allow passengers using
two buses for one journey to take one ticket rather than re-booking
on the second bus.
Nowhere in continental Europe expects anything
like this. In fact, bus tickets as such are flat-fare and valid
for a stated period of time, without being confined to one bus
journey or (where relevant) one mode of travel. Yet, in principle,
integrated ticketing is (in our view, anyway) vital if public
transport is to attract more people to use it—and in theory
its introduction should cost very little. As public transport
providers are hopelessly fragmented, however, aiming to maximise
profits rather than to carry more people, ticket integration is
difficult to introduce, especially if operators see it as a potential
loss of revenue in the short term.
(b) It depends if this means "one and
the same ticket may take a passenger through a series of bus/rail/bus
changes over a long distance" or "facilities in one
conurbation match/differ from those offered in another".
Thus, in the North-East region, through-ticketing allows transfer
from "heavy" rail to Tyne and Wear metro, though this
does not always receive the publicity that it should: but no such
through ticketing exists any-where in Tees-side. There are even
cases of buses that run as one route and then regularly change
their identity to another route, in central Stockton or Middlesbrough:
but no passengers travelling along parts of both these routes,
and on the same bus, are ever allowed to book a through ticket
when first they board the vehicles.
The only circumstances in which any form of consistency
between different areas occurs are those of free OAP travel, except
that, until 2008, such travel may only be in the pass-holder's
local area. For those not entitled to OAP rates, however, it is
notable that fares-levels on bus and train have risen far further
than have motoring costs, both perceived and actual. This alone
must discourage many from changing from car use to buses and/or
trains.
[See also answers to Questions 10 and 11]
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy
for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
We know of no Government strategy whatever for
developing such integration, though we think that there needs
to be one.
USE OF
SMART CARD
TECHNOLOGIES
3. Is the industry taking up modern smart-card
technologies (a) adequately and (b) appropriately?
(a) It is virtually impossible for bus or
rail users to answer this question in any meaningful sense, apart
from pointing out that, as we see it, the answer is "no".
Costs must, inevitably, be borne by the operators,
who are often involved in damage-limitation exercises rather than
in aggressive marketing of their services. Modest though the extra
costs may be, the element of risk seems too often to rule out
innovations of this sort, though it is pleasing to note a few
forthcoming exceptions in the north Lancashire and Cheshire areas.
The difficulties may be more imagined than real, in that smart-card
technology eases the task of allocating fare income between operators
and modes, but there is always the possibility of machine failure,
and, on buses, the ensuing inability of a passenger to pay in
cash instead and/or of a driver to decide how much money to take
for his/her part of the journey.
(b) It follows from the previous answer that
this part, too, gets a thumbs-down in most cases. For bus-users
forced to wait outside a loading bus for several minutes, often
in wind and rain, because tickets must be bought individually
and often after a lengthy discussion of the exact destination
and the fare payable, improvements are vital, and could include
off-bus sales of booklets of ready-priced tickets (cf the
carnet system in Paris and elsewhere), as well as variations
on the London Oyster card system. Carnets could also help for
local rail journeys. both to avoid waits at busy station booking-offices
and to speed up the checking/selling of these fares and others
by train conductors, especially at peak periods when trains are
crowded.
From the ticket-inspecting angle, however,
smart-carding seems to present potential problems, particularly
on buses, unless each inspector has very sophisticated and reliable
checking machinery. We have recently read of trouble even with
some Oyster cards: nothing mechanical is immune from defects,
however rarely they occur.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs
of all passengers and travel providers?
It would be nice to think that it does, but
without more inside information we cannot usefully judge. However,
we think it well worth pointing out that, for passengers, a "smart
card" needs to be easy to use, trustworthy (not recording
transactions unknown to its holder, for instance), and of a format
that clearly shows the holder and any inspecting staff what has
been charged, for what journey, and at what time.
5. What can be learned from the experience
of areas such as London and Scotland, where smart-card technology
is already in place?
That, given a political will, and a willingness
to see public transport of all types as a public service, not
a profiteering exercise, a smart-card system can bring considerable
benefit to all—quicker bus-loading, easier payment-methods,
fewer booking-office staff in some instances, and smooth transfer
between travel modes regardless of the order and the length of
each stage of a complex journey. If the use of a smart card is
also shown to save the passenger money, compared to the previous
method involving paper tickets and frequent recourse to handling
cash on starting each stage of a journey, so much the better for
all concerned. Yet, in the North-East, even comparatively predictable
schools traffic, on buses laid on specifically for it, still has
to queue up morning and evening ro pay a single fare—a procedure
that must be persuading the next generation to avoid buses like
the plague once they have left school.
REVENUE PROTECTION
AND THE
POWERS OF
TICKET INSPECTORS
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket-inspectors
function appropriate?
It would help all concerned, we think, if the
full, up-to-date nature of this legal framework were clarified
and publicised to all who use and operate buses, trams and trains.
For instance, some of the small print regarding reduced rail fares
booked aboard trains is confusing. Those boarding at unstaffed
stations can claim every discount that any rail operator offers;
but, if they have boarded at a station that has had a booking-office
open at the time, their entitlement is much reduced. A passenger
has more to think about when catching a train than booking-office
facilities at his/her starting-station; many train-conductors
recognise this and use discretion in issuing reduced-rate tickets
from staffed stations. If a rule of this sort were to be firmly
applied, a vital corollary would be that the operator provided
adequately-staffed booking-offices, to avoid more than the very
shortest ticket-queues no matter how busy the lines were. Without
such a commitment, enforcing limits on what a train-conductor
can issue from staffed stations is tantamount to punishing some
of the travelling public for the shortcomings of the service-provider,
and is to be deplored.
By the same token, however, operators of rail
and bus services need to see that all who travel pay their due
fare. This means than the fare-structures are simple enough to
allow passengers to understand them readily, and fare-collectors
to sell tickets to all who need them, even when unstaffed stations
are close together, and numbers using each one are comparatively
high. Similar points apply to bus operations in that ticket-issue
methods should minimise the length of a queue outside a vehicle
at busy stops, especially those in town centres. Again, a carnet
approach is a largely-untried but very simple way to achieve this.
7.(a) What appeals mechanisms exist for passengers?
Without better knowledge of what these mechanisms
are, it is difficult to answer this. "Conditions of Carriage"
notices are rarely found on bus-stop poles, or even at some rail
stations. The recent demise of regional Rail Users' Consultative
Committees has made it more difficult for rail travellers to find
out that such appeals are possible at all, never mind to decide
where best to address them.
(b) Are they adequate?
A fortiori, no. It in any case depends
on the nature of the complaint, and the character and persistence
of the person who wishes to make it.
8. Are the rights of passengers and the powers
of ticket-inspectors well-balanced?
Here again, generalised comment borders on the
futile. Conditions of work vary between bus, local train, tram,
metro, and longer-distance rail services. There are awkward customers,
and there are (some) awkward inspectors, but it is reassuring
that, increasingly nowadays, staff training on all modes of travel
emphasises how best to handle passengers whose tickets are invalid
or mis-issued, to avoid conflict and to maintain basic human respect—in
both directions.
This is easier aspired to than attained; and
the efforts and patience required of inspection staff are considerable,
as well as frequently under-estimated by some of the travelling
public. On buses, particularly, where a passenger is causing trouble
for whatever reason, the steps needed for an inspector to gain
official back-up are prohibitively cumbersome and time-consuming.
Bus operators do not like their buses being held up for several
minutes or more, even for a police reinforcement to arrive. Neither,
it must be said, do other passengers, who in such circumstances
simply wish to continue their journey to its end, and then to
leave the vehicle rapidly.
9. Do operators of public transport take
adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
This is yet another case where generalisation
is virtually impossible. Some operators have at times been guilty
of over-kill (eg in central Manchester, at Oxford Road station,
then at Piccadilly station, half a mile further on, for those
who have to change trains there in a hurry). With better application
of discretion and experienced judgement, this has eased off recently.
As stated earlier, there is always the potential conflict between
seeing, especially at busy times, that all passengers pay their
fare, and annoying the majority who have done so by asking them
repeatedly to prove this. Mainly, this is a rail problem, since
few buses permit non-payers to get far beyond the driver's cab-side.
But cf points made about bus fare-collection in Questions
1, 3, 5 and 6 passim. The apparently-irreconcilable aims
of making public transport attractive enough to tempt car-users
to change to it, and of seeing that all pay what they are supposed
to pay, can become far more attainable, we feel, if there are
more carnet facilities on every type of public transport—and
we make no apology for repeating this point yet again here.
CONCESSIONARY FARES—THE
RIGHT STRATEGY?
10. Is the Government's concessionary fares
strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
In short, no. The free travel for OAPs and the
disabled, welcome though it is to its users, has caused financial
problems at various points: the bus operators quote a nominal
average 'fare' for each free ticket issued, and a local council,
evidently, has to compensate the bus operators accordingly. Not
all councils have adequate finance to do this, evidently, and
have to decide, rightly or wrongly, to reduce the levels of "maintained"
bus services, particularly in evenings when buses are few and
far between anyway. It looks to us as though much greater funding-levels
are required than are now made available, and that the problem
will get worse in 2008, when the scheme goes nation-wide.
That this free travel is not offered on comparable
rail services does not help. To attract the elderly out of private
cars, especially in these times of enhanced concern over CO2 emissions
and road congestion problems arising from 33 million cars across
the country. the whole range of public transport must be made
far more attractive, and extensive—and that includes financially
attractive, too. In Tees-side, for instance, local rail services
are far quicker, mile for mile, than the corresponding bus services,
even those marketed as "express". Concessionary fares
should be extended to rail as well, and adequate compensation
paid, from much higher levels of grant to local authorities and/or
transport operators. The present unwritten law that bus competes
with train, or even that one bus operator competes with another
over the same terrain, needs to be set aside in favour of co-operation
among all operators, so that users may use and change between
one or the other, as need and preference dictates. (And that applies
at all levels, not just that of OAP free travel.)
11. Are concessionary fares schemes sufficiently
integrated across different modes of transport and different geographical
areas?
As our answers to other questions will confirm,
the answer here, once more, is "no".
The whole concessionary fare system needs a
complete overhaul, to iron out anomalies, and to be fair to all
users and operators across the whole public transport spectrum.
It must also be simple enough for all to grasp quickly, no matter
how rarely they travel. Once that is done, it needs a vigorous
and nation-wide re-launch, together with a continuing publicity
policy at as many transport outlets as is humanly possible—i.e.
every bus stop and every station as a minimum—since even
the few quasi-integrated bus/tram schemes now in existence are
difficult to find out about, as if they had to comply with the
Official Secrets Act.
Idealistic though these new measures may seem
to be, they are the very least needed if public transport ticketing
is to become "integrated". And no official body with
responsibility for buses or trains should ever forget that, in
today's conditions, a steady and lasting increase in public transport
use, in all its modes, is the only way forward for us all.
March 2007
|
