Joint memorandum from Stockport College
and Stockport Primary Care Trust (TPT 21)
1. This evidence is compiled by Dr Peter
Hayward, Travel Plan Adviser, Stockport College, and Mary Brooks,
Health Promotion Adviser—Transport and Greenspace, Stockport
Primary Care Trust, and is submitted on behalf of our respective
organisations.
2. Stockport College is a major provider
of further, higher and work-based education and services operating
from two campuses in Stockport. There are currently some 9000
enrolled students and 600 staff, drawn from Greater Manchester,
Cheshire and Derbyshire.
3. Stockport PCT is responsible for primary
care services and a wide range of community services within its
designated area. Around 1,200 staff, most of whom are part-time,
are directly employed. The administrative headquarters is located
in central Stockport but services are delivered through a number
of local health centres. Local research has indicated that travel
and access problems can be a deterrent for some sections of the
community.
4. Collectively, the two organisations generate
significant travel demand both locally and regionally, and the
comments which follow reflect feedback from users and illustrate
real problems encountered by staff, students, patients, support
workers and visitors.
5. Our evidence for the most part follows
the framework of questions set out in the Call for Evidence.
INTEGRATED TICKETING
1. Is ticketing sufficiently integrated across
different modes of transport and between different geographical
areas?
There is no doubt that cross-border travellers
are often at a significant disadvantage, especially when a change
of mode—or even same mode transfer (eg bus-bus)—is
required. Through tickets are often not available and operator
and/or local authority discounts for concessionary travellers
are restricted. In some areas, services are provided by more than
one operator dependent on time of day: for those working shifts
or unsocial hours, even a simple return ticket may not be valid
for both legs of the journey. Rules applicable to different products
can vary and often have different time or boundary restrictions.
Representing a large number of students, a particular problem
is the lack of validity of young-persons railcards for local journeys
before 09.30. Overall, the net result is a high level of confusion
which is a deterrent to choice of public transport.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy
for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
For the average traveller, there is little evidence
to suggest that the Government has any strategy at all, and certainly
in the Stockport area, there has been no visible progress. There
is nothing inherently wrong with having a number of operators,
but without a comprehensive integrated approach to service planning,
routes, frequencies and ticketing, passenger numbers will continue
to decline. Locally, this might logically be addressed through
the SEMMMS strategy (Southeast Manchester Multi-Modal Study) but
real progress seems painfully slow and largely road-orientated.
Until the Government requires local action in addition to fine
words, we fear that nothing will actually happen.
THE USE
OF SMARTCARD
TECHNOLOGIES
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard
technologies adequately and appropriately?
Smart card technology has been available and
in use for many years but transport operators for the most part
seem to be very slow in taking this—literally—on-board.
One particular issue which affects many of our students and staff
is the total lack of flexible tickets suitable for part-timers.
Operators seem reluctant to even consider some form of carnet
system (eg valid for 10 journeys within a month) claiming to be
waiting for smart-card introduction. But progress locally seems
to be non-existent. The same principle is relevant to encourage
flexibility in choice of mode. Car drivers may not actually require
use of a car every day, but there is no real incentive to encourage
use of public transport on, say, one or two days per week. Similarly,
in good weather, some staff and students may choose to walk or
cycle, but would value the opportunity for flexible use of public
transport when needed.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs
of all passengers and travel providers?
The objectives of the ITSO project are laudable
but at this stage it is not clear whether restrictions will still
apply—for example in respect of advance purchase discount
tickets. It must also cater fully for the needs of part-timers
and to promote modal choice and needs to be sufficiently flexible
to cater for pay-when-you-travel needs.
5. What can be learned from the experiences
of areas such as London and Scotland where smartcard technology
is already in place?
"Oyster" appears to be working well
in the London area, but its success is in part a reflection of
the integrated approach to public transport as a whole and in
particular the widespread availability and validity of zonal tickets
for all modes. The obvious first extension is to promote, or preferably
require, a similar approach in PTE areas by extending the powers
of PTEs. Zones should reflect natural catchment areas and not
be artificially restricted by arbitrary administrative boundaries.
REVENUE PROTECTION
AND THE
POWERS OF
TICKET INSPECTORS
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket
inspectors function appropriate?
We do not feel qualified to comment on this
issue.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers,
and are they adequate?
Again, we do not feel able to comment in any
detail, but as a matter of principle, operating companies should
be more willing to accept full responsibility when they are at
fault and not hide behind the small print. There should also be
an obligation for a company to make reasonable arrangements to
assist stranded passengers, which should include making arrangements
with an alternative operator. There also needs to be a clear and
consistent mechanism for redress when the failure of one company
affects onward travel by another—eg missed connections.
A major consequence of the current system of semi-independent
operators is the endemic culture of blaming someone else: it is
always the customer who suffers.
8. Are the rights of passengers and the powers
of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
We do not feel able to comment.
9. Do operators of public transport take
adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
No! There is widespread evidence of fares evasion,
especially on the rail network. Sometimes this is deliberate but
at other times unavoidable. On occasion I have travelled half-way
across the country having boarded a train at an unstaffed station
and not had my fare collected. On short journeys, loss of revenue
must be huge. See for example survey results at www.dronfieldstation.org.uk
All major stations and all stations on busy routes should be protected
by automatic ticket gates backed up by station staff both to assist
passengers and to protect revenue. One problem in this regard
is the differing priorities of those responsible for station management
and the needs of all the operators. For example, a station managed
by a long-distance operator may not see a need for ticket gates
but they could be crucial for a local operator sharing facilities.
CONCESSIONARY FARES—THE
RIGHT STRATEGY?
10. Is the Government's concessionary fares
strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Existing arrangements suffer from the same cross-boundary
problems as highlighted above: different rules, different times,
artificial boundaries. Extension of the 60+ fares scheme for buses
nationally next year should go some way towards reducing anomalies
but examples of different validity times also need to be addressed.
Extension to local train services should also be considered, especially
in rural areas where rail may be the only practicable mode of
public transport.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes sufficiently
integrated across different modes of transport and different geographical
areas?
This issue is covered in the comments above.
Again, the simple answer is "No".
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
1. We very much welcome the Transport Committee's
intention to address the issue of Ticketing which raises many
day-to-day practical problems for our respective organisations
and for those wishing to benefit from our services. Outside London,
public transport usage, especially of buses has declined consistently
in the last 20 years and has been matched by a general decline
in services and travel opportunities. The overall result has been
the huge rise in private car usage leading to the familiar problems
of congestion, urban pollution and delay. Inflexibility of ticketing
is an important contributory factor.
2. We believe that much more could be done
within organisations to promote and facilitate public transport
use, for example, taking advantage of salary sacrifice schemes
and the discounts sometimes offered by operators for in-house
ticket sales. The Government should be both setting an example
and increasing incentives for both employers and employees to
participate in such schemes. However, as commented above, flexibility
is at present a crucial missing element, especially for part-timers.
With many employers also considering the opportunities for flexi-time,
home-working or tele-working, this is likely to be much more important
in the future.
3. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
evidence to the Committee. We would be happy to expand on any
of the points above if more information were required.
March 2007
| 
