Memorandum from Greater Manchester Centre
for Voluntary Organisation -Transport Resource Unit (GMCVO) (TPT
30)
BACKGROUND
The voluntary sector[30]
has an important role to play in local transport, whether as users
of transport, contributors to policy development, representatives
of community groups or in delivering community and public transport
schemes. The Transport Resource Unit (TRU) is part of the Greater
Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisation (GMCVO) with the
specific remit of focusing on transport issues as experienced
by the voluntary sector.
The TRU vision is for an integrated transport
system for Greater Manchester that is socially inclusive, sustainable,
and accessible to all communities
Integration can only work to an optimum level,
however, if fares and ticketing are simple and economical for
the users, with the minimum of complication.
It is from this perspective that that the TRU
offers comments on the questions posed in the Committee's Inquiry.
INTEGRATED TICKETING
1. Is ticketing sufficiently integrated across
different modes of transport and between different geographical
areas?
A ticketing scheme currently exists in Greater
Manchester, under the powers of the Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Authority under Sections 135 to 138 of the Transport
Act 2000. The scheme has been developed in the Local Transport
Plan context in which a key objective is to increase public transport's
share of travel across Greater Manchester.
Under the ticketing scheme, GMPTA has powers
to require integrated ticketing but not set ticket prices. This
is due to the deregulated commercial nature of the public transport
market. As such, fares differ across modes and operators, providing
a barrier to integration.
The scheme provides for a range of inter-operator
and inter-modal tickets that are called "System 1",
as well as a multitude of operator specific tickets. The System
1 integrated tickets are priced at a premium to one mode or operator
specific tickets. In consultation with voluntary sector groups,
I obtained evidence that many people use single routes and operators,
and avoid making trips on other modes or with other operators,
because their ticket relates to a particular operator. The added
cost of a trip outside that ticket's validity presents a barrier
to extending travel horizons.
Overall, the current system is overly complex
and expensive and does not sufficiently integrate across bus,
train, and tram modes, and across county boundaries. This last
point is especially relevant to local trains where there is a
big difference in ticket prices on travel from Greenfield to Manchester
(£3.45 standard day single) and Marsden to Manchester (£6.50).
Marsden is only one station further on from Greenfield but because
it's outside the GMPTA boundary, the price is much more. This
leads to people driving to the closer station and occurs at other
GMPTA boundary stations across the conurbation. There is evidence
of similar occurrences in other PTA areas.
2. Does the Government have an adequate strategy
for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
There does not seem to be a strategy for developing
the integration of ticketing systems at Government level. It appears
that, outside London, PTAs and operators are left to develop their
own strategies. As mentioned previously, the commercial nature
of public transport means that operators are less inclined to
work towards better integration.
A Government strategy would be extremely useful
and could perhaps feed into the Road Transport Bill, where bus
regulation is being considered.
3. Is the industry taking up modern smartcard
technologies adequately and appropriately?
GMPTA/E have been in process of developing smart
card ticketing for some years. It seems that a system, similar
to TFL's Oystercards, could go some way towards solving the integration
issue.
The cost of developing these technologies to
the correct ITSO standards is expected to be met by authorities
and operators and this is causing delays in the take up.
4. Does the ITSO system cater for the needs
of all passengers and travel providers?
From my limited understanding, the principles
of ITSO are to allow for integrated ticketing across modes with
multiple use and purpose. In this way, it could cater for the
needs of all passengers and providers.
5. What can be learned from the experiences
of areas such as London and Scotland where smartcard technology
is already in place?
It is most important to consult with users prior
to implementing smartcards. It's also important to have a clear
legislative and policy platform.
REVENUE PROTECTION
AND THE
POWERS OF
TICKET INSPECTORS
6. Is the legal framework within which ticket
inspectors' function appropriate?
I am not sufficiently informed on this topic
to comment.
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers
and are they adequate?
I am not sufficiently informed on this topic
to comment.
8. Are the rights of passengers and the powers
of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
I am not sufficiently informed on this topic
to comment specifically however we believe that the law supports
the common sense position that if you would be forced to go to
unreasonable lengths to purchase a ticket, or are denied an opportunity
to purchase a ticket, you should not be fined.
Reasonable steps and reasonable opportunity
for purchasing tickets need to be included in the relevant legislation.
Examples of circumstances where we believe it
may be reasonable for passengers to travel without a valid ticket
include:
— Where ticket machines are not working
at the start of your journey and you are denied an opportunity
to purchase a ticket during or after your journey.
— Where ticket machines are in exact
fare mode and you do not have exact change.
— Where a bus driver does not have
the correct ticket available (eg a cover for a mega rider).
— Where a bus driver does not have
change available for reasonable denominations presented (eg weekly
ticket is £11.50-£20 is presented and the bus driver
does not have change).
— Where an inspector approaches you
while you are queuing to use a ticket machine.
9. Do operators of public transport take
adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
Tram operators employ inspectors to regularly
check tickets whilst rail operators have conductors. These measures
appear adequate for protecting fare revenue.
Buses do not appear to have the same consistency
of measures. Bus drivers are expected to provide tickets, inspect
tickets, and question passengers if they have asked for the incorrect
ticket. This puts added unnecessary pressure on drivers. Employment
of more bus inspectors for protecting fare revenue would assist.
CONCESSIONARY FARES—THE
RIGHT STRATEGY?
10. Is the Government's concessionary fares
strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
Service users of the local concessionary scheme
are very supportive. Bus travel has increased across Greater Manchester
since April 2006. Rail and tram services have also been incorporated
into the local scheme by the authority, providing opportunities
for greater integration of travel. This has all been welcomed
by the users. The extension of the scheme, expected in April 2008,
will provide added benefits of cross boundary travel, local travel
in other areas of England, and should increase travel horizons
and social inclusion.
Whilst the strategy has been an overwhelming
success for users, it has had some negative impacts on Local Authorities
and PTAs (Travel Concession Authorities or TCAs), other public
transport users, commercial operators and community transport
operators.
Under the current guidelines and operations,
funding is not ring fenced, meaning that TCAs need to agree funding
amounts from authorities.
TCAs are obliged to ensure that operators are
`no better or no worse off'. This concept has led to appeals by
over 60 operators and led to financial risks to TCAs. Under current
arrangements operators are reimbursed for only those journeys
that are expected to have been made in the absence of the concessionary
scheme. Operators receive nothing for trips that are deemed to
have been generated by the scheme, though they can make claims
for additional costs to be covered as a result of the rise in
demand
Community Transport is another area where concessionary
fare schemes need to be considered. Given that community transport
services are not commercial and frequently already operate at
capacity, they are not in a position to benefit from the rise
in passengers generated by free concessionary fare scheme. The
concessions allowed for passengers travelling on community transport
should therefore be reimbursed in full.
The cost of training people to use their concessionary
entitlement (such as people with learning disabilities) should
also be covered by the scheme.
The logical way forward would be to simplify
schemes so that operators received a reimbursement on the basis
of the agreed average adult fare for every concessionary passenger
carried. The reimbursement would be lower than the average adult
fare to prevent operators making super profits and to take account
of the economies of scale that operators would receive by carrying
more passengers.
The method for managing schemes needs to be
considered in the concessionary fares bill for the national scheme.
Other public transport users, particularly children,
are disadvantaged by the current scheme. The conclusion of the
recent appeals by bus operators, led to concessionary fares in
Greater Manchester being raised from 50p to 70p. The impact of
this will be felt most by children, the very people that we are
trying to encourage to use public transport and become lifetime
public transport users.
The Government needs to consider its strategy
and consider the costs and benefits of incorporating children
into the free scheme.
11. Are concessionary fares schemes sufficiently
integrated across different modes of transport and different geographical
areas?
Greater Manchester has already incorporated
rail and tram into the local scheme, at a cost to GMPTA. Not all
authorities have incorporated all modes, leading to anomalies
and lack of an integrated approach. In order to provide integration
across modes, consideration needs to be given to a multimodal
national scheme after April 2008. The issue of different geographical
areas should be resolved after April 20008, however the cost of
implementing schemes in popular areas, needs consideration to
ensure equity for PTAs and TCAs.
March 2007
30 The term "voluntary sector" is used throughout
this document. It should be understood to include the whole "third
sector" including voluntary, community and faith groups and
organisations, social enterprise, co-operatives and other not-for-profit
organisations with a social purpose. Back
| 
