Wednesday, 23 March 2022

Huge concern about TFL withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement

To whom it may concern

I volunteered to bring this issue to your attention in regards to TfL's proposal to withdraw from the Travelcard Agreement.


You might have seen the recent TfL extraordinary funding and financing settlement letter dated 25 February 2022, the text says:

"Annex A – Fourth Funding Period deliverables
New revenue streams

To achieve this condition:

2. TfL will provide to DfT an impact assessment on different passenger groups of the withdrawal from the travelcard agreement prior to commencing with the withdrawal."


I've found the recent answer by the Mayor regarding the impact of withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement, he only mentioned about the increasing use of PAYG due to hybrid working of many office workers.

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2022/0284


I find the answer quite confusing because he haven't mentioned about the minority of users who uses a paper One Day Travelcard (and weekly/monthly/annual Travelcard on Oyster) for various users including:

• Some people who don't own a Oyster and contactless card only rely on cash payments for paper tickets.
• Some people who are infrequent and occasional travellers to London and usually purchase a paper One Day Travelcard as part of their rail ticket from a station outside the Oyster/Travelcard zones.
• Some people (including domestic/foreign tourists, infrequent and occasional travellers) still don't understand the Oyster/Contactless PAYG system because of the requirement of touching in and out at stations. They prefer to use the paper One Day or Weekly Travelcard to reduce the confusion.
• Railcard users who get 1/3 off by purchasing a Day Travelcard because its hard for them to get 1/3 off on Oyster PAYG card and the Travelcard is more convenient.
• Disabled (including wheelchair) users who don't have Freedom pass or live outside of London where their free travel concession is restricted to buses only (and some are valid on their local train and tram services), this also include those who are not fond of the PAYG system as mentioned above. Disabled Railcard users (especially from outside of London) also purchase a One Day Travelcard as they get 1/3 off. Wheelchair users may have to take a longer journey (by going to another station and back) due to lack of facilities such as lift/ramp only on one side of the platform and could cause them to pay maximum fare on PAYG Oyster.
• Transport enthusiasts including people who do Tube Challenges. I did mention Geoff Marshall raised an issue on his Twitter (now deleted) about maximum fare on PAYG Oyster which is an issue for people trying to do Tube Challenges. He also raised the issue at the end of his YouTube video when he attempted to do 'The Most Out of Station Interchanges In One Journey'.


Retaining the paper One Day Travelcard will help reduce the burden on TfL's Oyster customer services because of maximum journey times causing them to get maximum fare as mentioned above.

Withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement will create a two-tier system for non-Oyster and non-Contactless card users. Not only it will cause frustration and confusion, passengers who are not aware may end up getting fined by the Revenue Protection Inspectors on National Rail services in London.

I point out the Mayor stated on the Questions: "Ceasing participation in the Travelcard Agreement would mean that Transport for London (TfL) would stop selling Travelcards. It would also mean that Travelcards would no longer be valid for travel on TfL services."

Then I looked at the document of Consultation on The Mayor’s Budget for 2022-23 and it says: "...as well as the phasing out of the travelcard scheme on non-TfL services in London from sometime in 2023 (subject to appropriate impact assessment and consultation)."

page 117

I find the answer by the Mayor quite confusing because the statements are conflicting.

The words "subject to appropriate impact assessment and consultation" is also mentioned on the small text at the bottom left of TfL Budget Update paper for the 2 February 2022 TfL board meeting.

The text also says:
"Modifications to fares structure and ticketing:
◦ withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement, which will require the support of HMG"

page 3


Here's the documents of the Travelcard Agreement:

1995 Travelcard Agreement (which mentions TfL's predessor London Regional Transport)


Travelcard Agreement, Through Ticketing (Non-Travelcard) Agreement and Clearance Agreement obtained by FOI request in May 2019.


You may need to submit a FOI request to TfL to obtain the latest Travelcard Agreement document.

The Travelcard Agreement with train operators is done commercially and with recommendation by the government as part of their franchise contracts.


I've done further research by reading the legislations and I believe there could be indirect legal protection of the Travelcard thanks to the Bus Services Act 2017?

Greater London Authority Act 1999

175 - Co-operation with the Strategic Rail Authority.

(1) It shall be the duty of Transport for London (either acting directly, or acting through a subsidiary) and the Secretary of State to co-operate with one another in the exercise and performance of their respective functions for the purpose -

(a) of co-ordinating the passenger transport services for persons travelling to, from and within Greater London -
(i) which are provided by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries, and
(ii) which are provided under franchise agreements, or are secured services (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Railways Act 2005) provided by or on behalf of the Secretary of State ; and
(b) of securing or facilitating the duty of Transport for London under section 154(3) above;


Transport Act 2000 (with sections inserted by Bus Services Act 2017)

134C - Advanced ticketing schemes

(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more such authorities acting jointly, may make a ticketing scheme (an "advanced ticketing scheme") covering the whole or any part of their area, or combined area, if they consider that the proposed scheme-
(a) would be in the interests of the public, and
(b) would contribute to the implementation of their local transport policies.

(4) The descriptions of tickets which may be covered by an advanced ticketing scheme are-
(d) tickets entitling the holder to make a journey, or more than one journey, involving both travel on one or more local services and travel by one or more connecting rail or tram services.

(5) A connecting rail or tram service, in relation to an advanced ticketing scheme, is a service for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) which runs between-
(a) a station or stopping place at or in the vicinity of which local services stop and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme relates, and
(b) any other place.


135 - Joint and through ticketing schemes.

(1) A local transport authority, or two or more such authorities acting jointly, may make a ticketing scheme covering the whole or any part of their area, or combined area, if they consider that the proposed scheme-
(a) would be in the interests of the public, and
(b) would contribute to the implementation of their local transport policies
(but this is subject to subsection (1A)).

(4) The descriptions of tickets which may be covered by a ticketing scheme are-
(a) tickets entitling the holder to make more than one journey on particular local services or on local services of a class specified in the scheme (whether or not operated by the same person),
(b) tickets entitling the holder to make a particular journey on two or more local services (whether or not operated by the same person),
(d) tickets entitling the holder to make a journey, or more than one journey, involving both travel on one or more local services and travel by one or more connecting rail or tram services.

(5) A connecting rail or tram service, in relation to a ticketing scheme, is a service for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) which runs between-
(a) a station or stopping place at or in the vicinity of which local services stop and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme relates, and
(b) any other place.


Although TfL is classified as a 'local authority', I believe the legislation applies to TfL because I've found one section which mentions 'London transport authorities'.

134D - Notice and consultation requirements

(1) If a local transport authority for an area in England, or two or more such authorities, propose to make an advanced ticketing scheme under section 134C, they must give notice of the proposed scheme in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons in the area to which it relates.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (3)(c) the following are relevant local authorities-
(e) London transport authorities


In late 1994, the Secretary of State for Transport stated (with quoted text below the legislation) section 4 the Railways Act 1993 helped retained the London Travelcard as part of splitting British Railways to franchises operated by private companies.

Railways Act 1993

4 - General duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road

(1) The Office of Rail and Road shall have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by virtue of this Part or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions in the manner which it considers best calculated—
(e) to promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator;

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) above, any arrangements for the issue and use of through tickets shall be regarded as a measure falling within that paragraph.


Written Answers: Post-Privatisation Services
Volume 250: debated on Tuesday 22 November 1994

Mr. Tyler

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure the continued availability of through-tickets and travelcards after the privatisation of rail and bus services.

Mr. Watts

The continuation of through-ticketing after rail privatisation is ensured through provisions in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. The Franchising Director will require franchisees to participate in multimodal travel schemes such as travelcard so long as he is satisfied that participation will result in no new net cost falling on his budget.The overall structure of fares and ticketing on London's buses will remain the responsibility of London Transport after privatisation, thus ensuring the continued availability of London travelcard. Outside London, bus operators are free to introduce multi-operator tickets so long as they do not amount to anti-competitive price fixing arrangements. Local authorities and passenger transport authorities also have powers to organise multi-operator travelcard.


By quoting these legislations, It would be interesting to see if this will lead to legal issues (including a potential legal challenge) for TfL, the Mayor and DfT? If anyone wishes to take legal action against them in attempt to save the Travelcard, good luck.

Brief note: By the way I'm not a lawyer nor qualified in legal profession, I'm only a researcher by reading through the legislation.

 

The legislation have enabled many areas in the UK to have their own 'Travelcard' ticketing (equivalent to One Day Travelcard) on multiple transport modes.

Bristol:
Freedom Travelpass
The Freedom Travelpass is a flexible ticket for unlimited train and bus travel within four zones.

Cornwall:
Ride Cornwall
The Ride Cornwall ticket gives you one day’s unlimited travel on all off peak rail and most bus services within Cornwall and between Cornwall and Plymouth (plus the Tamar Valley Line).

Liverpool:
Saveaway
If you make regular journeys using more than one type of public transport in Merseyside, we offer a one day ticket that could save you money off standard fares. Covering bus, train and ferry.

Manchester:
System One AnyBus, Train, & Tram (Off-peak)

Nottingham:
All buses, trams and trains in Nottingham (Robin Hood)

South Yorkshire:
SYConnect+ Day
This ticket gives you unlimited travel on all local bus, tram and train services within the South Yorkshire TravelMaster zone.

Tyne and Wear:

Network One Adult Day Rover

Get to where you want, when you want, how you want by bus, Metro, train or ferry


West Midlands:
Network - unlimited bus, train and tram travel

West Yorkshire
WY DaySaver Bus and Train (Off-Peak): £9.20 - Purchase via the MCard Mobile App or from a Bus Station Travel Centre or a Rail Station ticket office. Enjoy unlimited off-peak bus and train travel anywhere in West Yorkshire.  

Many more on National Rail website:

Therefore this will be completely unfair to have the One Day Travelcard removed for London as some areas have their own equivalent.

 

As we are recovering from the pandemic and the usage is increasing once again, with the upcoming fare rises which is very unpopular for passengers, I hope TfL will regain ground financially once again.

 

This is absolutely no solution for TfL and DfT in attempt to increase their revenue because withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement will also be catastrophic for TfL's finances and the political reputation for the Mayor of London, especially from the South of London where most of the railway services are non-TfL. This is why the ticketing integration (especially paper) between TfL and National Rail must be retained at all costs.


I also hope their impact assessment will encourage DfT, TfL and the Mayor to decide against the proposal and retain the current Travelcard arrangement.

I hope the information helps and I wish you the very best of luck.

PS: I wish to remain anonymous, I've taken my own time to do my research and compile the information to bring the issue to your attention. Please share it to others if you can. Thanks

Response from richard.erta@gmail.com

Hi,

Thanks for looping me and associates in on this news and research, well done! At a time when we are being told to think 'green' and use public transport more contrast more on the roads, the Travelcard has and remains an invaluable tool in optimising travel options around the capital and ideally should be extended nationwide in concept, not abolished. Draconianism and the pushing us into cashless digitised cultures, disenfranchises swathes of the public not geared to it or who wish to keep options open, avoid unnecessary costs or new technology when the system works perfectly well without those changes being forced onto unwitting audiences. Indeed where I live there's a Day Rider at £6 and no return tickets apparently and other ticketing is above the Day Rider with singles still being sold as I heard discussed on the X5 Bedford-Oxford cross country bus link, was a coach with toilet and cycle accommodation, now double deckers with cycle and toilet withdrawn. 2.5 hours each way in the saddle takes some doing. I do hope Railfuture, CBT and other larger organisations take action and lobby for retention of the Travelcard, it is invaluable for a comprehensive day out minus the car and the freedom to roam for all pockets should be a human right, whereas I feel ever-more from 1960's closures to affordability agendas and digitalisation, masse audiences are being constrained and kettled to localism and mobility cordoned on cost, access or what is 'there' or not. For example there's a No. 41 bus which has only one out from Bedford to Northampton on a Sunday, so getting back is a problem. Two principal towns with 1.5 hours intervals Monday - Saturday departures and takes 1.5 hours to do the 21.5 miles as well. It begs who is really in charge and do they have a clue let alone a care for inclusion, equality and values of humanity, quality of life, choice and optimising the spread of footfall and spend minus the congestion on our roads and land use parking demand, land which could be used for other more productive things like employment, housing, conservation and farming for example. I wish you well and am disseminating as you intimate in the wider interest. Thank you.

We have a public meeting in Horsham on Saturday and any of your networks are welcome to attend and / or join ERTA and help us with our work as well.
Useful links are: https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ and https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

Maybe you could do a small summary article for our July newsletter and/or attend our London Forums for liaison and networking?

Yours sincerely,


Richard Pill
ERTA Chairman

Actions:
1. Please write to your local MP: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons
2. Join ERTA and consider being an assistant volunteer: https://ertarail.co.uk/become-a-member/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Location: London, UK

Saturday, 19 March 2022

East-West Rail – the doom, gloom and truth!

East-West Rail – the doom, gloom and truth!

Things are taking a turn for the worse on East-West Rail even as tracks are progressively being laid in and around the Bletchley flyover and Winslow areas. Divide as ever, there’s Oxford/Aylesbury-Milton Keynes Central and Bedford and then the Central Section of Bedford-Cambridge.

Starting Oxford-Milton Keynes, the conundrum of whether HS2 should go over or under the east-west formation remains to be resolved and we get conflicting stories. Someone said “as long as they get built, I don’t care”. But if the east-west rail is to haul more freight from road to rail, it needs the benefits a straight and flat railway course can provide, not humps. Likewise, Aylesbury-east-west rail has had tracks removed in the Calvert area and the land-take of HS2 means a new alignment east of former formation and a new ‘Claydon Junction’ east of the old one. ERTA has long called for a Claydon Station to serve a growing catchment and relief to Winslow in a context of growth north of the arc. These issues are remaining to be resolved and delay, conundrum and a need for fixing is palpable.

Meanwhile, ERTA calls for the same approach to the former Great Central corridor, for a new junction off the new Claydon Junction going northwards to serve a new course of railway serving East of Brackley ‘Brackley Parkway’ – the Brackley area being one of the largest towns in England without a local, accessible railway station and HS2, because of its nature will not provide stations between Solihull and Old Oak Common, so plenty of scope for a local, domestic rail line as well.

On Bedford-Cambridge – Central Section, we have a vehement lobby against the railway, against the Oxbridge Arc concept and to be fair the bate was given in the perverse 2019 East-West Rail Consultation whereby the original route via St John’s Bedford was not included, and either bypass Bedford to the south or go through Bedford Midland and head north-east up a grand hill and yet more hills and scant detail as to how it would negotiate Black Cat Roundabout (A1) being expanded with more road space. Politicians have made the northern Route ‘E’ a do or bust in their support for an east-west rail and have also discounted the former old route with counter proposals to block it with infill housing. This is again a wrong approach and lacks both creativity, imagination and realism.

The former Bedford-Cambridge route ERTA has called for as a lone voice in the wilderness, requires:

·                    No housing in Bedford urban cordon and as yet opponents have failed to identify what housing specifically is at risk.

·                    The old formation is flat land on embankment, following the Great River Ouse.

·                    Two level crossings and a raising of the A421 Bypass is required and a realignment around Willington and new alignment north of Blunham to approach the Tempsford plains from the south-westerly direction.

·                    ERTA has long called for direct east-west and north-south rail links to be physically linked at Tempsford, not segregated as the 2019 Consultation purported.

Although diagram below should have the GC Route Re-alignment proposal going off the east-west rail further east than it displays, none-the-less this ‘map of intent’ is a fine effort from our friend Mr Harry Burr:

Useful Summary:

Old Route Comparison/ERTA Notes

Objections, fallacy and/or extras

ERTA prefers the old route via old St John’s. Whether that means reversing into and out of Bedford Midland and new south-facing bays, should be studied as a part of new station design.

Argument, we must focus all links on Bedford Midland, you can’t have two viable stations.

Yet, Bicester on east-west rail has two stations with connecting bus links and does adequately well.

If you made the old St John’s an 8-coach long station, you would not be able to divert tracks from east to north, it would be a straight east-west and north-south divide. However, if you come from west-north via the Route E option, you discount any east-north direct running anyway as you abandon that route completely!

That may be true, as we state, 2 stations co-existed for best part of 100 years and ability to get a connecting bus link going, maybe part of a new orbital serving new stations, Tavistock Street and the refurbished High Street (footfall and spend) should be looked at. Using the Hitchin arches and a diamond crossing rail, you may still be able to do a direct east-north movement.

It can be argued the old route east of St John’s causes no housing to be demolished.

Route E demands housing in Poets and Ravensden to be demolished or tunnelled under.

The old route east of St John’s requires 2 controversial level crossings and raising the A421 Bypass.

Route E requires a steep inclined flyover over A428 and A6 trunk road bypasses to ascend the hills and descent via Black Cat Roundabout to a flood plain.

ERTA proposes using the former formation until west of Willington and a deviation around built Willington to head north of built Blunham. We reject the can’t, won’t and don’t brigade psychology as head-in-the-sand. Yes, you can is the answer, it requires studies making the case, it requires lobbying including the Office of Road and Rail (ORR).

You can’t get levels crossings these days! You can’t raise dual carriageway bypasses for a local railway these days! You can’t slew cycle/footpaths for railways nor a bird sanctuary at Willington. Reality is, had studies been done to address and call-for these instead of getting north of Bedford Midland, we would not be in the pickle and conundrum today. Can we learn lessons?

A thousand miles begins with a single step!

ERTA believes, get Bedford-East Coast Main Line (Tempsford) built and then look again at options to Cambridge and Ely respectively for wider East Anglia disseminations to and from.

The northern route e, fails to deliver, needs huge expense for a design of a switchback! Useless for freight and at huge cost to residential housing and much else. It can be avoided via St John’s with or without a second station.

Richard Pill has been associated with calls for East-West Rails East of Bedford since 1987. A basic railway can always be upgraded.

The East-West Consortium was founded from 1994. The old route was removed 1967 and built on from mid-1970’s starting with Sandy.

Addendum:

We are making progress, but need the Government to play its part, recognise the environmental and land-use stewardship issues require local rail not road building and inform more measures for affordable, accessible, comprehensive rail alternatives to just roads which create more congestion and associated parking demand. Please help us and write to your local MP and media outlets about these and similar issues. 

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4598/contact and
https://members.parliament.uk/member/3912/contact

To reject one rail link in a 100 mile desert of dearth of east-west rail links makes no sense when east-west roads are being progressively dualled such is east-west travel demand. On the other hand, if blight can be avoided via the St John's route we have mooted, then why not shape the footpaths, cycleways and fauna and flora accordingly? Thank you.










Posted by at No comments:
Location: England, UK

Wednesday, 16 March 2022

Great Central Corridor Re-Railing new-build makes a whole load of sense - please give your support!

 

Schemes:

1. Heathrow Links:

 

Scheme

Status

a. Reading- Heathrow

 

b. The Windsor Link

 

c. Southern Heathrow Link

 

d. Crossrail

 

e. David’s Waterloo/Byfleet-Denham Link

 

f. Another including Heathrow-Gatwick via Guildford, Horsham and Three Bridges?

 

2. Key Goals of ERTA:

a. Great Central Corridor Re-Railing

b. Lands at Calvert to be made available for Aylesbury-East-West Rail link and connection

c. new route junctioning off east-west rail west of Claydon for link near to the former Great Central corridor

d. new build domestic rail for mixed traffic (passenger and freight) with Parkway Stations at east of built Brackley – Brackley East Parkway – adjacent to A43 roundabout with connecting buses to Silverstone and elsewhere.

e. new alignment to Woodford Halse area, Willoughby and hence Barby to link with either WCML/Northampton Loop into WCML Rugby and also a terminal branch to a new station ‘Rugby Central’ with road access, parking and facilities.

f. Rugby WCML – Magna Park-Lutterworth-Narborough via Midland/GC corridor amalgam for links with through running to Leicester/Nuneaton/East Midlands and vice versa/wider connectivity for more passenger and freight movements by rail.

3. GC Corridor Re-Rail:

a. Southampton/Bristol-Oxford-Leicester/East Midlands linkages. Quicker than via Bedford for example. Relief to existing north-south radial main lines and decluttering M1 and associated trunk roads networks and urban interfaces.

b. WCML/M1 modal shift/relief/capacity and enabling more.

c. MK Central is inadequate as per capacity issues and accommodation between Bletchley-Northampton and Rugby even with HS2 and/or modal shift from roads to rail more.

d. Bedford, Aylesbury, Oxford, West London, Euston + freight + fast services and growth all vie for access to Milton Keynes and more. Can’t be done with current constraints, so GC corridor re-railing could free up for more by rail overall and ensure MK Central can cope better.

e. There is a need for a nurturing of a government tiered led plan to declutter M1 end-to-end and all in between. Unless we nurture these rail options, it defaults to more roads, road building with associated bads of congestion, delay, costs, fossil fuel burning, pollution, hazards and waste, let alone land take which could be used for more environmentally sustainable uses like rail, like housing, like farming, like conservation or employment.

f. The former GC corridor from Old Oak Common to Leicester has a growing population, is being developed rapidly and Brackley is one of the largest towns in England without ready rail access/station in close proximity.

4. Old Oak Common (OOC):

a. Chiltern needs to have 2 twin bays for terminal capacity access and enabling more, if not built-in design now, when and how and problems ahead with retrospective costs.

b. a tunnel linking Southern Rail Heathrow project to OOC and Chiltern Lines with a subsurface station for OOC connectivity (HS2, GWR, Crossrail, Underground, others) on a north-south trajectory. This would enable Portsmouth/Guildford-Aylesbury/Banbury respectively and if our GC corridor is built, Leicester and via East-West Rail, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Bedford.

c. Southall-Brentford make a through link for Reading – Waterloo lines and South London orbitals.

5. SW Main Lines – Denham new link via Byfleet:

a. needs working up with identification of population catchments it may serve

b. define stretches overground and underground approximations

c. sites for stations potentially

d. needs local government support and buy-in

needs formal studies to build the case, engineering and advocate to tiers including TfL, Greater London Authority, DFT and Treasury for example.

e. land for stations, connections and junctioning designs need to be established as per feasibility. This must include tunnel requirement specifications.

f. East-North curve not west-north as that would rival and compete with established professional campaign, we support of Heathrow Southern scheme from Woking.

R. B. Pill 15-03-2022





Conclusion and appeal: ERTA has goals, aims and wishes for aspirations to be met. We believe them to be good and in the wider societal interest. I attach a dossier put together and diagrams for your kind perusal and possible support. 

It is too easy to be prisoners of the past and past glories or failures. We need to think of where we are now and build back better investing in nurturing all-weather-proof solutions which do not cost the earth. 

Please join us in the quest for modal shift from road to rail more. We are not anti car but pro choice, which thanks to the closures is denied in many cases. We need your support and shared vision to get it moving more towards what we wish for, the re-railing of Britain.

Enquiries to richard.erta@gmail.com

Below, although not our own diagram, we thank harry Burr for this contribution:



 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Location: England, UK
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)