a) Sutton Link
Michelle Wildish (TfL) & Mark Davis (TfL)
b) Tram Strikes - Update
Ian Sutcliff (First Group), Michelle Wildish (TfL) & Mark Davis (TfL)
c) Ticketing, Income and Enforcement
Ian Sutcliff (First Group) & Mark Davis (TfL)
Ø Ticket readers on trams, number of reader machines at tram stops, confusion about tapping in at Wimbledon.
Ø Tram reader double tapping (percent of travellers tapping in and out, resulting in double charging)
Ø Income (the split between ticket sales and penalty fares)
d) Tram stop accessibility and legibility (network maps, signage, general legibility of network, small access improvements to accommodate continued growth)
Michelle Wildish (TfL) & Mark Davis (TfL)
e) Tram replacement programme
Ian Sutcliff (First Group) & Mark Davis (TfL)
f) Faulty Tram Countdown Timers – Wellesley Road and East Croydon
Ian Sutcliff (First Group) & Mark Davis (TfL)
Minutes:
a) Sutton Link
The London Trams representative informed the Panel that a public consultation had taken place between October 2018 and January 2019, setting out three possible options for the Sutton Link. There had been over 6,000 respondents which had showed broad support for the proposals. Some had raised concerns over the environment, funding and other road users.
A final decision on the plans and funding would be made in autumn 2019, and an update would be provided to the Panel following this. There were still decisions to be made over the exact route the link would follow.
The East Surrey Transport Committee representative queried whether the link would join up with the existing routes, and stressed the benefit this could provide for those with reduced mobility. The London Trams representative responded that they hoped it would, but if not that any changes would be as short as possible. Full accessibility of the network would be maintained.
b) Tram Strikes – Update
The First Group representative informed the Panel that the strikes had been suspended following talks with the union, which had concluded in an offer being made. Ballots on the offer had been sent to union members, and the outcome of this vote would be known by early July 2019.
The Chair queried what had triggered the strike, and learned it was a pay dispute. The East Surrey Transport Committee representative asked if pensions had been a factor, and heard that while there had been changes to pensions, these were not a factor.
c) Ticketing, Income and Enforcement
The London Trams representative stated that they hoped to get the correct number of Oyster readers for the network, and there had been some queries about installing card readers onboard trams. This was not something that could be done with the current tram fleet, but it would be looked at when future fleets were commissioned. The London Trams representative informed the Panel that some signage around readers needed to be improved, and that readers were centrally monitored for issues, so that engineers could be dispatched for repairs. The Chair queried if there were any tram networks in the country with onboard validators, and heard that with the exception of Sheffield who had conductors, there were none. The East Surrey Transport Committee representative stated that there were onboard validators in Germany, but that they could be unreliable and took up space that could have been used for seats. The Panel also heard that they had seen people on the new buses with readers at the back, not tap unless they saw an inspector get on. The Chair agreed that the visibility of inspectors helped to decrease fare evasion.
London Trams were looking to raise funding for areas that needed additional readers, and the example of East Croydon was given. There were known issues with the tram stop at Wimbledon, with this being the only stop where service users needed to tap their card to exit, and resolutions were being looked into; these included new posters and the possibility of relocating validators. There were some issues with people being double charged as they were tapping when alighting, but it was hoped as these fares were included in the hopper scheme that this would reduce these incidents. Passengers could contact TfL if they found they had been double charged to request a refund.
The East Surrey Transport Committee representative raised the issue of passengers not being aware they needed to revalidate when changing between the underground and the tram at Wimbledon, with similar issues at Elmers End between rail and tram.The London Trams representative responded that additional signage was needed at Elmers End, and that validators had been wrapped in green to make them more obvious.
A further issue was raised with regard to passengers using the tram to transfer between East and West Croydon rail journeys, and being fined by revenue inspectors; this had been a suggestion that appeared through National Rail Enquiries, but which did not indicate the additional tram fare would be required.The London Trams representative informed the Panel that they had been engaging with National Rail Enquiries over correcting this on their app and on ticket machines, and that conversations would be had with First Group over use of discretion by revenue officers. The East Surrey Transport Committee suggested negotiating to include the tram journey in some ticket prices, and heard this had been considered.
The Mobility Forum representative stated that there had not been enough information at stops to indicate where trams were going, and suggested that arrival boards scrolled the stops on the incoming tram’s routes (as on train platforms).The London Trams representative responded that all stops were being reviewed to make sure they had full network maps.
The Mobility Forum representative queried how passengers could validate tickets when the tram was used as a rail replacement service. The Panel heard that in these instances that First Group revenue inspectors were informed, but that communication with passengers needed to be better.
The London Trams representative explained that the trams brought in a revenue of £24 million a year, from 29 million passengers, with approximately 8000 penalty fares. It was important that users did pay for the service, but this was difficult with an open system, and there needed to be a balance between too few and too many ticket inspections.
The East Surrey Transport Committee representative raised a question over how penalty fares worked for contactless debit and credit cards. The Panel learned that when contactless cards were inspected, the inspection machine could only tell if a card was valid, not if it had been validated at the beginning of the journey. This would mean if the passenger had not tapped in at the beginning of the journey, then they would be charged a maximum fare of between £7.50 and £8.00. Penalty fares could still be issued if the card was not valid (not in date, or with no funds).
A resident stated that they thought the number of evaders on the network had been underestimated, with many people not tapping on, and leaving trams when inspectors got on. The London Trams representative explained that there were efforts to cover as much of the network as possible with inspectors, but that inspectors could not chase people who had alighted. Some of the people not tapping on may have had travel cards.
d) Tram stop accessibility and legibility (network maps, signage, general legibility of network, small access improvements to accommodate continued growth)
The London Trams representative informed the Panel that new signage, posters and poster frames would be put up across the network; these would be more resilient, informative and clear. Signage onboard trams would also be looked at.
Onboard announcements had been reset, and GPS beacons were being repaired, but passengers were encouraged to report any ongoing issues. The London Trams representative stressed the importance of correcting these, and that work would be done with First Group to ensure drivers made announcements at stops themselves, when needed to maintain accessibility.
The Mobility Forum representative asked whether the new route maps would be as clear as the Underground, and learned that they were much clearer.
e) Tram replacement programme
The Panel learned that the current tram fleet were 20 years old, but that they were still reliable. Despite this they would not last forever, and work would be done with TfL to present a business case to secure funding for a new tram fleet. The timescale for this would be three to four years from the date of approval, but this was dependent on the procurement process.
The Chair queried if there were major differences between the Croydon network and tram networks in other parts of the country, and whether there would be chances to collaborate with other authorities or private companies around this commissioning. The London Trams representative informed the Panel that there were differences between the networks, and fleets would not be entirely compatible, but that the setting up of UK Trams may help with this, although it would need to be looked into further.