ADVERTORIAL
TICKET OFFICES – PAY WINDOWS AND COUNTERS TIME FOR A RETHINK?
Words: Keith Lovelace
It could be argued that the ticket office might become redundant in a few years time with the take up of new ticketing technologies and perhaps even the virtual ticket office concept. We are currently seeing the evolution of ticket offices into hosting areas and open plan desks with a focus on customer service and assistance with TVMs. But while there is still a requirement for traditional ticketing and cash handling, there needs to be adherence to appropriate levels of security and safety at ticket offices as well as user comfort.
However, in meeting the design and performance criteria for traditional ticket offices and other cash handling areas, there would appear to be an absence of a coherent set of known specification detail in the rail sector. Expectations between train operators are also very wide with differences between security levels, materials and construction and ergonomics. Reference is made to the DfT’s Accessible Train Station
Train operators need to be aware of the exact performance criteria that they should expect to be implemented at stations. This often falls to architects, designers and project managers to provide the expertise in this area and yet often falls short in providing the necessary knowledge, experience and detail. Often reverting to a position akin to reinventing-the-wheel and referencing standards and materials that can often be irrelevant, inappropriate and out-of-date thus causing ambiguity and confusion with a general erosion of the necessary requirements. This leads to a wide range of pricing scenarios responding with a wider range of material options and products and not necessarily conducive to competitive pricing and value-for-money. Falling short of applying the appropriate level of specification does lead to confusion and we often bear witness to seeing re-fits within a short period after the original installation. In our experience, many ticket offices are designed incorrectly from the outset requiring re-design and re-pricing leading to an escalation of costs and project delays. It would appear that in many instances the ticket office component is signed-off before it is designed.
IDEAS LTD
Design for Disabled People: A Code of Practice, (underpinned by BS 8300:2009 – Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people). And yet both design references are often misinterpreted with too much emphasis on DDA to the detriment of staff comfort and ergonomics and very little reference to work place design, Display Screen Equipment (DSE) regulations and design factors relating to posture and the usability of visual display terminals (VDTs at workstations – BS EN ISO 9241-5). Furthermore, there is much confusion over the security performance of windows and counters at stations. Performance levels vary for both resistance to manual attack and ballistic protection with a wide range of protection offered for each window type.
WWW.THECONNECTSERIES.CO.UK
What is required is a reevaluation of the performance and design criteria for ticket offices by adopting a holistic approach, thus removing the ambiguity that exists. For instance, when specifying ballistic windows, there are different ratings for different levels of protection for security glazing. This also affects the thickness and weight of the window, which affects fabrication complexity and installation costs. The level of protection offered by the security glazing should also apply to the rest of the installation: window frames, counters, joints and adjacent walls to the side and below. If the surrounding construction is not to the same level then perhaps the question should be raised: What is the purpose of security glazing? If a standard specification is absent then perhaps what is required is a security audit at the station to identify the potential risk levels. Perhaps we are being too pedantic in our summary, but this is in response to the many references identified and variety
Since 2011, Ideas has been investigating a design brief that requires a deeper understanding of ticket office working environments, specification and design. What has transpired is the requirement to achieve continuity-of-design at stations with continuous height counters and remove the anomaly that is a dedicated DDA counter – which in many instances are rarely used and discriminatory by default. What is required is a holistic approach by considering all the factors and an approach that is design-for- all, for both customer and staff alike.
Perhaps it is a case that one size does not fit all, but what is required is a set of agreed standards and performance criteria that can be referenced without ambiguity and contradiction leading to a level playing field for design, specification and pricing.
RailCONNECT 15
of specification documents published when tendering. This leads to a wide discrepancy in tendered prices.
Ticket offices are complex working environments and provide many challenges from a design perspective. They are both retail locations and a work place for staff. To get it right requires a systems approach from the outset. Perhaps this is more relevant now that train operators are considering alternative fulfilment methods of ticketing leading to a potential re-think of ticket office applications at stations. However, while there is a requirement for cash handling then there will always be a requirement for the appropriate levels of staff security.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84