Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

Ev 66 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. When I want to take my bike on the train, there are additional barriers. I can’t reserve my bike place
on line any more, because they’ve removed the option from online ticketing systems. So, if I want to reserve
a bike place, I have to visit the station. What’s the point in having bought the ticket online in the first place?
February 2007
Integrated <strong>Ticketing</strong>
Memor<strong>and</strong>um from Iosis Associates (TPT04)
1. Is ticketing suYciently integrated across diVerent modes of transport <strong>and</strong> between diVerent geographical
areas?
2. From my point of view, in general terms, nowhere near, despite the 1998 Integrated Transport White
Paper <strong>and</strong> the new Bus White Paper “Putting Passengers First”. The new White Paper totally ignores
integrated ticketing, although it does mention “through ticketing” without defining the term. Also the new
White Paper is generally internally inconsistent <strong>and</strong> sloppy in its use of terms. See the Annexes to this
submission for analysis <strong>and</strong> comment on the White Paper.
3. My viewpoints are two:
— that of passenger, using bus services in my local near-metropolitan area (Greater Bristol), bus
services in other areas that I visit, long distance coach services, heavy rail services, metro services
(eg London), <strong>and</strong> the half-way house of Merseyrail Electrics; <strong>and</strong>
— that of technologist in ICT areas that include the ITSO secure ticketing <strong>and</strong> journey management
environment
4. As with so many questions in an area of service delivery to a large number of people, the 80/20 rule
comes into play. If the service oVered is perfectly adequate for 80% of the people or for 80% of the
transactions, is that good enough? DiVerent situations of course produce diVerent splits 60/40, 90/10, 99.99/
0.01 . . . DiVerent people will therefore give diVerent opinions.
5. In terms of expectations following the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper, the answer to the
Committee’s question is overall “No”. In terms of the desire to minimise the growth of private car traYc,
even reduce it, the answer is very definitely an overall “No”.
6. Geographically, in some areas of the country the answer is “Almost Yes <strong>and</strong> improving”—London is
the example most often cited as having good ticketing provision. Oyster demonstrates, as does for example
the current national scheme in The Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, that integration must be organised <strong>and</strong> managed at the
level of a natural geographical <strong>and</strong> demographic region. To some extent the PTEs have been able to provide
integration across diVerent operators <strong>and</strong> even, as in Merseyside, across bus <strong>and</strong> rail modes. But overall the
application of competition law has brought about a deterioration in the progress of integration, <strong>and</strong> has
even caused the ceasing of some integrated ticketing schemes.
7. To people who live in another town or city that has public transport that the local residents rate as
“poor” together with heavily congested roads (eg Greater Bristol, which does not have a PTE <strong>and</strong> has
recently been described as the largest metropolitan area in the country that is not a metropolitan county),
once we learn how the Oyster scheme works we want it in our area. Those of us who know that the current
Oyster technology is not scalable <strong>and</strong> not interoperable with clones of itself in other urban centres are aware
that the forthcoming overlaying of ITSO technology on the Oyster scheme will be a boon.
8. The initial integration of further heavy rail London local services into the Oyster scheme is a start, but
essential is resolute <strong>and</strong> expert progress with the growing commitment by DfT to ensure that longer distance
heavy rail services implement ITSO technology <strong>and</strong> do it properly. However, the longer distance heavy rail
service ticketing provision, currently supposedly at the start of implementation, is the subject of very
considerable internal disagreement within the industry, <strong>and</strong> DfT gives all the appearance of not having the
expertise or knowledge to resolve the problems.
9. We should temper the answer “No” with an assessment of the possibility of doing better without
significant extra cost. Here we frequently hear about, <strong>and</strong> some of us experience for ourselves, public
transport systems in European cities or further afield (eg the far east) that in metropolitan areas are better
integrated. If we look at the diVerence between their way of doing things <strong>and</strong> ours, we very often see a
publicly owned service (eg Brussels, Paris), or at least a much better partnership between public <strong>and</strong> private
sector (eg Holl<strong>and</strong>). In fact Holl<strong>and</strong> is a good place to study, for they are currently installing a fully
integrated public transport ticketing system from one of the only two companies recognised as being capable
of delivering (with suitable partners) a fully integrated ticketing system over a complex multi-modal
network. 1
1 Holl<strong>and</strong> is using Thales, whereas London uses Cubic.