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

) Secondly, the complexity of the customer service arrangements could be formidable.
For example, who would deal with a passenger who bought an ITSO-compliant
smartcard in, say, Newcastle, took the train to London, <strong>and</strong> discovered that his ITSOcompliant
smartcard did not work on the Underground? 50
c) Thirdly, as we have already noted, TfL has concerns about the processing speed of
ITSO products compared with Oyster. This could result in a reduced capacity at peak
hours <strong>and</strong> additional costs. 51 The problem is not merely the delay but also that a longer
processing speed may result in more ‘torn’ transactions (i.e. those where the smartcard
is not properly read by the reader <strong>and</strong> the passenger has to touch again or the
transaction is simply not recorded). The Chair of ITSO described this as “a red
herring”, with ITSO’s benchmark time of 0.6 seconds being perfectly adequate for use
in London. 52
49. Oyster is a proven large-scale system, used <strong>and</strong> trusted by millions of passengers.
ITSO-compliant smartcards have shown themselves workable in smaller schemes but
have yet to be tested on a large scale. The Government must not force ITSO onto the
London Oyster system. It is imperative that any introduction of ITSO on the Oyster
system be rigorously piloted to prevent any loss of operational efficiency or customer
confidence in smartcards. Testing must include arrangements for supporting
customers using ITSO products out-of-area. Given the uncertain level of dem<strong>and</strong> for
ITSO in London, the costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of the investment should also be robustly
assessed. This must have regard to the need to avoid financially penalising TfL for
having been at the vanguard of smartcard ticketing in the UK.
50. One of the clear lessons from Oyster is that, to make real progress, a strong customer or
“systems integrator” is needed. 53 Some industry witnesses have suggested that the train
operating companies, through the Rail Settlement Plan, 54 should take over ITSO as they
have demonstrated their competence with running the <strong>Ticketing</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settlement
Agreement. The Government’s strategy of using ITSO as a way to promote integrated
ticketing is a step in the right direction, but not enough. It is fine in theory but not
producing results in practice. ITSO may be a useful technical specification but it is
designed to facilitate integrated ticketing, rather than to make it happen. The
Government needs also to articulate a clearer strategy for the development of
integrated ticketing in general <strong>and</strong> smartcards in particular. The current laissez-faire
approach is inadequate. The Government must listen carefully to the transport
operators <strong>and</strong> the technology industry. The criticisms of ITSO need to be addressed
<strong>and</strong> the Government must ensure it has adequate technical capacity to provide
leadership in this area.
50 Qq 255–256
51 Q 264
52 Ev 198
53 Ev 126
54 The Rail Settlement Plan is part of the Association of Train Operating Companies. It provides central retail support
services to the UK train operating companies. This includes the distribution of fares <strong>and</strong> timetable data, the
provision of other retail information to all National Rail retailers <strong>and</strong> the allocation <strong>and</strong> settlement of rail revenue
to operators.
17