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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 198 Transport Committee: Evidence 2. It is our underst<strong>and</strong>ing that the increase in clear-up rates were better for more serious crimes than the overall all figure of 3.7% <strong>and</strong> TSSA particularly welcomes this improvement. 3. A similar operation has recently concluded (5 January 2008) <strong>and</strong> information should be available shortly. January 2008 Supplementary memor<strong>and</strong>um from Merseytravel (TPT 28A) As promised, I am responding to various questions raised by the Committee on 5 December 2007, it was asked what the percentage of TCAs is who already have smartcards. Question 32 All TCAs will be issuing new concessionary passes in the form of ITSO compliant smartcards, (this excludes the London Boroughs who have been given an exemption by the Department of Transport until 2010). There are a number of TCA areas where smartcards have already been implemented. Some of the Smart card schemes are, what has been described as legacy schemes, that is those that are now compliant with <strong>and</strong> therefore cannot work with the new concession passes. These have been considered as though they are not smart in this response, as the new passes will have to be used as flash passes. ITSO Services Limited has been set up to look after those TCAs who do not have an ITSO compliant back oYce. The number of TCAs who are expected to or have signed up to this service, <strong>and</strong> who are therefore considered to be non-ITSO-smart is 253. The remaining TCAs are or will be soon ITSO compliant <strong>and</strong> are therefore in process of rolling out ITSO compliant equipment to their busses. On a percentage basis this probably accounts for between 5% <strong>and</strong> 10% of the bus population of Engl<strong>and</strong> (depending on what defining you use for buses <strong>and</strong> for the total bus market); around 4,500 buses, expected to be equipped by, say, end 2008. Further take up will depend on how well Government “encourages” TCAs, <strong>and</strong> their bus operators, to equip their buses with ITSO compliant smart card equipment. With the right encouragement it would be possible to have all of the country so equipped within five to seven years, without causing any major skewing of the equipment market. Question 53 The Chairman asked for a guide to smartcard types: There are basically two types of contactless smartcard. These are “memory” cards <strong>and</strong> “microprocessor” cards. Memory cards do not contain a processor <strong>and</strong> are therefore only able to store “data” on them. All of the intelligence (<strong>and</strong> security) is put into the [contactless] smartcard reader. These smartcards come in various sizes. ITSO has several memory cards in its portfolio of useable card types. Most, but not all of these, are based on Mifare,R technology. They range is size from about 250 bytes (or characters), of data up to 4 Kilobytes (around 4,000 characters of data). They are usually lower cost than micro-processor cards because they only contain “memory” <strong>and</strong> do not have any processing capability. Micro-processor cards are, as their name implies, equipped with a small processor on them. They can therefore run “applets” (micro-processor speak for programs) that enable them to do more than the basic memory cards can. They can contain more than one application that can be invoked by the card reader calling the application via an application identifier. They can be much bigger than memory cards, but typically in contactless smartcard <strong>and</strong> transport applications they tend to be around 4 Kilobytes in size. Some of the older types of micro-processor cards can be quite slow. ITSO can work with either or the above types of contactless smart cards. (There are eight defined types of contactless smartcard media available in the ITSO Specification.) This is one of the selling points of the ITSO Specification in that implementers can mix <strong>and</strong> match card types according to the needs of the scheme <strong>and</strong> of the customer. This includes pretty much every smartcard that is manufactured to the ISO 144443 contactless smartcard st<strong>and</strong>ard.
Question 68 Timings of Oyster <strong>and</strong> ITSO. This is actually in my view a red herring! Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 199 1. In the first place it is my underst<strong>and</strong>ing that not all transactions within Oyster are done in 200 milliseconds or less. (Apocryphal evidence suggests that some take nearly a second). 2. Secondly Oyster is a closed system with a closed security system. ITSO is interoperable <strong>and</strong> has therefore to have a peer reviewed security that is capable of much wider use. This will inevitably have a small impact on transaction times. 3. Thirdly ITSO has a range of smart cards (see above) in its stables <strong>and</strong> some of these are indeed slower than Oyster, but some are the same platform as Oyster <strong>and</strong> would therefore be expected to be of similar speed to Oyster. 4. Fourthly, the Department for Transport’s own research has suggested that a transaction time of anything up to one second is quite acceptable as users of smartcards tend, when they touch their smartcards to the reader, to leave the smart card in the field for anything up to 1 second. This also is quicker than the time taken for a magnetic ticket to pass through the magnetic ticket transport (<strong>and</strong> much more reliable). 5. Fifthly users, so long as they are provided with a visual or aural “go”, signal will actually modify their behaviour (within reason) so that the pass works. (It is much less hassle for it to work than to have to “seek assistance”.) This is eminently shown in London where some individual transactions take much longer than others. ITSO therefore believes that majoring on transaction times is obfuscation, when all of the available evidence suggests that so long as a transaction is properly completed within less than one second (<strong>and</strong> ITSO’s benchmark is less than 600 milliseconds). Certainly in London, replacing magnetic tickets with smartcards would give transaction throughput benefits for everyone. It would be win-win for both users <strong>and</strong> for TfL. Related to Q84 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica of Buses) The question relates to fraud. Experience has shown that when a new type of equipment is installed for the first time in an area revenue tends to increase, with no other changes, by between 10% <strong>and</strong> 15%. This then tends to fall away as time goes on. One possible explanation that has been given is that this is because a new ticket machine makes everyone “more honest” until the new machine (<strong>and</strong> its quirks) become known. This therefore suggests that underlying general losses to unknown events (such as customers not paying or overriding etc) is to the order of 10% to 15%. As was inferred in the written evidence in many cases the re-imbursement of concessionary fares does not relate directly to individual journeys but is related to the results of surveys. In relation to the previous section (Q83) there is no requirement for personal data to be written into the card. This data can all be held securely in the back oYce, as currently. The Department for Transport has provided guidance to TCAs on this in its bulletins. I trust that this is of assistance to the Committee, please let me know if you need anything else. January 2008 Memor<strong>and</strong>um from P G Rayner (TPT 44) The Position as at Early March 2008. A Personal View: P G Rayner. Having been actively involved now for over 10 years I am mindful that in some senses “I know too much” <strong>and</strong> have as a consequence tried to restrict this comment to essentials. Firstly as the recent history is important if one is to underst<strong>and</strong> the development of concessionary travel it should be noted for more than 20 years some communities have provided free or reduced rate travel for their older citizens <strong>and</strong> for those with mobility diYculties. However it was not until the Transport Act 2000 that the half price bus fares were made m<strong>and</strong>atory <strong>and</strong> some of the funding was provided centrally. This was received with mixed feelings <strong>and</strong> immediately one could see that only those authorities who believed in the value of such schemes implemented the system without political back biting <strong>and</strong> resistance. This has its roots in party politics but the pattern has never revealed that to be too much of an influence for many places out of sympathy with national government of the day have good <strong>and</strong> generous schemes. So the Transport Act 2000 made some money available but because that was a long time ago <strong>and</strong> the money was, <strong>and</strong> is, mingled in with the general grants <strong>and</strong> not ring fenced it exists but is frequently forgotten when the debates rage on how much money this or that authority gets.
Page 1 and 2:
House of Commons Transport Committe
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Report Page 1 Introduction
Page 5 and 6:
4 5. Smartcards offer a range of ne
Page 7 and 8:
6 Integrated bus ticketing 10. Thro
Page 9 and 10:
8 Long distance coach services are
Page 11 and 12:
10 strategy, including those in the
Page 13 and 14:
12 long-distance rail passengers ma
Page 15 and 16:
14 services have not been put in pl
Page 17 and 18:
16 Oyster on rail services in Londo
Page 19 and 20:
18 4 Revenue protection and
Page 21 and 22:
20 Staff safety 61. Transport staff
Page 23 and 24:
22 66. An integrated ticketing syst
Page 25 and 26:
24 Transport should commission an e
Page 27 and 28:
26 concession authorities that attr
Page 29 and 30:
28 operators and a
Page 31 and 32:
30 List of recommendations Integrat
Page 33 and 34:
32 Concessionary t
Page 35 and 36:
34 Formal Minutes Clive Efford Mrs
Page 37 and 38:
36 List of written evidence 1 Dr Ro
Page 39 and 40:
38 List of Reports from the Committ
Page 41 and 42:
Oral evidence Taken before the Tran
Page 43 and 44:
14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, M
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 11
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
14 November 2007 Mr Keith Halstead
Page 59 and 60:
definition of severe disability <st
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
about how the data on the smartcard
Page 73 and 74:
things around it. We have got over
Page 75 and 76:
which comes out of the usage of the
Page 77 and 78:
the impact of their behaviour on ot
Page 79 and 80:
5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, M
Page 81 and 82:
5 December 2007 Mr Manuel Cortes, M
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Mr Harris: I am sorry, I am not goi
Page 95 and 96:
12 December 2007 Mr Tom Harris MP <
Page 97 and 98:
Q464 Chairman: Is Transport Direct
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
3.2 Conclusion—Smartcard St<stron
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Integrated Transport Memora
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Lostwithiel to Liskeard Transport C
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Is the legal framework within which
Page 161 and 162:
The Use of Smartcard Technologies I
Page 163 and 164:
Executive Summary Memorand<
Page 165 and 166:
Integration Nationally Transport Co
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
— Ensure the confidentiality of d
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for
Page 177 and 178:
8. Are the rights of passengers <st
Page 179 and 180:
Concessionary Fare
Page 181 and 182:
Introduction Memorand</stro
Page 183 and 184:
4. Does the ITSO System cater for t
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 14
Page 199 and 200: March 2007 1. Summary Transport Com
Page 205 and 206: 9. Do operators of public transport
Page 223 and 224: Concessionary Fare
Page 227 and 228: Ferry Transport Committee: Evidence
Page 235 and 236: Confusion over what local authoriti
Page 237: Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 19
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?