Smart ticketing on rail within the UK is a subject that has been hotly debated for many years, and (in my opinion) too often focuses on technology. The starting point of the article is that take-up has been ‘glacially slow’, and that is something I would agree with - up to now. But I am optimistic about the future and think progress can be much faster if we get a few things right, including:
- Building on the foundations we already have.
- Being clear how you drive take-up.
- Distinguishing between products and technology.
- Being realistic about why we are doing this.
Building on the foundations we already have
Dennis Rocks of the Rail Delivery Group is correct - the back office created by the South East Flexible Ticketing programme (SEFT) and now hosted by RDG was built for the South East but designed to be scaled to a national (England and Wales) infrastructure, and has plenty of capacity to expand further still. Moreover, it provides a fully compliant ITSO infrastructure, creates interoperability between operators, supports a national product set, and is already connected to some major stations in the Midlands and the North.
There has been a massive investment in ITSO over the past decade, and to say that London hasn’t embraced ITSO is missing the point. London has its own priorities with contactless, but is fully equipped to handle ITSO cards. Outside of London there is widespread use of ITSO across the bus industry, and as Jeremy Meal says: “We need to roll out ITSO across the rail network”.
And ITSO is not the only technology we can build on - barcode is operational on a number of operators, and contactless is being explored outside London. We therefore have some brilliant technical foundations to build on, as well as having established commercial frameworks for the allocation of fare income and responsibility. More investment will be needed to maximise the opportunity - getting existing equipment to talk to each other and installing more so that products can be offered seamlessly - but we have the foundation.
Being clear how you drive take-up
Having the technical foundations is a great start, but cannot be the only focus. Value is only realised when people embrace smart tickets, so we must focus on the customer and drive take-up. Here are four things to think about:
- Working with the operators. Ultimately, the TOCs own the relationship with their customers and are best positioned to drive take-up. The NAO investigation into SEFT points to inconsistencies in the way funding agreements were negotiated and requirements set for take-up. More active involvement with the TOCs in the latter stages of that programme has been key to the increase in take-up referenced by Dennis Rocks and set out in the report.
- Convenience and interoperability. Andrew Steele refers to the fragmented nature of the railway and the complex decisions that many customers have to make about their journey. Smart ticketing should make travel simpler rather than more complicated - interoperability is essential to meeting customer needs as well as changing long-established behaviours. The orange mag-stripe ticket creates a consistent customer experience, working seamlessly across operators and flows on rail, and smart cannot be a step back from that. We need the co-ordinated installation of infrastructure and rollout of common products, especially at major interchanges involving several operators. We also need to think more about different travel patterns. Travel in the South East is dominated by rail flows into London, whereas travel in the regions is more fluid. Multi-modal products make smart more attractive, especially in regions and cities where trips on buses are key. Interoperability across different technologies would be nice but may be some way ahead - we need to focus on what the customer wants now, and what makes a difference now.
- Getting the price right. Research by Transport Focus and others shows that price is a major driver of demand for smart ticketing. It was certainly a major influence in the success of Oyster in London. With many ticket types regulated on rail, the DfT will have to take a leading role if price differentials are to be exploited as an incentive to drive take-up. Similarly, the DfT will be affected if any price reduction results in revenue abstraction where TOCs are in subsidy.
- Contactless may not be suitable for all. Not everyone has a bank account. Even among those with a bank account, many (including those on tight budgets) are uncomfortable simply tapping to pay, and prefer the control of buying tickets in advance for the certainty of price.
Distinguishing between products and technology
We need to stop mixing conversations about ticketing products and the technology we use to deploy them. Customers don’t really understand (or want to understand) the difference between ITSO, Contactless, Oyster and ‘Mobile’, they simply want to access the train and make their journey.
Delay Repay is certainly something that customers are interested in, but do they associate it with ‘account-based ticketing’ or appreciate that it requires a way of registering when a journey starts and ends (usually a gate or validator)? I think not.
The frequent interplay of technology and product is lazy and propagates confusion, especially among senior stakeholders based on experience in London, without understanding that different ticketing products can require different amounts of infrastructure regardless of technology. We need to keep it simple, keep moving things forward, and be clear what we are promising. It isn’t difficult to explain the challenges of implementing contactless on national rail or the advantages of barcode for irregular travellers. To build on the foundations we have and move forward more quickly, we need to communicate clearly, give customers what they want and manage expectations. That will drive take-up.
Being realistic about why we are doing this
The article references the recent NAO investigation on SEFT, and the fact that the programme was paused three times and reset twice. Those delays had a massive impact on the progress (and cost) of that programme, and were largely due to questions about strategy and approach. Ultimately, smart ticketing benefits national and regional economies through improved connectivity and greater economic activity. For this reason, central and regional governments must continue to play an active role. Implementation relies upon the transport authorities and operators working together, and we should be clear why it’s important for them and their customers. Only then will we get our priorities right and support to make it happen.
To conclude, there has been significant investment already, and this provides a great foundation to build upon. For possibly the first time there seems to be broad support across the industry, and I am optimistic that progress will accelerate - it is a priority for the Transport Secretary, RDG is pushing things forward, the TOCs are keen, the regions are keen, and the DfT is pushing its Smart Ticketing on National Rail Programme. The future is bright.
