Download an initial response to the comments received (PDF 663k) to the bus industry's proposals to reform Traveline.
1. Background
In late 2010, a group of bus operators put a proposal to the Traveline Advisory Group (TAG) for changes to the way that Traveline is currently managed, funded and delivered. The TAG considered the document and after refining it to take into account comments received from Local Authority stakeholders on an early draft of the paper, put the bus group proposal out to consultation on 10.3.11. This TAG document summarises the responses to the consultation which closed on 15.4.11.
2. Respondents
There were 59 responses to the consultation; 27 from individual local authorities, 12 from traveline bodies, 5 from local authority bodies, 2 from individuals, 2 from national governments and 11 from other organisations such as traveline suppliers, academic institutions and commercial end users of the data. Respondents are listed for reference at Appendix A to this document and the responses from ATCO, Pteg, the Department for Transport and the LGA are included in their entirety in Appendices B to E.
3. Response
The vast majority of responses recognised a need for change and of those about half stated that more detail was required on areas of the proposal, and the other half agreed and added that there were also areas of the proposal that needed adaptation.
All those that took part in the consultation process wanted to be involved in the change process.
The key benefits that the proposal would bring, where stated, were:
A more streamlined structure and less bureaucracy
A reduction in costs
It encouraged the development and roll out of EBSR
The improvement of regional travel and fares
The delivery of a superior national product
The commitment of bus operators to traveline
Although only making up a small percentage of the total responses, the non-traveline stakeholder end users of the data made the point that in their experience, the current system is an obstacle to innovation due to its complex management and decision making structure, and that the regional boards make it difficult to get quick decisions and commitment to interface new products with traveline. This group of respondents also suggested that single national contracts could stifle competition and the agile development of services to customers.
4. Key Issues
Responses included requests for more detail on existing areas of the proposal and suggestions for areas that needed to be added. The key issues, which have been categorised but in no particular order of priority, were as follows:
4.1 General
Timescales; those set out in the proposal are not realistic and need to show a commitment to accuracy of data through the Olympic period.
Transport Direct; where does it sit within this proposal given the overlap of service provision?
The localisation agenda; there needs to be more detail provided about how moving to a centralised service can deliver the localisation agenda.
Partnership working; there needs to be more emphasis on the importance of partnership working and the role that organisations outside of the ‘big four’ will play; a 70/30 operator/local authority split for the TIL board is not acceptable.
The customer; the proposal needs to be more customer focussed and describe the benefits of the change to the customer.
Other modes; the service should be impartial and multimodal, including non-registered services such as TfL buses, ferries, and metro.
Promotion; there is no mention of the promotion of traveline, which is largely done at a regional or local level currently.
Value; there needs to be an assessment of the current value of traveline.
4.2 Finance
Transitional Costs; is the level of transitional costs quoted accurate, how has it been calculated, and to which organisations specifically is it intended that they fall?
Savings; more detailed figures required on how the stated savings would be produced, including their source.
Delivery costs for the proposal; how would economies of scale be produced, what would costs be at a regional level for authorities and operators, and what are the ongoing operating costs?
Contingency; what would happen if the costs of implementing and operating the proposal went above the operator budget stated in the paper and what would happen if operators were not able to deliver that level of budget?
Other operators; how would non-payment by operators outside those putting forward the proposal be handled, both within the bus industry and across other modes? There needs to be a commitment from rail and coach organisations to pay traveline invoices.
Benchmarking; what costs per call do operators pay for handling their own calls on timetables and journey planning and what do they consider to be an appropriate cost per call to pay traveline?
4.3 Data
EBSR; more detail is required on how it will encourage the roll out of EBSR at all stops cross all bus operators, and EBSR files were widely found to be not detailed or accurate enough for journey planning.
Bank holidays and disruptions; how would gathering data for these instances be included in the proposed system?
Local knowledge; how would the system replicate the benefits to data build of local knowledge currently reaped at local or regional level?
NaPTAN; more detail is needed of how NaPTAN and NPTG would fit into the proposal.
How will RTI data be incorporated?
Downstream systems; the maintenance of downstream systems using the data such as applications for roadside publicity, and RTI systems is essential.
5. Next Steps
The Chairman of TAG will put forward a number of recommendations to the bus group that put forward the proposal. These recommendations will not be made based solely on the content of this summary but also from having understood the full detail of all the responses received.
The bus group will use the consultation responses and TAG recommendations to adapt and refine the proposal.
APPENDIX A - RESPONDENTS
APPENDIX F - ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND INVITATION TO RESPOND
Download the proposal 178k PDF
Covering letter, with details of how to respond:
16 March 2011 Dear Stakeholder The Traveline Advisory Group is conducting a consultation on the future arrangements for delivering travel information in the UK. We are gathering the views of the widest possible cross-section of interested parties who produce data and process, give out and use information. The catalyst for this consultation has been a proposal for the service's future drawn up by a potential consortium of bus operators. This proposal is included with this covering letter. We anticipate that stakeholders will have a view on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, and any particular challenges that they think will arise in implemeting the proposed changes. There is no need to comment on every aspect, but we particularly ask the organisations and individuals currently involved in delivering Traveline to tell us whether they:-
We are also open to alternative proposals. This consultation is open for four weeks, until 15 April 2011. Please send your response either or to:- Steven Salmon
Thank you for your input. Yours sincerely
STEVEN SALMON
| |
|
Confederaton of Passenger Transport UK
Drury House 34-43 Russell Street London WC2B 5HA Telephone: 020 7240 3131 Facimile: 020 7240 6565 Website: www.cpt-uk.org A company limited by guarantee No. 1182437 England. Registered office as above. |
Go back to travelinedata
© Traveline 2011, Last updated: 14 June 2011
