1 Tayside and Central Scotland Transport

12 RTP/12/35 TAYSIDE AND CENTRAL SCOTLAND TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP

11 DECEMBER 2012

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

This report advises Members of progress and developments with various matters of interest and relevance to the work of the Partnership and seeks approval for further actions by officers.

1 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 That the Partnership :-

(i) notes the progress updates and other information provided in this report and accompanying appendices;

(ii) remits officers to seek further clarification of Scottish Government’s proposals for High Speed Rail between Glasgow – Edinburgh and rail electrification north of the Central Belt; and

(iii) supports the Transport Scotland Delivery Strategy - Smart & Integrated Ticketing and remits officers to progress discussions with Transport Scotland, Councils, operators and other relevant stakeholders on the potential for introducing smart and integrated ticketing initiatives in the Tactran region.

2 DISCUSSION

Forum of Chairs of Regional Transport Partnerships

2.1 The RTP Chairs Forum next meets in Glasgow on 5 December 2012. The Draft Minute of the previous meeting in Stranraer on 5 September 2012 is attached at Appendix A for information.

2.2 At the meeting on 5 December the Chairs will receive a progress report on the work of the joint RTPs/Scottish Government Working Group which, as reported on 12 June 2012 and 11 September 2012 (Reports RTP/12/18 and RTP/12/25 refer) was established after an earlier meeting between the Chairs and the Minister for Transport. The broad remit of this group is to examine and develop the role of RTPs in improving transport policy and delivery. It had originally been intended that the Working Group would report to a meeting of the RTP Chairs and the Minister on 5 December. This meeting has now been postponed until a date to be agreed in early 2013. The Partnership agreed on 11 September 2012 to postpone a proposed briefing event for regional MSPs, pending the outcome of the Working Group’s deliberations. Arrangements for an MSPs briefing will be considered further upon receipt of the outcomes from the RTPs/Scottish Government Working Group.

2.3 The RTP Chairs will also receive reports on progress with Health and Transport issues, including a recent meeting with the Chair and Chief Executive of Scottish Ambulance Service, and an update on the national Bus Stakeholder Group and High Speed Rail (which are also addressed later in this report).

2.4 Developments arising from the RTP Chairs meeting on 5 December will be reported orally.

National Bus Stakeholder Group

2.5 At its meeting on 11 September the Partnership noted progress with the national Bus Stakeholder Group (BSG) and endorsed a joint RTPs response to proposals for the establishment of a Bus Investment Fund (Report RTP/12/25 refers). The BSG met again on 26 October 2012, at which time there was further discussion on proposals for administration of the Bus Investment Fund; Bus Policy and consideration of possible areas for legislative review; updating on the Scottish Green Bus Fund and Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG); and discussion on an earlier decision by HMRC, which had resulted in abandonment of Salary Sacrifice schemes/proposals for employee bus tickets. A note of the meeting is included at Appendix B for information.

2.6 A small Working Group has been established to consider in greater detail issues relating to Registration of Bus Services and statutory Bus Quality Partnerships. The next meeting of the BSG will be in February 2013 and further developments will be reported to the Partnership’s next meeting in March 2013.

High Speed Rail and Rail Electrification

2.7 The Partnership has previously indicated its support for proposals to develop a UK High Speed Rail (HSR) network. In responding to an earlier consultation by the Department for Transport (DfT) on their HS2 proposals for incremental development of a High Speed Rail network northwards from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, the Partnership supported the DfT proposals, subject to HSR being extended to/from Scotland. Support for HSR was subject to the proviso that other necessary improvements to the Scottish rail network north of the Central Belt, including infrastructure and service enhancements between Aberdeen and the Central Belt and on the Highland Main Line, and the extension of rail electrification north to Aberdeen and Inverness through the Tactran region, as identified in the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR), should be implemented by Scottish Government as a complement to, and ideally ahead of, HSR (Report RTP/11/24 refers).

2.8 On 13 November 2012, the Deputy First Minister announced that Scottish Government is to advance implementation of a High Speed Rail connection between Glasgow – Edinburgh, to be delivered by 2024. Whilst the Partnership is supportive of High Speed Rail to Edinburgh and Glasgow, this recent announcement raises questions regarding the prioritisation, funding and delivery of other necessary enhancements to rail infrastructure and services north of the Central Belt.

2.9 At its meeting on 11 September 2012 the Partnership noted a recent announcement that the EGIP rail electrification scheme between Edinburgh and Glasgow had been re-phased, with electrification to Stirling and Dunblane being postponed. The Partnership agreed to write to the Minister for Transport expressing extreme disappointment at the reduction in the EGIP proposals, and requesting that electrification to Stirling and Dunblane should be progressed as the top priority beyond completion of the revised EGIP project. The letter also requested clarification of the rolling programme for electrification in the Scottish Government’s High Level Output Statement (HLOS).

2.10 At the time of writing a response to the letter on EGIP and the HLOS is awaited. Details of the Scottish Government’s recently announced proposals for HSR between Glasgow – Edinburgh are also unclear. Transport Scotland provided a recent update briefing on the revised EGIP proposals on 28 November 2012. At this time a commitment to deliver the revised proposals, as reported on 11 September 2012, by 2016 were reiterated, along with a commitment to extend electrification of the rail network by approximately 100 single track kilometres/annum, with no indication of priority or programme beyond the revised EGIP proposals. Further information is expected when Network Rail respond to Transport Scotland’s HLOS through their Strategic Business Plan in January 2013.

2.11 It is proposed that the Partnership remits officers to seek further clarification of the Scottish Government’s proposals for HSR between Glasgow – Edinburgh and on extension of electrification, and receives a further report on this in due course.

Delivery Strategy - Smart & Integrated Ticketing

2.12 The Partnership has previously indicated its support for the development of a national strategy on “smart” and integrated public transport ticketing, with a view to improving the accessibility, convenience and attractiveness of public transport.

2.13 Transport Scotland published its Delivery Strategy - Smart & Integrated Ticketing in October, a copy of which is attached at Appendix C. The development of “smart” ticketing is also being pursued by the Cities Alliance as part of their Connected Cities agenda.

2.14 Transport Scotland and representatives of the Cities Alliance have met with RTPs, with a view to identifying potential opportunities for the development of “smart” ticketing pilots which would support incremental roll-out of the national strategy. A meeting was held with Tactran officers and partner Councils’ Public Transport officers on 25 October 2012, at which time a number of potential pilot options were discussed. A note of the meeting is attached at Appendix D for information.

2.15 As indicated in Appendix D it is considered that the Tactran region, with 3 of Scotland’s Cities located within it, offers a potentially unique opportunity to trial “smart” ticketing applications which cover more than 1 city-region. Clearly any development of pilot initiatives will require to be discussed and developed in full consultation with operators. Stagecoach Group has recently outlined proposals for its own development of smart ticketing.

2.16 Developments arising from meetings with RTPs and their respective Councils are being reported to the Cities Alliance on 5 December 2012. Discussions are continuing with Transport Scotland on the potential for developing “smart” ticketing pilot(s), based on the options highlighted in Appendix D. The Partnership is asked to support the national Delivery Strategy – Smart & Integrated Ticketing and to remit officers to progress discussions with Transport Scotland, Councils, operators and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to developing pilot scheme(s) in the Tactran region.

Town Centres Review

2.17 A review of Town Centres has been established under the auspices of the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment as part of the national Regeneration Strategy published in 2011. The purpose of the Review is to identify and agree key issues and actions to enhance the role, quality and vitality of town centres. The Review is being informed by an External Advisory Group (EAG) which includes a range of invited professional advisors and interests, including transport. Transport input to the EAG is being provided by the Director of Tactran and officers from Sustrans.

2.18 The Group has met during September and again in November, arising from which a report on Suggested Action for Scottish Towns has been prepared. This has defined a range of actions across a variety of themes including legislation; planning; connectivity; public sector impact; social, community and cultural growth; and leadership. The Director has agreed to “champion” actions on improving physical connectivity by working in partnership with other relevant members of the Town Centres EAG and with the SCOTS and HOPS professional associations on transportation and planning. A further meeting of the Group is planned in February 2013, to update on progress.

3 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

3.1 This report has no additional financial or other resource implications.

Eric Guthrie Director

For further information email [email protected] or tel. 01738 475771

NOTE

The following papers, as defined by Section 50D of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (and not containing confidential or exempt information) were relied on to a material extent in preparing this Report :-

Reports to Forum of RTP Chairs on 5 September 2012 : Various

Reports to Bus Stakeholder Group on 26 June 2012 : Various

Report to Partnership RTP/11/24, Directors Report, 21 June 2011

Report to Partnership RTP/12/18, Directors Report, 12 June 2012

Report to Partnership RTP/12/25, Director’s Report, 11 September 2012

Appendix A Regional Transport Partnerships Joint Chairs Meeting Held in Stranraer on 5th September 2012 at 9:30am

Draft Minute of Meeting

Present: Cllr Brian Collins, Chair SWESTRANS (Chair) Cllr John Semple, Chair HITRANS Cllr Peter Argyle, Chair Nestrans Cllr Russell Imrie, Chair SEStran Cllr George Redmond, Chair SPT Cllr Will Dawson, Chair Tactran Cllr Allan Wishart, Chair ZetTRANS

In attendance: Harry Thomson, SWESTRANS (HT) Dave Duthie, HITRANS (DD) Derick Murray, Nestrans (DM) Alastair Short, SEStran (AS) Bruce Kiloh, SPT (BK) Eric Guthrie, Tactran (EG) Michael Craigie, ZetTrans (MC) Tom Davy, Transport Scotland (TD) Katie Green, COSLA (KG) Ashley Roger, Tactran (AR)

Apologies: Alex Macaulay, SEStran Eric Stewart, SPT Cllr Steven Hagan, CoSLA

Item Action 1. Welcome and Apologies Cllr Collins welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted the apologies received above. He requested that the Agenda and papers Lead be issued timeously for future meetings. Officers

2. Presentation by Swestrans HT outlined plans for revitalising the Stranraer harbour and station area which included a waterfront project, a new interchange for rail, bus and ferry. Engagement has commenced with the Council and other agencies with the intention of making Stranraer a top class leisure destination, with plans being considered for a hotel complex, housing and leisure facilities.

HT also outlined Swestrans’ involvement in the Rural Transport Solutions Project in partnership with Shetland, Finland, Western Sweden and Iceland, which seeks to address significant transport issues for rural areas with a low density population. Wigtown Community Transport is being used as a blueprint for Community Transport in the area.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2012 and Matters Arising The minutes were approved.

(i) Access to Health & Social Care DD gave an oral update :

SAS 3 regional centres are being established in north, west and east Scotland. The centre in the north is already in place and there are “teething” problems regarding eligibility. DD has argued strongly against any cuts which would require the transport authority to deliver patient transport.

Audit Scotland Review of Health & Social Care Transport Audit Scotland is contacting all Councils and RTPs to confirm annually what actions are being taken but as yet there is no detailed follow up progress report available.

Short Term Working Group In Autumn 2009 the Chairs wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing requesting that Access to Health Care be reviewed. After some delay a Working Group had been established in January 2011 and the report from this was due in Oct 2011 but as yet is still not available. DD suggested that if a report is not available by the next Chairs meeting in December, the Chairs should send a follow up letter to the Cabinet Secretary seeking confirmation of intentions regarding publication of the report.

DD advised that following his retiral in November, he is to be replaced by Ranald Robertson and it was intended he would replace DD on the Short Term Working Group as RTP Representative.

There was discussion regarding the issue of engagement with Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS). Cllr Collins noted that two previous invitations to the Chair of SAS to meet with the Chairs had been unsuccessful and proposed that the Chair of SAS be invited to the next Chairs meeting on 5 December. Cllr Redmond proposed that a small group consisting of 2 or 3 Chairs seek an initial meeting with SAS prior to meeting the full group. After discussion it was agreed that Cllr Redmond and Cllr Imrie would meet with the Chair and Chief DD Executive of SAS. It was agreed that DD would liaise with SAS to ALL schedule the meeting and that each RTP would provide DD with a note detailing their experience of engagement with SAS. Cllr Collins requested that his dissent to the decision be formally recorded.

(ii) Letter to Secretary of State regarding Access to London EG advised that a letter had not yet been sent and proposed that this be aligned with responding to the current DfT consultations on ICEC franchise and on Draft Aviation Policy Framework. It was agreed to remit officers to consider the matter further at their meeting on 3rd EG October for submitting by the air consultation deadline of 31st October.

4. Note of Meeting with Minister on 7th March 2012 Noted. EG advised that it had been confirmed the Minster would attend the meeting on 5th December in Glasgow at 9.30am for 45 minutes.

5. RTP/Scottish Government Working Group EG presented the report which updated the Chairs on the establishment of the joint RTPs/Transport Scotland working group and the development of the associated work programme. In terms of rail engagement, he advised that Transport Scotland had recently met with all mainland RTPs regarding proposals for promoting Community Rail Partnerships, when it had been indicated that RTPs would be involved in a proposed Steering Group and have an active role.

Cllr Collins agreed Community Rail Partnerships could have a positive role in developing rail and he awaited developments of this with interest.

6. Bus Stakeholder Group and Bus Issues BK presented the report which updated the Chairs on the progress of the national Bus Stakeholder Group (BSG) and sought the Chairs agreement to a proposed joint RTPs response on proposals for the Scottish Government Bus Investment Fund.

Cllr Collins asked how passenger numbers on buses could be improved. EG advised that maximising the role of the bus and stimulating market growth through modal shift and other means was a key objective of the BSG and that a further consultation on potential review of legislation and work on service procurement processes were amongst the initiatives being considered to help achieve this objective.

It was agreed that the response on Bus Investment Fund proposals at BK Appendix B be submitted to the BSG and that officers would liaise on a joint RTPs response to the BSG consultation on areas for legislative Lead review, to be submitted by 21 September 2012. Officers

(i) Meeting with CPT March 2013 EG advised it had been practice for the Chairs to meet with representatives of CPT (Scotland) on a regular basis. It was agreed to meet with CPT in March 2013 and the Secretariat to contact CPT to EG arrange this.

(ii) Talking Traveline App EG advised that RTPs had been asked by Traveline Scotland to contribute, along with major bus operators and Transport Scotland, to the development of a mobile phone ‘App’ to provide audible information for people with visual impairment. Traveline Scotland had indicated the required contribution to be in the order of £2,200/partner if all RTPs, Transport Scotland and major operators contributed. It was confirmed that all 7 RTPs had agreed to contribute.

Cllr Semple supported the initiative but requested that the issue of poor mobile coverage in rural areas should be recognised.

7. Rail Issues (i) Intercity East Coast Franchise Consultation AS presented the draft RTPs response to the consultation. It was agreed to remove the references to HS2 and to a longer franchise term of 25 years in the response to Question 2 and to remit the Secretariat to submit the response, as amended. EG

(ii) Transport Scotland HLOS Submission EG presented the report asking the Chairs to consider if they wish to align with a proposed joint statement by Transform Scotland, CBI and Scottish Chambers of Commerce on the Scottish Ministers High Level Output Specification (HLOS) and specific concerns on re-phasing of rail electrification proposals in Scotland.

It was agreed to align with the Statement and that the Secretariat EG should progress with Transform Scotland in liaison with Lead Officers.

(iii) High Speed Rail It was noted that the Scottish High Speed Rail Steering Group is being reformed by Transport Scotland and this was welcomed. SPT, SEStran and Nestrans represent RTP interests on the group. DM advised that a summit is to be scheduled with the Steering Group in November and further developments will be reported to the next meeting. DM/AM/BK

8. Transport Futures AS presented a report on the work of and previous Scottish involvement in the Transport Futures group. The paper sought the Chairs’ views on whether they would wish to seek representation on the Transport Futures group in consultation with CoSLA. Cllr Imrie noted that SPT and SEStran had previously been members and that it was open to RTPs to be individual members.

It was agreed that the engagement with Transport Futures had been useful and that the Secretariat should liaise with Transport Futures and CoSLA regarding membership and future meetings and report EG back to a future meeting.

9. Alternative Fuel Vehicles KG reported on consultations between Transport Scotland and CoSLA regarding a further phase of Plugged in Places (PiP) funding support during 2012/13 which would be aimed at establishing a national network of publicly available EV charging infrastructure points. CoSLA and SCOTS had submitted comments on the proposals, which had resulted in a paper going to the CoSLA Leaders meeting on 30 August for approval of a proposed allocation to Community Planning Partnerships based on establishing a network of charging points at roughly 50 mile intervals, focussed on cities and conurbations, the strategic road network, ferry terminals, the Northern Corridor and the Commonwealth Games. It was hoped that future years funding would enable extension of the network in all areas and to reduce to 30 mile intervals. It was anticipated that an announcement on allocation of funding would be made in September.

MC noted that the need for EV charging points at the outward end of journeys had been identified in Shetland.

EG noted the recent announcement by Scottish Government of a further £3 million for investment in eco-friendly buses through the Scottish Green Bus Fund, which RTPs were eligible to submit applications to.

10. CoSLA Liaison KG confirmed Cllr Hagan, Orkney Islands Council had been appointed CoSLA Transport Spokesperson and will attend the Chairs meeting on 5th December. Following on from that meeting Cllr Hagan will look at taking forward the recommendations in the Strategic Transport Task Group paper. It was noted that the Regeneration & Sustainable Development Executive Group would meet on 19 September and 29 November and that Cllrs Collins, Dawson and Semple were all members.

11. AOCB The Chair noted that this was Dave Duthie’s last meeting as he is retiring at the end of November and thanked Dave for his contribution to the work of the Chairs group and the RTPs DD thanked the Chairs and officers for their support and input over the years and wished the RTPs all the best for the future.

12. Date of Next Meeting 9.30am on Wednesday 5th December in Glasgow

Appendix B

TRANSPORT SCOTLAND

BUS STAKEHOLDER GROUP – 3rd Meeting – 26 October 2012

MINUTES / ACTION NOTE

Attendees:

Donald Carmichael, Transport Scotland (Chairman) Allan Crawford, Transport Scotland Nancy Woodhead, Transport Scotland Glynis Brown, Transport Scotland Gordon Hanning, Transport Scotland Chris Cox, ATCO Eric Stewart, SPT Eric Guthrie, TACTRAN John Gooday, Scottish Roadworks Commissioner John Macdonald, Community Transport Association Paul White, CPT Ralph Roberts, McGills Coaches Charlie Anderson, PVS Katie Green, COSLA Tony Hughes, Glasgow City Council Steve Walker, CPT Ally Nelson, Transport Scotland (Secretary)

BUS STAKEHOLDER GROUP

1. Opening remarks and introductions

1.1 Donald Carmichael welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Joan Aitken, Gavin Booth and George Mair, who were unable to attend.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Action Points

2.1 The minutes were agreed with a minor amendment to include apologies from Eric Guthrie. All Action Points from the previous meeting had been addressed and would be covered over the course of the meeting.

3. Bus Policy

3.1 Donald introduced the revised Policy paper, noting however that not all stakeholders had yet been able to reply in writing. The new revised paper summarised issues around policy to take forward with consideration of possible future changes. Discussion was opened up around the table centring around the points laid out in the revised paper.

3.2 Following discussion and due to the complexity of the issues surrounding possible changes to registration of bus services, it was agreed to set up a Working Group. This will consider the issues involved and report back with recommendations on bus service registration. (questions 6-16 on the policy paper). The group will include Chris Cox, Eric Stewart, Joan Aitken, a member of CPT and a representative of the passenger’s perspective.

3.3 sQPs were discussed at length, with discussions focused mainly around the current perception of sQPs and what could potentially be seen as stumbling blocks to get more up and running. It was noted only 2 sQPs have been operated over a 10 year period.

3.4 Donald requested feedback from SPT and operators involved in the sQPs (eg Ralph Roberts, McGill’s Coaches) regarding the sQPs currently running with any comments on the current set of guidance welcomed. This could usefully include best practice regarding how best to encourage the use of sQPs more widely.

3.5 Transport Scotland to consider revising sQP guidance following feedback from SPT and operators.

4. Bus Investment Fund

4.1 Donald introduced a revised paper outlining how the Bus Investment Fund might work. Donald outlined the main principles and said it was planned to introduce the Fund in 2013-2014. It was hoped more concrete information including on timing would be forthcoming at the next Bus Stakeholder Group Meeting.

4.2 Donald asked for any further comments on the paper to be sent to Ally Nelson.

5. Scottish Green Bus Fund

5.1 Allan Crawford spoke briefly regarding the Scottish Green Bus Fund giving an update on the current position.

5.2 He confirmed a further round has been announced this year with funding of £3m and the closing date for applications is 14 December 2012. Application details can be obtained from the Transport Scotland website.

5.3 It was noted the government is currently making an application for state aid approval which will run concurrently with the scheme. No payments can be made until state aid approval is given, but no delays are expected at this time.

6. BSOG UK Overview

6.1 Allan Crawford offered an overview on the position of BSOG in the UK following recent discussions with DfT and the Welsh Government.

6.2 The current position of BSOG in England is that DfT are carrying out a consultation regarding changes to BSOG. Potential reforms include devolving half of their BSOG budget :

 Devolving BSOG for tendered services outside London to local authorities  Devolving BSOG in London to Transport for London  Establishing Better Bus Areas  Making changes to existing rules that govern which services are eligible for BSOG

This will be followed by a consideration of what changes are needed to the remaining basic BSOG.

6.3 In Wales the BSOG budget will:

 be cut by 20% as from 1 October 2012.  From April 2013 the responsibility for administering the BSOG scheme will be transferred to local transport consortia.  Payment will be based on the number of miles operated and the delivery of defined quality criteria. There will be a menu of quality criteria from which the local transport consortia can select the most appropriate for their area. (Examples of quality criteria could be: participation in a statutory Quality Partnership or multi operator ticketing scheme).

6.4 It was confirmed Transport Scotland have no current plans to change BSOG in Scotland and Ministers have indicated a preference for a period of stability to enable current changes to bed in.

7. Salary Sacrifice Scheme

7.1 Charlie Anderson gave an overview of the developments on the tax treatment of salary sacrifice schemes for employee bus tickets. He felt it was inconsistent with the treatment of less restrictive rules applied to schemes covering car and bike purchase.

7.2 It was noted both RTP chairs and CPT have had previous dealings with HMRC and DfT regarding this issue.

7.3 Donald requested all correspondence be submitted to Transport Scotland officials for information and for Transport Scotland to consider the best way to take this forward.

8. Any Other business

8.1 Transport authorities requested to be involved in consideration of changes in the concessionary travel scheme. Donald Carmichael agreed that was appropriate for medium and long term considerations and they would be kept informed of any outcomes from any short term changes.

8.2 Request expert from SG procurement, Iain Moore to advise regarding the status of the use of de minimus limits for bus service tendering.

8.3 The next meeting will be held in early February 2013.

Transport Scotland November 2012

DELIVERY STRATEGY – SMART & INTEGRATED TICKETING

0 DELIVERY STRATEGY – SMART & INTEGRATED TICKETING

INTRODUCTION

Transport Scotland has been engaged in the provision of smart ticketing through the national concessionary travel scheme since 2006, and in that time has built up considerable knowledge of the key elements of delivering an ITSO smart ticketing scheme.

Transport Scotland’s role is NOT, on our own, to deliver smart ticketing in Scotland. However previous consultations have established that most smaller bus operators, or local authorities and RTPs, are looking to Transport Scotland to take a strong lead to help and support them through any implementation of smart ticketing schemes. The key benefits of smart ticketing are generally held to include:

For Passengers: ♦ Ease of use ♦ Access to new ticket types ♦ Greater choice on how to pay for travel

For Operators ♦ Less cash handling ♦ Greater information about customers ♦ Greater marketing opportunities ♦ Revenue protection ♦ Potential for increased patronage ♦ Quicker boarding times ♦ Ability to develop new ticket products

For Society ♦ Modal shift to public transport ♦ Perception of a more modern public transport network

In March 2011 we published a comprehensive outline business case that outlined our strategy for smart and integrated ticketing in Scotland. The key conclusions of that work were:

♦ Fundamental uncertainties around the achievability of benefits – in a deregulated market – mean that the commercial case for operators for Smart and Integrated ticketing cannot be made at present. Operators have also shown limited appetite for discussions about integrated ticketing while the outcome of the Competition Commission review is pending

♦ However, existing planned developments suggest that individual modes will become Smart-enabled within the short- to medium-term horizon regardless, thereby allowing TS to concentrate on making the case for integrating the Smart infrastructure on

1 these modes. Indeed many of the stated benefits of smart and integrated ticketing can largely be achieved by smart ticketing alone.

♦ It is important to note that a phased approach creates the risk that integration ultimately cannot be achieved either for commercial or for technological reasons. To mitigate this risk, it is essential for TS to adopt an oversight role from the outset. This will ensure that it can maintain an awareness of important emerging developments with ITSO and with commercial operators, thereby ensuring that the path to integration can be managed effectively.

♦ Assuming this risk can be managed effectively, adopting a phased approach will allow TS to maintain short-term momentum through planned technological developments, while taking time to progress the robust case for integration at a more appropriate and viable point in the future. Building on the Smart technology that is expected to be put in place, TS can then move forward to develop a model for integration in Glasgow that can, in turn, be rolled out to deliver the long-term vision of Smart and Integrated ticketing for the whole of Scotland.

We believe that these conclusions still broadly hold good – and the risks and concerns in the initial paragraph have mainly reduced - and what follows is our initial Phase 1 of a delivery strategy that will eventually take us through to delivery of the long term vision.

1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

In discussions with various stakeholders it has become clear that understanding of the current position in Scotland, and the opportunities that might present themselves, is rather variable. A prime objective is therefore simply to bring all interested parties up to a common level of understanding around smart ticketing, in non-technical language, and to stimulate interest, discussion and feedback as we aim for the longer term vision outlined below.

2. LONG TERM VISION

“That all journeys on Scotland’s bus, rail, ferry, subway and tram networks can be accessed using some form of smart ticketing or payment”.

Where demand exists for integrated products these will be developed, and systems should ultimately be able to accommodate a countrywide bus/rail/ferry/subway/tram product, for example for foreign visitors to Scotland.

For the purposes of this document, an integrated product is a ticket type that, within a single scheme, is available on more than one operator or on more than one mode (eg bus, ferry or rail).

2 3. ASSUMPTIONS

• That ITSO will be the default ticketing standard across bus, rail and ferry • That EMV will eventually become a popular payment method for shorter journeys • That the Transport Scotland HOPS and public sector National Entitlement Card and card management system will provide the default central infrastructure for any operators or other bodies who do not have their own. • That smart ticketing capability will in future be specified in rail and ferry franchises/contracts affecting Scotland • That ITSO ticketing equipment – by being the default requirement for bus operators to participate in the national concessionary travel scheme – will de facto continue to be provided across Scotland’s bus network

3 SUMMARY OF CURRENT POSITION (OCTOBER 2012)

4. INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BUS

All Scotland’s 7,100 buses are equipped with ITSO smart enabled ticket machines. These were originally installed over a 4 year period from 2006 to 2010, and probably have a credible lifespan of at least 5 years. They are not equipped with dual readers eg will not be able to read EMV (contactless bank cards). Operators have expressed some concerns about quality and speed of repairs by suppliers.

The national concessionary travel scheme works very well on this platform, with 148m transactions per annum across 260 bus operators using the national entitlement card (NEC), and Transport Scotland ISAMs (smart chip within each ticket machine) and HOPS (central back office which securely processes all smart transactions).

In summary, there is no reason why bus across Scotland could not start to embrace certain smart products quickly.

5. INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RAIL

As part of the current ScotRail franchise:

♦ ScotRail have implemented an ITSO compliant Smartcard pilot on the main Edinburgh - Glasgow route

♦ Customer trials have spread from 7 day season tickets to monthly and longer period season ticket products and, since March 2012, have included on-line retail of these tickets via the ScotRail website.

These are encouraging outputs from the current franchise, and stand comparison with anything that has been achieved thus far with smart on rail franchises anywhere else in the UK.

6. INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FERRY

Previous trials suggest that existing ITSO POSTs eg bus ticket machines will not work well in a marine environment. Orkney Islands Council have implemented a basic smartcard operation on some of their inter-island ferries, but it is non ITSO, which means that it cannot become interoperable with any ITSO systems such as the bus network on the islands.

The business case for developing a new ITSO ticket machine or reader is unlikely to stack up given the small number of non pre-booked ferry services in the UK, so the practical way forward is more likely to be centred on how we can utilise existing kit in a way that meets the requirements of ferry operators and passengers without compromising revenue collection and ticket (or passenger) validation.

4 SPT are working on a possible solution, shortly to be trialled on the Gourock – Kilcreggan ferry and Transport Scotland hope to learn from this project.

7. BACK OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE – TRANSPORT SCOTLAND HOPS

A HOPS, in non-technical terms, is the back office system where smart transactions are securely directed, to then be delivered to the Scheme owner. Where more than one HOPS exists (eg the large transport operators in the UK are likely to each have a HOPS, as do SPT already) then transactions will be sent between HOPS to ensure they end up in the correct place.

Access to the HOPS is through the internet and is controlled by rules to provide the necessary access and security. The data privacy is managed in ways that ensure close control can be applied to restrict what data can be seen and what level of detail can be viewed or changed.

Operators can, subject to certain criteria, be provided with access to various data facilities.

During 2011 Transport Scotland procured (from ACT) and delivered a new AMS-HOPS, to the latest (2.1.4) ITSO specification. This successfully went live in late 2011, and has been scoped to provide a HOPS service to any Scottish transport operator or local authority who wishes to use it for smart transactions. Along with the bus ticket machines and NEC (see below), this provides all the basic infrastructure to operate a smartcard ticketing system across Scotland at an affordable cost.

8. BACK OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE – NEC

Since 2006 Transport Scotland has successfully utilised the local authority owned National Entitlement Card (NEC) to operate its Scotlandwide Concessionary Travel Scheme. The NEC has an ITSO shell on it, and it is capable of carrying a number of ITSO products (ie smart ticket types). It is administered by NECPO (NEC Project Office), based at Dundee City Council, who manage a number of contracts to ensure that the card and card management system remain fit for purpose across a number of applications. The NEC should be capable of functioning as a smart ticket for a number of ITSO products across Scotland and, for smart ticketing purposes, we may adopt the name Saltire Card.

5 9. SPT

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the Regional Transport Partnership serving the Strathclyde area of twelve local authorities, is pursuing a number of smartcard related projects and outputs across subway, bus, rail and ferry. These include an aspiration to transform the current ZoneCard integrated ticket product into a smart ticket in the Strathclyde area.

The subway, Glasgow’s underground metro system, is operated directly by SPT and a major modernisation programme is underway that includes the replacement of magnetic- stripe paper media with a wholly smartcard ITSO ticket in 2013.

A number of ferry services operate in the SPT area and some are under the control of SPT, with the potential to introduce smartcard ticket trials on one later this year.

The upgrading of smart infrastructure across 180 stations in the SPT area will ensure that present seamless paper ticketing is maintained using smartcards and with the added functionality that smartcards bring. The facility to issue smartcard tickets is key, including having product renewal loading at station platform validators and smart-enabled ticket machines on platforms and at stations with ticket offices.

The current position is as follows:

♦ As part of the ongoing modernisation programme for the subway, SPT is currently replacing its antiquated magnetic stripe system with a new ITSO smartcard system. The new system is due to be operational across all 15 stations by summer 2013, subject to completion of testing in January 2013.

♦ SPT have entered into a joint venture agreement with one of the industry leaders on the development of ITSO Smartcard solutions to take the subway system and expand this to be a platform to operate a “scheme” for all public transport operators to join, thereby minimising the cost of launching an area-wide solution.

♦ With nearly 80% of public transport trips being delivered by bus it is important that bus operators participate in this scheme. It should be borne in mind however that the operation of bus services is de-regulated and operators will require a compelling argument to join this scheme.

♦ As part of its 10 point plan for “better Bus Service” SPT have already suggested to Scottish Government that the current Scottish Transport Act should be changed to require compulsory participation in any regional smartcard scheme.

♦ Discussions are currently underway between ScotRail and SPT to ensure that the ScotRail system is compatible with the SPT system, to ensure ZoneCard integration between rail and subway when implemented in 2013. It is obviously necessary that a further roll out of the smartcard readers to other stations continues.

6 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

10. ITSO

Outside of London, which has Oyster, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments all expect ITSO to be the key platform for smart ticketing in the UK. Oyster is a proprietary system, which means that all aspects of it (cards, ticket readers and back office systems) are provided by or through a single supplier, and that it cannot interface with any other smartcard system.

In contrast, ITSO was developed as an open specification, meaning that any suppliers of ITSO certified cards, ticket machines/readers or back office systems can provide kit which should all be interoperable. ITSO Ltd is the small company, owned by its members, which manages the standard and the security systems which are prerequisites for interoperable smart ticketing.

The Scottish concessionary travel scheme is an example of a large ITSO scheme, operated by Transport Scotland with over 1m cards and 260 bus operators, three different ticket machine suppliers, and a set of business rules managed by Transport Scotland. Although it is a large scheme it is also a simple one, as it involves only one IPE (ITSO product entity – or ticket type) and the business rules are very stable and fairly simple.

ITSO provides a specification rather than a standard and, certainly in the past, certain areas have been open to interpretation by suppliers, thus preventing it from being “plug and play”. However, there has been growing recognition across suppliers, ITSO and Scheme operators of the need for clarity and consistency, and gradually more stability and certainty is emerging as more ITSO schemes are successfully established across the UK.

11. ITSO ON BUS

Transport Scotland are in active discussion with all of the main bus operators in Scotland, as well as several of the smaller ones, and we are confident that bus will feature heavily in the first phase of projects that are being established across Scotland.

To date there have been no ITSO commercial smart ticketing products on Scotland’s buses, despite the entire bus fleet having been fully equipped with ITSO equipment since 2010. In contrast, there are now several examples in England and Wales of bus operators, local authorities and PTEs establishing ITSO smart ticketing schemes offering a range of commercial and concessionary products. As part of our delivery strategy we will maintain close links with these Schemes and learn from their implementation successes.

Some examples of established schemes elsewhere in the UK include:

Wales - The Welsh Government working with local authorities and bus operators also operate concessionary travel on a smart basis. Some bus operators however, have also managed to take forward the use of the smart infrastructure to offer Smart commercial tickets. Cardiff Bus launched the “iff” card in 2010 and Newport Bus have recently launched the “Freedom” card. These are zonal type tickets offering convenient top up methods for passengers. Next steps in Wales are likely to centre on smart schemes with major bus operators and the Welsh Government supporting e-purse smart for smaller operators.

Oxford - the local authority working with Stagecoach and Go-Ahead bus groups introduced a multi-operator Smart zone based ticket in 2011. Bus routes in and around Oxford are part of the 'Oxford SmartZone', where passengers can make outward journeys using one company, and return using a different company. We understand that a majority of journeys on these services are now made using ITSO smartcards.

Liverpool - smart ticketing is being taken forward by the Mersey Travel PTE working with local transport operators. Building on bus infrastructure used for the concession scheme they are introducing a range of Smart multi-modal ticketing products branded as the “Walrus” card. These products on bus, train and river ferries will be introduced from 2012 through to 2014.

West Midlands - smart ticketing is being taken forward by Centro PTE. Using their “Signature” card passengers use an e-purse arrangement for bus travel. They plan to expand this with further products, bus operators and operate across modes of tram and rail.

North East England - the 12 local authorities are providing funding for the North East Smart Ticketing Initiative (NESTI). The NESTI scheme is equipping small bus operators and providing grant funding for large operators to enable the use of concessionary travel on a smart basis. When that activity completes in 2013 they plan to extend smart ticketing for commercial passengers on bus, metro and river ferries.

Yorkshire - the local PTEs have formed a not for profit company “Yorcard” to deliver Smart ticketing. They are pursuing a similar approach to NESTI above, with plans to work with transport operators to launch a range of Smart ticketing products across their area.

Major operators – Independently of their work with English PTE’s the Stagecoach and Go-Ahead bus groups continue to rollout smart commercial ticketing on their own network operations. These commercial offerings encourage take up through discounted fares for passengers moving to the smart ticketing.

The above has been achieved despite there being no comprehensive rollout by Government of smart ticketing equipment in England. The work published by Transport Scotland in 2011 identified substantial benefits to passengers, operators and government from smart ticketing, so some research needs to be done by Transport Scotland to understand what large operators, small operators and the local authorities who financially support some of the bus network in Scotland perceive as the barriers to developing smart ticketing products.

12. ITSO ON RAIL

The rail network in the UK is provided by a number of different Train Operating Companies (TOCs) who operate rail franchises specified and managed by DfT and, in the case of ScotRail, by Transport Scotland. From the passenger’s perspective it remains an integrated railway across the UK, with scope to purchase tickets between any two stations in the UK. Through ATOC (the Association of Train Operating Companies), all ticketing revenue is collected and redistributed to the various TOCs through a complex system known as the Rail Settlement Plan. This would, in all probability, have to be replicated to an extent to properly facilitate smart ticketing of all the main ticket types on rail.

Early versions of the ITSO specification were considered as falling short of what was required to make smart ticketing work on rail, and many of these issues have been addressed in the most recent specification, 2.1.4.

DfT have sponsored a significant piece of work to develop a working solution for smart ticketing on rail, focusing on the south east of the country (SEFT – South East Flexible Ticketing). It is hoped that this will provide solutions that can apply throughout rail in the UK, and Transport Scotland will be monitoring closely the emerging outputs from this piece of work.

In the meantime, ScotRail has arguably developed the largest working ITSO scheme on rail as part of their commitments in the current franchise which runs to 2014. The pilot work has been aimed at annual season ticket holders on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route, and will soon be extended to other stations and period ticket types as described earlier.

DfT routinely specify ITSO requirements in their rail franchises, and Transport Scotland are now considering the appropriate form of wording to realise our smart ticketing expectations over the term of the next rail franchise in Scotland, to be let in 2014.

13. ITSO ON FERRY

As discussed in para 6 above, pilots using bus ticket machines in a marine environment as a direct alternative for bespoke non ITSO machines developed for a marine environment have not proved successful. Discussions with suppliers in 2008 suggested at that time that the research and development costs of providing an ITSO solution would be substantial (and by implication time consuming). If we want to see any form of integrated ticketing eg bus or train to ferry then this problem must be resolved.

Whilst further discussions will be held with suppliers, a more affordable and sustainable way forward is likely to be centred on how we can utilise existing kit in a way that meets the requirements of ferry operators and passengers without compromising revenue collection and ticket (or passenger) validation.

9 14. EMV

EMV is a new bank led payment method (ie not a ticket but a way of paying) which replaces chip and pin with a simple contactless swipe of an EMV credit or debit card for lower value transactions. In the years ahead this is likely to become an increasingly popular way of paying for things like a newspaper, a coffee or a single journey by bus or rail. The current limit for an EMV transaction is £15, so it will not be a suitable payment method for higher price tickets such as a weekly or annual rail season.

For obvious reasons it will not be suitable for the unbanked, but its potential as part of a wider “smart” world is such that we should consider ensuring that all future readers that are procured are also capable of reading an EMV card.

Transport for London (TfL) is looking to move away from the Oyster technology and reach a point where significant volumes of transactions on London Buses and Underground are by EMV. Transport Scotland will carefully monitor the success of this strategy in the months ahead, as well as the EMV elements of large groups like First and Stagecoach’s fares and ticketing strategies.

15. NFC

NFC is the acronym for Near Field Communication. Mobile phones can have an additional aerial (and associated chip) for NFC. In ITSO’s language this means that they are able to act as either as a Customer Media (CM), or as a Point of Service Terminal (POST) communicating with other smartcards. When acting as a Point of Service, the NFC-enabled device can emulate the operation of a ticket machine, gate or validator to retail or validate tickets. An NFC-enabled phone can also allow a customer to purchase a ticket over the air and remotely download it to their phone. Unlike EMV we should not need to make any wholesale changes to readers to facilitate NFC, and the questions are more around:

• When will ITSO certify the relevant application on each brand of smart phone? • When will such devices be in widespread use in the UK? • How many people will choose to use their phone in this way?

BUSINESS RULES

16. One of the biggest challenges in establishing any ticketing system (whether smart or not) is not technical, but concerns setting and maintaining the business rules for each set of ticketing products. It is possible that in a lot of potential smartcard schemes it will the processes of agreeing, implementing and managing business rules that will prove to be the most challenging element, particularly for multi operator schemes. These rules may cover anything from fares to zones to eligibility, or how to operate hotlisting (ie blocking cards that have become invalid). Hotlisting will be a critical element of commercial smart ticketing, given the revenue protection and potential fraud issues involved.

10 THE CUSTOMER

17. Arguably, the most important element in this is the passenger. Establishing that the most relevant smart ticketing products are being offered – and in a way that appeals to passengers (eg purchasing tickets online at home) – will be a vital ingredient of any pilot project. Any rules for dealing with lost, broken or hotlisted cards will have to be considered from the perspective of the customer as well as within the business rules for the scheme.

DELIVERY STRATEGY – PHASE 1

18. The ITSO smart landscape across the UK is such that there are no mature, well established and high volume schemes. Indeed, Transport Scotland has more knowledge than most through the hands on role we have played in rolling out the infrastructure necessary to establish the smart version of the Scottish concessionary travel scheme.

19. Accordingly, Transport Scotland’s approach to the wider rollout of smart ticketing on public transport in Scotland will be to establish and support a manageable number of pilot or demonstration projects with willing partners from the public sector and operating community.

20. It is our intention that the pilots cover a number of different aspects of smart ticketing – from ferries to school transport to rail – and also that they are established in a number of different parts of Scotland. Most importantly, it is our expectation that all these projects are scalable ie capable of being expanded or replicated in other parts of Scotland

21. It is envisaged that each project sets well defined outputs and measures against three main areas of activity: • Technical – simply put, we will want to know that each ITSO product (ticket type) works reliably from the perspective of the card, the ISAM, the ticket machine and the back office • Business Rules – each ticketing scheme (whether smart or not) has to conform to a set of agreed rules that establish and then manage what it permissible in the context of that ticket, or ticketing scheme. This may span what the cost of the ticket is, rules for dividing up the revenue, who owns risks, who manages updates, and what happens in the event of a card or ticket machine failure • Customer Proposition – there is little point in having a scheme that works well in terms of the above two areas if it does not appeal to customers from the perspective of ease of use, attractive price and certainty of what to do at all stages from making the purchase to which number to call if it is lost, stolen or fails to work

11 • Note that certain aspects of smart ticketing eg card hotlisting (the process where invalid cards are declined) will have technical, business rules and customer elements to them.

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS – PHASE 1

22. Transport Scotland is now actively working with willing partners (transport operators, local authorities and RTPs) to establish and run a number of smart related demonstrator projects. A brief summary of each project is as follows, noting that this is very much a work in progress, and the programme is being added to on a weekly basis:

23. Dundee - A joint project team comprising the bus operator National Express, Dundee City Council, NECPO and Transport Scotland was formed in July 2012 to drive forward a smart ticketing agenda. National Express will manage the project to introduce an initial smart commercial ticket. The project utilises smart infrastructure put in place under the TS concessionary scheme, and the initial phase plans to deliver smart tickets in early 2013. Subsequent phases will develop Dundee City Council aspirations to use the NEC card for further ticketing products, particularly for Council staff and college students. The Dundee smart project also supports wider 7 Cities agenda.

24. Orkney – Orkney Islands Council, Hitrans and Transport Scotland have now agreed to commit to a project, or collection of projects, with phase 1 focusing on options to migrate the Orkney ferries smart ticket onto an ITSO platform, looking at trialling new ticketing equipment with small operators in Orkney and looking at trialling commercial (ie non-concession) products also in conjunction with Stagecoach. Thereafter we will look at options and opportunities to develop integrated products between bus and ferry within Orkney, then between Orkney and the mainland. Timescales for these pieces of work are still being discussed.

25. School Transport – A project has been proposed by West Lothian and East Lothian Councils to enable smart ticketing for pupils’ home to school journeys that they fund. The Councils wish to reduce the current administrative burden, improve security by using the existing smart NEC and bus infrastructure. A project team has been formed with representation from the Councils, NECPO and Transport Scotland. The outcome will be a smart product suitable for both the demonstrator study and at national level for Councils who wish to use it. The ticketing product is being designed now with anticipated pilot start early in 2013.

26. Young Persons Bus Concession Scheme – This will be a largely technical project, with Transport Scotland working with suppliers, NECPO and ITSO to migrate the current “show and go” concession scheme for 16-18 year olds onto smart. Given the

12 technical nature of the project it is difficult to put timescales onto this project, but the work will help to inform many other areas of smart.

27. Supporting Employability for Young People (SEYP) – A pathfinder group has been formed with the Improvement Service, Young Scot, North Lanarkshire Council, Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, NECPO and Transport Scotland. The remit is to remove travel barriers preventing young people accessing employability support. The project aims to deliver a smart ticketing product using the existing NEC, on-bus and back office infrastructure whilst greatly reducing administrative burdens on the Councils. The project aims to deliver a pilot product in late 2012.

28. SPT – have ambitious plans outlined in para 9. Transport Scotland is endeavouring to work with SPT, although there is no formal partnership or project links in the context of the smart ticketing agenda.

29. ScotRail current franchise – Transport Scotland continues to working closely and constructively with First ScotRail on a number of smart related activities as part of the current franchise

GOVERNANCE

30. Each of the above projects will have appropriate governance arrangements of its own. However, as each pilot is intended to be a pathfinder for wider rollout – and there will be overlaps between projects – then it is vital that there is some overarching governance in place. Not only does there need to be ongoing steering of the smart ticketing work in Scotland, reviewing the outputs from the above collection of projects, but there will be several linkages with other initiatives in Scotland, and with ongoing work in other parts of the UK on the smart ticketing agenda.

31. Within Scotland, for example there is the work of the Improvement Service and their role in delivering the Customer First programme which embraces the NEC. This in turn meshes with the Government’s Digital Public Services Strategy for Scotland. Separately, there is the Seven Cities Initiative, with a focus on economic development but wishing to see an output of smart ticketing in and between Scotland’s cities. Each of these is large activities in their own right, with their own governance arrangements, but there needs to be communication and synergy between these and smart ticketing work. The same applies to the significant programme of smart ticketing work being pursued by SPT.

32. It is therefore proposed that, in addition to Transport Scotland being directly involved in the above projects as a Programme of work, there needs to be a high level Steering Group chaired by Transport Scotland and meeting regularly to direct future work and strategic priorities, and ensure there is consistency with other key initiatives such as those listed above.

COMMUNICATIONS

33. Finally, a key element of a phased delivery strategy will be good and ongoing communication with stakeholders, including: ♦ Passengers, and passenger groups ♦ Bus operators across Scotland ♦ Train Operating Companies with a presence in Scotland ♦ Passenger ferry operators across Scotland ♦ Local Authorities ♦ Regional Transport Partnerships ♦ Improvement Service ♦ Seven Cities Alliance ♦ Relevant officials across Scottish Government ♦ Key bodies external to Scotland eg ITSO Ltd, DfT, Welsh Assembly, English PTE’s

34. It is intended that a comprehensive Communications Plan will be developed and implemented, providing progress updates on the increasing number of demonstrator projects now being established.

14 GLOSSARY – List of Smart Ticketing Acronyms

Acronym/ Term What Acronym What it means ‘stands for’ ACT Applied Card specialist ticketing systems provider and Technologies Ltd supplier of the current HOPS system AMS Asset Management ITSO Asset and security ‘tracker’ which keeps System track of individual ISAMs. Card Production A company which produces smartcards. Bureau

CMD Customer Media The media, usually a Smartcard, used to Device access Smart services. This could also be a mobile phone or other such device. CMS / CAS Card Management The CAS is the core customer relationship System management system used to hold person and property details for Scotland. This is hosted by local authorities and is used to update the Citizen Account card management system. System The CMS is the card management system. The CMS will use data from the CAS to drive concessionary card production. They are interrelated systems. CPT Confederation of The ‘voice’ of the coach and bus industry; Passenger Body representing bus operators who Transport subscribe to them, includes the major bus operators DfT Department for Responsible for transport policy issues in Transport England ecebs Software firm owned by ‘Trainline’ who provide much of the software platform for ITSO security, as well as a supplier of HOPS and smartcards. Also involved in a joint venture with SPT, under the name of Nevis Technologies ETM Electronic Ticketing Ticketing equipment used by buses to record Machines fare paying and concession passengers Handheld ETM Electronic Ticketing A smaller version of an ETM Machines HOPS Host Operator Repository of smart data which is taken from Processing System ETMs, consolidated and refined. Hops to Hops A technical process to send ITSO transactions between Smart ticketing scheme to the product owner Hotlisting A process to block a product or smartcard IPE ITSO Product Entity. A ticketing product registered with ITSO. IS Improvement Service

15 ISAM ITSO Secure The ‘chip’ in the ticket machines that ensures Application Module that all tickets can be read and validated; and that the information gathered is securely relayed for settlement. ITSO Not an acronym! Member owned organisation (TS is a member) that sets specification for SMART card security and operational protocols LAs Local Authorities 32 Local authorities or ‘councils’ in Scotland NEC / NECPO National Entitlement The NEC is a local authority multi application Card smartcard and is the platform used to deliver concessionary travel in Scotland. Some local authorities use the card to deliver other council services such as access to libraries, leisure and cashless catering (in schools). In future we envisage a significant role for NEC in commercial ticketing. National Entitlement NECPO is the programme office responsible Card Programme for the NEC development across all Scottish Office local authorities and represent interests of the 32 local authorities. NECPO is currently based in Dundee City Council, the lead local authority for the NEC. POST Point of Sale. Can be an Electronic Ticket Machine, rail Service Terminal ticket gate, card issue unit or card loading unit SPT Strathclyde Regional Transport Partnership providing Partnership for transport services for several local authorities Transport in the west of Scotland. SPT operate the Glasgow underground and local concessionary travel schemes TfL Transport for The local government body responsible for London most aspects of the transport system in Greater London. Traveline Traveline Scotland is the provider of up to date, impartial public transport journey planning, timetables and the latest public transport news across Scotland. TS Transport Scotland

16 Further copies of this document are available, on request, in audio and large print formats and in community languages (Urdu; Bengali; Gaelic; Hindi; Punjabi; Cantonese; Arabic; Polish).

Transport Scotland, Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 0HF 0141 272 7100 [email protected] www.transportscotland.gov.uk

You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected]

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Any enquiries regarding this document / publication should be sent to us at [email protected]

This document is also available on the Transport Scotland website: www.transportscotland.gov.uk

Published by Transport Scotland, October 2012

17 Appendix D NOTE OF MEETING OF 25th OCTOBER TACTRAN AND STIRLING, ANGUS AND PERTH & KINROSS COUNCILS MEETING OF 25th OCTOBER 2012

Attending Gordon Hanning, Transport Scotland Brenda Robb, Dundee City Council Andrew Unsworth, SCDI Eric Guthrie, TACTRAN Niall Gardiner, TACTRAN Mike Cairns, TACTRAN David Brown, Stirling Council Andrew Warrington, Perth & Kinross Council Lesley Millar, Angus Council

Apologies John Berry, Dundee City Council

Andrew Unsworth gave a brief overview of the Scottish Cities Alliance and its work programme.

Gordon Hanning provided a brief overview of the Transport Scotland Smart Ticketing Delivery Strategy.

Eric Guthrie gave an overview of the TACTRAN region which was unique at the heart of Scotland and covered three city regions (Perth, Dundee and Stirling) along with providing strong connectivity linkages with the four other city-regions (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Aberdeen). He considered that this presented a unique opportunity to consider a pilot across more than 1 city region.

Meeting to focus on the opportunities across the city-regions, what local plans are developing, the enablers, barriers and identifying actions going forward.

Each of the local authorities had a major operator who is responsible for most commercial bus services in each city. Stagecoach in Perth, Dundee had National Express and Stirling was First Group. Stagecoach provided most services into Dundee from Angus.

The OneTicket integrated scheme, administered by SESTRAN, operates into and provides limited coverage in parts of the TACTRAN area. Noted that this operated effectively but had low patronage. One issue was with a smaller operator who wished to participate and because of manual systems the ‘business rules’ weren’t flexible enough to accommodate them joining the scheme. Smart may make such schemes easier to operate.

Each local authority also worked with a number of smaller bus operators. There was a particular focus for these operators on Council supported services. Generally there was good partnership working with such operators, with the Councils assisting with the implementation of new systems such as the smart concessionary ticketing scheme but they were generally willing to accommodate change. The smaller bus operators were dependent on prompt reimbursement.

Stirling Stirling had strong commuter links with Edinburgh and Glasgow through both the Citylink coach and First Scotrail rail networks.

The Stirling University campus was a critical market for bus operators linking the campus to Stirling and Bridge of Allan for both students and staff. This potentially provided a good place to consider a smart ticketing pilot.

Park & Rides at Springkerse and Castle View were also potential areas worthy of exploration. Also potential of working with major employer (Prudential) on outskirts of city.

Stirling had moved recently from conventional subsidies for bus routes towards providing ‘demand responsive transport’ in five rural areas of Stirlingshire. This was something which the smart pilots potentially could consider.

Perth Stagecoach East Scotland was the major operator in the city and surrounding rural hinterland, and any introduction of smart ticketing will need to align to that operator’s plans. Perth & Kinross Council also worked with 8 smaller operators who provided supported bus services linking rural communities, with some routes operating into Perth.

One of the key barriers that they saw may be bus operators having concerns/risks of challenge from the Competition Commission or OFT. OFT/CC had a tendency to react after an event, which could cause concern for operators or transport authorities in investing monies in setting up a scheme only for it to be challenged.

Perth also had a large commuter market to/from both Edinburgh and Dundee and to a lesser extent to Glasgow.

There was some discussion of the challenges of Perth station and installation of exit barriers and smart ticketing readers.

There are major employers in Perth (including Aviva and SSE) and the potential exists to extend existing partnership working between PKC, TACTRAN and these organisations - who are based on the periphery of the city on a variety of staff travel schemes. Discussed difficulties of HMRC ‘salary sacrifice’ schemes.

Potential opportunities also exist around Perth College/UHI and with the Megabus ‘Hub’ /Park & Ride at Broxden.

Potential opportunity discussed for further joint working with NHS Tayside in terms of joint delivery of bus services. Medical services were split across a number of sites such as Ninewells (Dundee), Perth Royal Infirmary and Stracathro (Angus).

NHS provided reimbursement for some patients to travel to hospitals for treatment. Patients had to ‘claim’ back costs. Discussion extended to consider other public services where petty cash was used for clients to access services such as criminal justice, social care etc. Current contacts within NHS Tayside - Sandy Watson (previously chair of the NEC card board, now Chair of NHS Tayside, and Ken Armstrong (NHS Tayside Operations Director), who is a Board member of TACTRAN.

Dundee The meeting discussed the intended pilot in Dundee working with National Express and the College/Universities. Question as to whether the pilot extends into Angus?

Other potential opportunities discussed included collaboration with NHS as above. The planned development of Park & Ride facilities to the west and on the other side of Tay Bridge (developed jointly by SESTRAN and TACTRAN), which were aligned to the emerging Waterfront development, also provided opportunities.

Angus Noted that one of the key issues is that patronage of bus services is declining and particularly in rural areas like Angus the focus was working with operators to protect services.

A significant issue and opportunity in rural areas was payments for travel to access services, e.g. health, criminal justice etc.

Also potential links with school transport and Supporting Employability in Young People – Gordon noted pilots are planned in these areas but there would need to be some standardisation of products between authorities.

Angus also had a local concession scheme on rail which could be considered in the context of smart developments.

Wash Up The meeting noted the importance of placing smart ticketing within the context of wider public transport and connectivity strategy. The need for alignment between local economic development strategies and transport planning.

NEXT STEPS Andrew Unsworth to send out a summary note of meeting.

Draft report to be issued to TACTRAN / Councils for comment. This would be provided by Andrew in draft in advance of a planned TACTRAN meeting on 12th November.

Gordon Hanning available to attend that meeting for further discussion on pilots and potential opportunities.