1

Study on electronic ticketingin public transport

General MeetingTurin, 17 April 2008

Mohamed Mezghani

2

Scope and objectives of the study

To collect and analyse the relevant information related to the state-of-the-art of e-ticketing (in particular related to the group member’s networks)

To discuss the different components related to the development and implementation of e-ticketing systems

To understand the key aspects supporting the decision-making process when developing and implementing e-ticketing systems at all levels: political, organisational and operational.

To discuss business model of e-ticketing

3

Authorities represented in the working group

ATM, Barcelona, Spain

CTB, Bilbao, Spain

YTV, Helsinki, Finland

STIF, Ile-de-France, France

TfL, London, United Kingdom

CRTM, Madrid, Spain

ATM, Montreal, Canada

RMV, Rhein-Main, Germany

SL, Stockholm, Sweden

MESP, Vilnius, Lithuania

CENTRO, West Midlands, United Kingdom

4

Main issues

1. Fare structure

2. Responsibility for setting fares

3. Ticketing spectrum

4. Integration: fare vs. ticketing

5. Objectives and reasons for e-ticketing

6. E-ticketing related innovations

7. Exploitation of e-ticketing data

8. Interoperability

9. Standardisation

10. Business model

11. Clearing

12. Business case

5

Fare structure

Flat fare in the central city/area vs. zonal fare in the broader region.

Regional and suburban train vs. urban rail and buses.

General move towards enlarging zones and simplifying the zonal fare system

Introduction of ‘convenience tickets’ Fare levels may depend on the payment media or

the time of payment. E-ticketing supported the introduction of distance-

based fares

6

The responsibility for setting fares

The responsibility for setting fares:

1. Belongs to a unique public transport authority

2. Is shared amongst several bodies

3. is mainly with public transport operators

Having an umbrella authority in charge of setting fares does not necessarily mean that the fare structure is simple and easy to understand

7

Ticketing spectrum

Large spectrum of traditional tickets

Season tickets: calendar period vs. starts at any day

Multi-journey cards or multi-tickets books: limited in duration vs. no time limit

Value-stored tickets are generally offered with smartcard ticketing but exists as magnetic tickets as well

Visitors tickets generally more expensive than season tickets.

Mode-based and passenger-based fare discrimination

8

Integration

Fare integration vs. Ticket integration Integrated (multi-mode, multi-operator) fare

schemes are initiatives taken or at least endorsed by transport authorities

Fare integration is treated differently on single tickets compared to season tickets

E-ticketing makes ticketing integration easier to implement because it can manage a more complex fare system without necessarily harmonising amongst fares of different operators

9

Why e-ticketing?

Limitation of the existing traditional/magnetic system

Technology obsolescence of existing equipment

Implementation of new (innovative) fare policy

Reduction of fraud

Increase of passenger loyalty

Reduction of operating and maintenance costs

Increase of boarding speeds by reducing transaction times

Need for integration between modes, regions, operators

Need to improve the image of public transport

10

Various approachesto e-ticketing

Media for season passes: Developed primarily for loyal passengers (yearly, monthly, weekly subscribers) to speed boarding to train and buses and loading of their passes.

Stored-value card: Possibility to pay for single tickets and encourage pre-payment for occasional users as well

Encourage electronic transactions against cash payment

Redesign the fare system by introducing distance-based pricing for all modes.

11

E-ticketing related innovations

Fare capping

Frequency-based discounts

Mileage service

Sales channels incentives

Time-of-day pricing

Minus ride system

12

Exploitation of e-ticketing data

Operation-related information

Card-related information

Journey-related information

The privacy issue

13

Interoperability

Level 1: Frontline Equipment

Level 2: Operator’s Station system

Level 3: Operator’s Central computer

Level 4: Central Clearing house

Inter-usability: Compatibility between cards and readers

Inter-modality: Data collection from all modes of an operator

Inter-availability: Data collection from all sites of an operator

Inter-operability: Data collection from all operators of the network

14

StandardisationStakeholders Advantages vs. Disadvantages

Public Transport Authorities

Nation-wide common technical specifications Better use of financial resources More potential bidders (choices) Compliance of bids Free from any industrial interest

Standardised choice Specificities not taken into account

Public transport operators

Continuity and easy integration of existing equipment with new one Optimisation of acquisition and maintenance cost

Possible over-costs related to standardisation of new equipment

Industry suppliers

Benefit from standardisation Ensure interoperability Market opening Less specific orders Return on initial investment

Harmonisation of equipment (less added value) Certification

15

Business model

Business model depends on the organisation of public transport in the concerned area (single mode or multimodal network, one operator or more and the weight of each operator) and the degree of risk that the organising authority and the operators are willing to take in this field:

- Full control of the authority

- Operators’ initiative

- Third organisation

16

The single ticket issue

There are five ways of issuing single tickets:

1. Traditional magnetic ticket

2. Disposable smartcard

3. Value-stored card

4. Bank card

5. Mobile phone

A cost/benefit assessment and feasibility study of each option is necessary in the decision-making process of an e-ticketing scheme.

17

Clearing

Depends on the type of contractual arrangements (if any) between the transport authority and the operator(s)

The most common clearing method is based on counting and surveys and assignment of reference price

Electronic ticketing can improve clearing mechanisms by providing detailed information on customer’s mobility behaviour. If a check-in/check-out procedure is implemented, it becomes easy to distribute revenues according to the actual travel pattern.

18

Business caseCost advantage Additional cost

Cards/Tickets Multi-ticket cardsValue-stored cardMulti-application / e-pursePricing possibilities

Cost of disposable contactless single ticket

Validation No mechanical partsShorter transaction time

Coexistence of both systemsMetro gatingAdditional validators

Sales Automation of sales Printing of receiptsSingle tickets

Control Compulsory validation Portable control equipment

Customer care Improved loyalty and CRM Provision of readers

Back office & Clearing

Shared information system Exploitation of customer dataTransparent clearing mechanisms

Network of informationOn-board equipment for exchange of data

Standardisation Interoperability

Improved integrationOpen standards / proprietary

Costly and labour intensive at development stage

19

Conclusions

E-ticketing is a tool and not a policy

The return on experience is not significant enough (ex: business case)

E-ticketing offers interesting results in terms of reducing transaction times (crowd management), improving knowledge on customers (CRM) and network use (clearing)

The development of mobile phone technology (NFC) will certainly provide new possibilities

E-ticketing is often reduced to its technological dimension which makes authorities depending a lot from industry suppliers

Good will of partners to collaborate is the condition

20

Thank you!

mohamed.mezghani@gmail.comTel: +33 623 67 65 72