The document discusses a proposal to change the role of Traveline to focus on creating and distributing transport data rather than consuming data. It raises several questions and concerns about the proposal, including whether stakeholders share the same vision and objectives, whether the proposed solution and allocation of costs/risks will actually work, whether it adequately considers customer needs and localism, and what other factors may have been omitted. It suggests the next steps should be to confirm the vision and objectives, perform a reality check on the proposals, demonstrate operator capacity, recognize localism, and develop a revised roadmap.

1. Proposal for ChangeLocal Transport Authority Perspective John Henkel Metro

2. Questions Do we understand and share vision, objectives and analysis of problems? What will success look like? Do we believe the proposed solution will work? Do we believe that the proposed allocation of costs, risks and rewards and approach to Governance will work? Does it meet customer needs and localism agenda? What’s been omitted? What should be the next steps?

3. Vision and objectives Vision and objectives tend to be implicit rather than explicit Cost, efficiency, innovation, agility and commercial exploitation are referenced No clear statement of ‘success’ We do not as yet have LTA buy-in to an explicit vision and set of objectives, or to success criteria

4. Will the proposed approach work? The bus industry proposal changes the role of Traveline to a creator and distributor of data, rather than a consumer of data Fine in theory, but very serious reservations about the capacity and, perhaps, universal willingness to create data of sufficient quality

5. Costs, risks and rewards Proposal is that ‘government’ fund transition costs whilst operators benefit for future (unquantified) savings and income Does ‘Government’ mean LTAs We have no budget provision for transitional costs LTAs in many cases have insufficient information to develop a business case It is possible some LTAs costs could increase Should alternative models be considered?

6. Customers and Localism Customers do not seem to be at the heart of the proposal Proposal has strong focus on costs, but not on value Local knowledge and local communications can add value (eg disruption information) The Transport Act 2000 Bus Information Duty sits with Local Transport Authorities, who should not be disadvantaged in developing local strategies for their areas.

7. Other Considerations Potentially undermines some of the strengths of the partnership approach Original programme was unrealistic Relationships to Transport Direct and NRES 2012 Olympic Games ? How does proposal support behaviour change strategies Many journeys are habitual, and therefore subject to theories of satisficing behaviour Intervention models seek to promote experimental behaviour, with greater information needs Service resilience Calls are becoming more complex as other channels are used for routine enquiries Some LTAs will wish to develop one-stop shops as a mobility retailer

8. The Way Forward Support for National Dataset – make it happen Confirm / re-affirm vision, objectives and success criteria This may facilitate more agile interim governance Reality check and refine proposals for data creation, cost model and customer service Demonstrate operator capacity in relation to ESBR, data quality and fares information Recognise localism and do not prejudice legitimate LTA ambitions Develop revised roadmap with a realistic timeline We will paly a full part.