The Prescribed Information

We sought views on what should be included in the new requirements around information about services. The type of information has been broken down across four broad categories, information about routes, stopping places and timetable data, information about fares and tickets, information about the operation of services (including real time information) and information about stopping places themselves. We also sought views on when updates to route, timetable, stopping places, fares and ticket information should be notified.

Routes, stopping places, and timetable data

We propose that the new Regulations will require operators (or the local authority/regional transport partnerships for a franchise or directly procured service) to provide, in a digital format, their timetable(s) with information provided at bus stop level, and route data to be provided as a list of points that allow the route to be drawn with sufficient detail to follow the associated road geometry (as opposed to presuming a route between bus stops). This information needs to be provided initially and then must be kept up to date. By ‘kept up to date’ we propose that, any change must be updated not less than two weeks prior to a change taking place.

We intend to ask for the following information:

• The trading name of the operator, their licence number and National Operator Code
• Route information including the service number/name, route registration number, each bus stop called at in order
• Timetable information including the arrival and departure time at each bus stop, the days it does and does not run.

The consultation called for responses, preferably passengers or those representing passengers, to select from a list of information what they would like to know about bus services as they operate. This included a mix of timetable, route, stopping place, fare and ticket information, how to identify the bus as it approaches and allowed for an ‘other’ free text field. There were also options for ‘all of the above’ and ‘none of the above’. No responses opted for ‘None’ while twenty-five responses selected ‘all of the above’. To show this as clearly as possible the table has a second column where both ‘all’ and ‘none’ of the above have need removed as options, and all of the remaining attributes beside ‘other’ have had an additional twenty-five responses added to the total.

Table 2: Breakdown of passenger wants in routes and fares information

Attribute	Responses	Including 'All'
Who operates the service	44	69
The name or number of the services	47	72
The names of the bus stops the bus will call at, in order	46	71
The days and times the bus will arrive/depart from each bus stop	46	71
What the bus might look like	22	47
The service(s) a ticket is valid on	33	58
The ways that you can pay the fare (e.g. cash, contactless, etc)	38	63
What format the ticket will be in	22	47
The cost of the ticket	39	64
The difference in price if you bought it in another format or in another way	30	55
Where you can buy tickets	34	59
The places you will you see information about fares etc	26	51
All of the above	25	Not Applicable
None of the above	0	Not Applicable

This table shows that 91% of respondents wish to know who operates the service, 95% support knowing the name or number of the service, and 93% would like to know the days and times the bus will depart and arrive from each stop, and the names of the stops the bus will call at, in order. This being the case, we consider that the proposal to include the identifier of the operator, the route and the timetable information with regard to specific stopping places be included in the prescribed data set. Additionally, 62% of responses would like to know what the bus might look like. For some bus users, knowing the overall colour or design of a bus may be more accessible than reading number or destination displayed on the front of the bus. This is particularly relevant for visually impaired people who may be able to identify that a bus is, for example, predominately purple, long before the bus reaches the range where the number is readable.

However, it appears that community ‘crowd sourcing’ for livery types may be already able to deliver this information, and that work to investigate any existing data should be explored before setting a new legal duty.

“….the livery and other features of the bus are often fed by community-contributors, which allow for faster updates of livery changes”

• An individual on bus recognition.

We intend to proceed with the following list of prescribed information about routes, timetables and stopping places.

(a) the name or the trading name of the operator

(b) the National Operator Code(s) and the number of its public service vehicle operator’s licence applicable to the service,

(c) the number or name of the service or proposed service,

(d) the number under which the service is registered with the Traffic Commissioner,

(e) the route of the service or proposed service, including the principal starting and finishing points

(f) the stopping places of the service or proposed service in the order of stopping,

(g) information to ensure identification of a stopping place, comprising the stop code, taken from the National Public Transport Access Nodes database,

(h) the Ordnance Survey grid reference, relevant landmarks, a topographic reference taken from the National Public Transport Gazetteer, and an indication of whether the stopping place is, or is to be, used as a timing point,

(i) the arrival and departure time at each stopping place or, where applicable, the frequency of the service,

(j) the days on which the service runs, or is to run, and any public holidays or other days on which the service does not, or will not, run,

(k) where the service is provided for the purpose of serving a school, college

or other educational establishment, the dates of terms for that school, college or other educational establishment,

(l) where the service has been or is to be terminated, information about the termination.

And any changes or variations to the information as given above

Definition of Simple and Complex Fares

When looking at technical information around fares and tickets, we recognised that some information could be considered basic, or ‘straightforward’, while some information will be more complex to provide. For example, where the price changes depending on factors such as when you get on the bus, or how many stops you pass, compared to a set charge for a set start and end point. We therefore proposed to classify fare and ticket information as either ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ and apply separate timescales for the initial submission of this information. This also mirrors the approach taken by the Department for Transport for England, where fares information and the concept of simple and complex fares is already detailed in legislation.

We asked:

We proposed the following definition for simple and complex fares

• Simple fare and ticket information would mean adult single and return fares and tickets, child single and return fares and tickets, group fares and tickets, period tickets, single operator fares and tickets, multi-operator fares and tickets, zonal fares and tickets, any age or time restrictions on those fares and tickets.
• Complex fare and ticket information would mean fares that vary depending on the route taken, the duration of the journey, the type and the number of passengers, the method of payment, the amount of subsequent travel undertaken in a given period, and whether or not a discount or a cap is applied to the fare.

Respondents were given the option to agree, disagree, or to be neither agree nor disagree with that statement. There were also options for ‘don’t know’ and ‘don’t mind’ for respondents who were passively neutral on the topic.

The main purpose of defining simple and complex fares information separately is so that for the initial upload of information, operators can provide straightforward information in the first ‘upload’ and only begin to share more complex fares at a later date, but to then provide information for both from then on. It would also allow for the possibility that operators are asked to provide refreshed simple fare data more or less often than complex fares information, if at some future point that becomes useful. The intention would be to bring in this definition, or a modified definition, set separate dates for initial upload, but then require both complex and simple fares information to be provided, likely in the same format and schedule, going forward. Thirty-six of seventy-six respondents agreed that we should use this definition.

Six respondents disagreed with the proposal for a variety of reasons. One respondent disagreed as they could not see where the definition was given in the question bank, and felt the definition was therefore unclear. Another responded that operators should be required to provide information about both complex and simple fares if they offer them, which would be the case whether or not we include this definition in legislation.

Another respondent raised that there is significant variance between operators, and that in technical terms, complex fares were not actually more difficult to provide than simple fares. The same respondent noted that how the data is presented and used was of greater significance, and warned against requiring information about all possible ticket types on urban routes specifically, as there was a potential to confuse the passenger without context. A further response also raised this possibility, and noted that complex fares in practice are not commonplace. While not agreeing with the overall approach, this response did agree that the inclusion of a ‘user friendly’ name for ticket products would be helpful for customers. Two of the responses wanted to see the presence of a ‘cap’ or a journey based discounted included within the definition of simple fares.

The final response offered concern that the choice to offer complex fares over simple fares was a business decision, and therefore did not believe there was justification to delay the upload of complex fare information as a result. Six responses neither agreed nor disagreed, and two of those responses spoke about the current complexity and confusion in public transport ticketing. Four further responses either did not mind or did not know what the answer should be.

Twenty-three respondents opted to skip the question, largely individuals and non-transport operator organisations, including disability and passenger advocates

Fares and Ticket Data

Fares and ticket information is essential to the public in journey planning, as well as for making informed choices and comparing travel options between providers and modes. Fares information can be used to inform journey planners allowing passengers to make decisions in advance on the cost of their journey. Information on tickets helps to make passengers aware of what potential tickets are on offer that could be used for their journey, and the scope of these tickets.

We propose asking for the following information:

• Adult single and return fares and tickets, child single and return fares and tickets, group fares and tickets, period tickets, single operator fares and tickets, multi-operator fares and tickets, zonal fares and tickets, and any age or time restrictions on those fares and tickets.
• For single and return tickets, the service(s) the ticket is valid on,
• For zonal tickets, the service numbers, routes and bus stops included in the range of the ticket,
• For all tickets, the ways that fares can be paid (cash, contactless, etc.) by ticket type,
• The ticket medium (paper, smartcard, digital, tap on/off etc.),
• For all tickets, the fares available and if they are different depending on how they are paid for or the ticket medium,
• Which tickets can be bought in advance (and whether that can be done online, or in person) and which can only be purchased on a vehicle and also;
• A ‘user friendly’ name for the ticket.

Within this category, the cost of the ticket was the most popular option for fares information, with 84% of responses requiring this information. The second most popular option at 83% was the ways you can pay for the fare, knowing ahead of using a service if you can use cash, card or require a smart card or app.

The services the ticket is valid on (76%), the price difference between ticket mediums (e.g. if paper tickets are cheaper than digital) (72%), and where you can buy tickets (78%) had broad support, and even the two least popular data sets (where you can access information about tickets and the ticket format) scored in the above 60% range.

Twenty-one responses left additional comments on what information passengers are interested in, including three groups which represent people with disabilities. These comprehensive comments have been reviewed specifically and will be passed to Transport Scotland’s Accessible travel team where the respondent has agreed to share their response in this way. Respondents also raised wanting to know if a service has step free access, if there are audio announcements at stops (service approaching), details of any access features including wheelchair and bike spaces, and if mobility scooters are permitted onboard. There were also calls to ensure that fares data is appropriately presented, so as not to “blind the customer” with options. We believe this can be addressed with the ‘user friendly’ name for the fare data field.

“Phasing or piloting of provision of this information may provide the opportunity to check that it is working effectively for consumers. Once implemented, ongoing monitoring should ensure that the information is being captured accurately and is proving useful for consumers. This monitoring should assess if the right data is being made available, or if different data may be more beneficial to consumers”

- Consumer Scotland

In addition, we asked passengers about their preferred medium for tickets, noting that the views provided on fares and ticket information will be shaped by the respondents experience using bus services, and the ticket options actually available in their area rather than an objective view of all potential options.

This consultation has also shown that there is a desire to know which payment methods a service will accept, which overlaps with the way permission to travel is granted, e.g. a service which allows you to ‘tap’ a bank card (including a card saved to a mobile device) to travel must therefore be able to accept contactless payments.

Table 3: Ticket medium preferences

Option	Paper	cEMV	Smart card	App
1st Choice	13	32	1	7
2nd Choice	13	13	8	16
3rd Choice	10	5	20	12
4th Choice	17	1	20	16
Did not answer	23	25	27	25

Two responses ranked paper as option number 1, without making any other selections. One response omitted a third place preference, and one ranked app and smartcard as equal fourth place, without ranking paper at all.

When ranked between most preferred (pink bars) and least preferred (light blue bars) it is clear that there is a strong preference for bank card/app ‘tapping’ within the responses received. Similarly there is a strong preference against smart cards, which have the largest number of fourth place rankings. More responses weighting paper as a fourth choice were received than those which selected it as a first choice, albeit paper is the second highest ranking first choice medium behind ‘tapping’.

In summary, respondents were keen to be able to ‘tap’ a bank card or mobile payment, with paper as the second most desired option. Apps (mobile tickets) were a solid second and third choice ranking between paper and smart cards in popularity. Respondents were least keen to have smart cards, with only one person ranking it as their first-choice preference.

Real time information

Real time information has the power to significantly improve the journey experience of passengers with additional access needs and can give passengers a greater level of assurance about the availability of services than assumed location information.

Real time information falls into two broad categories, ‘Location Information’, which means vehicle locations, live arrival and departure times from stopping places, live timetables and disruption updates, and ‘Facilities and Accessibility Information’, such as capacity, availability of Wi-Fi, power/charging capability and audio/visual capability.

Location Information

• Live vehicle location
• Live bus stop arrival and departure times
• Live timetables
• Live disruption updates

Facilities and Accessibility Information

• On-board capacity
• On-board wheelchair space utilisation
• On-board facilities – Wi-Fi
• On-board facilities – power/charging
• On-board facilities – toilets
• On-board facilities – audio/visual capability
• On-board facilities – payment methods
• Emissions standard of the bus

We proposed that the list of ‘Location Information’ above be provided as real time information in the new Regulations, with the facilities and accessibility information to follow after a sensible review period, and work to standardise how this information could be captured and reported.

At present there is no common method of either gathering or reporting the majority of the information in the Facilities and Accessibility list. The exception to this is “on-board facilities – Payment Methods” (e.g. if a service accepts cards, or cash, or if it requires exact change only) which is currently provided voluntarily by some operators and would in practice be a relatively small dataset, as we anticipate that for an operator, the payment method will be standard across the operating fleet.

There was strong support for live or ‘real-time’ location information. Sixteen responses to this question left additional comments, three reiterating the need for live locations of buses, others pointing out the reliance some groups have on audio visual announcements and wheelchair spaces. Two responses pointed out that as few bus services include Wi-Fi or toilets, there is unlikely to be a lot of data gathered in this area, even where it would be useful to be aware of. Another sixteen responses (21%) felt that all the information types (All of the above) would be useful to passengers. Whilst bus emissions had least support individually, when combined with ‘all of the above’, there is no category which does not have a degree of support for future inclusion.

I would like info about availability of services with Audio announcements announcing the next bus stop. These announcements assist many people and are essential for blind people to travel with confidence independently by bus.

– Mobility and Access Committee Scotland.

Table 4: Responses to questions on Information

Information Type	Total	Organisations	Individuals
Live bus stop arrival and departure times	49	16	35
Live timetables	42	13	30
Live disruption updates	46	15	33
On-board capacity (e.g. how full the bus is)	35	11	24
Number of wheelchair accessible spaces and if they are in use	18	11	9
If there is wi-fi/power/charging facilities, and if they are operational	17	6	12
If there are toilets on board, and if they are operational	21	8	14
If the bus has audio/visual capability*	15	7	9
Which payment types the bus can accept e.g. cash, contactless, card,	29	12	18
The emissions created by the bus	10	4	7
All of the above	16	5	11
None of the above	0	0	0
Other Comments	16	9	7

From the responses given it is clear that live bus stop arrival and departure times, live timetables and disruption updates are strongly desired with over 50% of respondents requesting each (in addition to the 21% who asked for all of the above).

Both on board capacity and payments types accepted on the bus itself were equally the next most keenly sought, in particular by passengers or groups representing passengers, with thirty-five and twenty-nine responses respectively. While on board capacity does not have a common industry standard at present, the payment types accepted has a small degree of overlap with Fare and Ticket information and could be brought forward early in that category.

We will proceed with making location information mandatory as described. We will commit to exploring ways to standardise and report on facilities information in collaboration with operators, passenger groups and technical specialists

Bus Stop Information

Our consultation asked about information about bus stops, and in particular what information would be useful for the purposes of journey planning.

We asked:

Specifically thinking about the bus stop or stopping place of the bus, which of the following would you find useful to plan your journey, if it were available?

Eleven responses advised that they have access needs which we described as meaning anyone who feel they require additional support when using public transport, not just those who fall within a formal definition of disability. However, of the eleven responses, five came from organisations, two of which represent people with disabilities and therefore we believe this means they represent a broader group with those with specific access needs.

Three other responses came from two public bodies and a technology provider, and we have assumed that the ‘access need’ in those cases is the personal experience of the individual responding to the consultation on behalf of the organisation. For the purposes of analysis, we have the views of individuals and bodies which represent disabled persons as a single group, albeit there is broad alignment with all organisation types on the information required.

Of note is that the five individuals who supported having better information about accessibility features specifically accounted for 100% of the respondents who identified requiring access features as an individual.

Table 5: Breakdown of Passenger views on bus stop information

Information	Individuals	Organisations	Total
Passenger Bus Stop Features - Accessibility features	5	8	13
Passenger Bus Stop Features - Name of the bus stop (for the purposes of finding it on a timetable)	31	11	42
Passenger Bus Stop Features - Location description	26	10	36
Passenger Bus Stop Features - All of the above	16	13	29
Passenger Bus Stop Features - Other comments	5	9	14

In total thirteen specific comments were left, of which six directly referenced the NaPTAN standard and the work being done UK wide on improving the NaPTAN standard. Of these, five spoke about NaPTAN as a positive aspiration and one as a warning that NaPTAN has existing issues with accessibility features. Age Scotland, Bus Users UK and Mobility as a Service (MAAS) and one other disability advocate gave detailed information about the impact that access features have for the groups they represent, for both this specific proposed Regulation and our overall policy around bus stop information. Three responses shared concerns about ‘floating’ bus stops, and their impact on people with visual impairments, these will also be shared with the Transport Scotland Accessible Travel Team for further review.

We will help improve the NaPTAN database by making it mandatory for Scottish local authorities to update the database, as is currently the case for English local authorities. Once the database starts receiving standardised data from Scotland, we can work with the Department for Transport to provide feedback and suggest improvements to benefit the database overall.

Changes to Routes, stopping places, timetable, fares and tickets information.

We proposed that information about changes be provided as soon as they are known, but normally no less than two weeks before the change takes place. We also proposed that information be confirmed as still accurate every twelve months.

Sixteen responses skipped this question, and two responses disagreed with each of the proposed timescales, one stating that the proposed twelve-month check was not needed, and the other one requesting that fares be exempt, with implied support for the timescale as it applies to routes and timetables. The remainder (thirty-nine responses) agreed that there should be a legislative timescale but without unilateral agreement on what it should be, with a wide range of ‘tolerable’ timescales.

Looking at the upper range for suggested time periods for update, it is clear that most respondents are content with two weeks, with a small number of responses (largely individuals) looking for much shorter update periods, and a larger number (largely organisations) keen for much longer periods.

Three of the responses raised the need to have sufficient time to adjust printed timetable information, and three noted the need for caveats around short notice changes in some cases, such as where a connecting service amends its timetable at short notice. Most responses were content with a two-week period (albeit some caveated this as an absolute minimum period, not a target). There is therefore sufficient justification for an operational target of notifying changes two weeks before the change comes into force.

Many of the responses discussed the longer (twenty-one day period) required by the Traffic Commissioner, which has been looked at in line with the comments on special cases of short notice updates where the change is in response to an external factor.

In context with the comments on barriers in the previous question, it would seem inappropriate to allow for enforcement action to take place if the change is due to unforeseen, external factors, however there is clearly a desire to have this information as soon as possible where it is due to a planned change. We believe that in many cases, two weeks will be an easily achieved minimum period for notifying changes, however, as the Traffic Commissioner requires a three week notification (Twenty-one days) and responses to other questions have identified the need for efficiency and alignment with other bodies, setting the period at twenty-one days seems appropriate. This would allow operators to make all their legal updates with a single date to adhere to, and would allow sufficient time for the update of paper timetables in stopping places.

A ruleset for short notice/unexpected changes will be written into guidance to allow an equivalent protection. Similarly, we anticipate that while operators become accustomed to the new requirements, there will be a high level of dialogue between Transport Scotland and operators. This being the case would negate the need to have a specific twelve month check in, which could be brought in if required in the future, but will likely not be helpful in the short term.

The Prescribed Information

In simple terms, the information required (the ‘Prescribed Information’) will be as follows:

TransXchange

• The trading name of the operator, their licence number and National Operator Code
• Route information including the service number/name, route registration number, each bus stop called at in order
• Timetable information including the arrival and departure time at each bus stop, the days it does and does not run.
• the number or name of the service or proposed service,
• the number under which the service is registered with the Traffic Commissioner,
• the route of the service or proposed service, including the principal starting and finishing points
• the stopping places of the service or proposed service in the order of stopping,
• information to ensure identification of a stopping place, comprising the stop code, taken from the National Public Transport Access Nodes database,
• the Ordnance Survey grid reference, relevant landmarks, a topographic reference taken from the National Public Transport Gazetteer, and an indication of whether the stopping place is, or is to be, used as a timing point,
• the arrival and departure time at each stopping place or, where applicable, the frequency of the service,
• the days on which the service runs, or is to run, and any public holidays or other days on which the service does not, or will not, run,
• where the service is provided for the purpose of serving a school, college or other educational establishment, the dates of terms for that school, college or other educational establishment,
• where the service has been or is to be terminated, information about the termination

NeTEx

• Information about adult single and return fares and tickets,
• child single and return fares and tickets
• group fares and tickets,
• period fares and tickets,
• single operator fares and tickets,
• multi-operator fares and tickets,
• zonal fares and tickets,
• any age restrictions and any time restrictions on those fares and tickets.
• The service(s) the ticket is valid on (For single and return ticket types),
• For zonal tickets, the service numbers, routes and bus stops included in the range of the ticket,
• The ways that fares can be paid (cash, contactless, etc) by ticket type,
• The ticket medium (paper, smartcard, digital, tap on/off etc),
• the fares applicable and if they are different depending on how they are paid for or the ticket medium,
• Which tickets can be bought in advance (and whether that can be done online, or in person) and which can only be purchased on a vehicle
• A ‘user friendly’ name for the ticket.
• For Complex fare or ticket information: how the fare varies depending on the route taken, or the duration of the journey, or the type and the number of passengers, or the method of payment, or the amount of subsequent travel undertaken in a given period, and whether or not a discount or a cap is applied to the fare.

SIRI (VM/SM)

• Live vehicle location
• Live bus stop arrival and departure times
• Live timetables
• Live disruption updates

NaPTAN

• The location of the stop;
• The stop code or the nodes code taken from the National Public Transport Access Nodes database;
• The area code, from an established list of area codes for NaPTAN;
• The Ordnance Survey grid reference;
• Any relevant landmarks;
• A topographic reference taken from the National Public Transport Gazetteer;
• Details of stop accessibility features.

And any changes or variations to the information as given above