Open data
Citymapper founded Azmat Yusuf being interviewed for TechCrunch. His business was created thanks to open data. Photo: TechCrunch
The Government yesterday announced a £5m programme to provide open data for the rail sector.
This is excellent.
Open data liberates firms and app developers to find solutions to customers’ problems that won’t otherwise be found.
Open data from major cities like London enabled firms like Citymapper and UrbanThings to get started; and then build the incredible products for which they subsequently became known.
This is especially critical in the new Shapps-Williams environment in which operators have no revenue risk, and Great British Railways make all the commercial decisions.
So, in general, I’m very pleased.
But nothing is perfect in life, and I’ve three worries
Modal silos
My first concern is that this does seem to reinforce the silos-by-mode that British transport seems to be suffering from.
The Government recently published a bus strategy and a rail strategy; but they were kept entirely apart from each other. The Government is already engaged in a major bus open data exercise.
It would have been ideal if they could have been combined.
There are three reasons for this:
1) It would be easier and more efficient for the users of the data if the data was in one place and used a consistent standard. Maybe it will, but I suspect that definitions of the same thing will be entirely different for bus and rail.
2) Creating rail services for rail suppliers and bus services for bus suppliers maintains the rigid distinction between rail and bus suppliers that currently exists. That’s a shame. Costs in the rail sector are currently hugely inflated; in part because the rail market is small and specialist providers face little competition. Making it easier for rail and bus suppliers to cross-pollinate would encourage bus suppliers to work in rail (lowering costs) and rail suppliers to work in bus (learning how to lower costs). A combined market would be a bigger market - thus encouraging new suppliers to come in. While the definition of the data service isn’t going to make a massive difference to this, it is symbolic of the fact that the Government sees them as totally separate industries
3) It would have set an example that the Government believes in integration and want to see more of it. Instead, it has done the opposite.
Bring in the little guys
While the Government has announced the creation of a service, it hasn’t yet created the service.
Key to success will be the design of the open data platform.
It is essential that the small firms and app creators that are the biggest potential opportunity are brought into the design process early. It mustn’t just be a collaboration between Government and the vast systems integrators like Worldline who already have a stranglehold on much of the rail data market.
In that regard, the press release is slightly discouraging as the only quote is from a senior person in Worldline. While I have no doubt that the individual in question believes in the project he’s working on, as a corporate entity it would be irrational for Worldline to love the idea of open data. As the people with a huge share of the rail data market already sewn up, they have much more to lose than to gain.
If you need to have worked in rail for 10 years to understand the rail data marketplace, the outcomes are likely to underwhelm. If the open data platform isn’t just to be a tick-box in the sector deal, it’s crucial that DfT engage widely to ensure the data is accessible as possible.
Include everything
My final worry is that DfT won’t remember just how much data it has. The things in the press release like disruption and availability of lifts are essential. But DfT should use its position as controller-in-chief of all rail franchises to put out as much “other” data as well. If the data marketplace is to work, a developer should be able to find carriage seating plans, lists of toilets by location, maps of stations, customer satisfaction by building block, staffing times, number of staff per station, facilities, train type allocations, station usage, etc etc etc.
Some of these are already in the public domain in other places, some are not. But the more that is made available, the more developers will be able to come up with interesting and useful things to do with them. DfT mustn’t assume it knows what it wants building and then make the data available to support those projects. Instead, it should ensure everything is standardised and make it all available.
This is an area where the wisdom of the markets really can be brought to bear.
Overall, it’s a great project. It’s a (by Government standard) relatively small investment to enable much bigger outcomes: exactly the kind of intelligent investment Government should be making. But it now needs to ensure it delivers to exceed expectation.
