Utffs Sacog 07-042

SACOG-07-042
Universal Transit Farecard
Feasibility Study
FINAL REPORT
December 13, 2007
Prepared by: LT K E ng i ne e r i ng S e r v ic e s In Association with: TranSystems Corp. and The Hoyt Company
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 tel: 916.321.9000 fax: 916.321.9551 www.sacog.org
SACOG MISSION
Delivering transportation projects; providing public information and serving as a dynamic forum for regional planning and collaboration in the greater Sacramento Metropolitan Area.
Rusty Dupray (Chair) El Dorado County Tom Cosgrove (Vice-Chair) City of Lincoln Harold Anderson City of Winters Ruth Asmundson City of Davis James Barrington City of Wheatland Christina Billeci City of Marysville Sherrie Blackmun City of Colfax Jeannie Bruins City of Citrus Heights Linda Budge City of Rancho Cordova Christopher Cabaldon City of West Sacramento Darryl Clare City of Galt Robby Colvin City of Placerville Jim Cooper City of Elk Grove Jim Corsaut City of Isleton Roger Dickinson Sacramento County
1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 tel: 916.321.9000 fax: 916.321.9551 tdd: 916.321.9550 www.sacog.org
BOARD MEMBERS
Jim Gray City of Roseville Lauren Hammond City of Sacramento Kevin Hanley City of Auburn Peter Hill City of Rocklin Roberta MacGlashan Sacramento County Leslie McBride City of Yuba City Steve Miklos City of Folsom Susan Peters Sacramento County Rocky Rockholm Placer County Walt Scherer Town of Loomis Donald Schrader Yuba County Dan Silva Sutter County Helen Thomson Yolo County Jody Jones (Ex-Ofcio Member) Caltrans District 3
MEMBER COUNTIES & CITIES
El Dorado County Placer County Sacramento County Sutter County Yolo County Yuba County City of Auburn City of Citrus Heights City of Colfax City of Davis City of Elk Grove City of Folsom City of Galt City of Isleton City of Lincoln City of Live Oak Town of Loomis City of Marysville City of Placerville City of Rancho Cordova City of Rocklin City of Roseville City of Sacramento City of West Sacramento City of Wheatland City of Winters City of Woodland City of Yuba City
Heather Fargo City of Sacramento David Flory City of Woodland Alfred Fortino City of Live Oak
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Executive Summary

The Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study examines available fare system technologies, and evaluates the benefits and costs of their application to the Sacramento region, which is served by fourteen transit service providers. The purpose of the study is to assist SACOG and its partner transit agencies in determining if investment in one of these technologies is practical for the Sacramento region. The study also examines alternative strategies for system implementation. The objective of implementing new fare system technology is to provide a fare card that is accepted by all transit operators in the region, thus providing seamless travel among their transit services. This initiative is an important element in the overall goal of rationalizing the fourteen transit operators into a single regional transit system that expands customer options and convenience, while retaining policy-setting authority for each agency.
Study Scope: LTK Engineering Services, in association with TranSystems, Inc. and The Hoyt Company, performed this study on behalf of SACOG. During the course of this study, the project team did the following:
Interviewed each transit service provider to identify their objectives, priorities and concerns; Examined the ridership, service and fare system characteristics of each transit operator in the region; Visited agency facilities to review bus fleet and revenue processing characteristics; Conducted workshops with the participating agencies and transportation management associations (TMAs) to describe and get feedback regarding - the available technologies, their pros and cons and the requirements for implementation; Conducted focus group sessions with transit customers and with transit benefits coordinators at state offices, local corporations and universities to get their feedback on regional fare system strategies; Evaluated regional transit farecard strategies and options for the region; Developed an interactive cost model to analyze capital and operating and maintenance costs for each system strategy; Prepared system recommendations and identified key decisions to address if SACOG and its partners opt to move forward.
As the study progressed, SACOG and the participating agencies reached a consensus to focus on contactless smart card technology, which a number of transit systems in other regions have either implemented or are in the process of implementing. They concluded that smart card technology held the most promise in meeting stated objectives.
Contactless smart card: The contactless smart card is a credit card-sized card with a
microchip and antenna embedded inside. It has the data storage capacity and processing
LTK Engineering Services
-i-
12/13/2007
power to electronically accommodate the different fares of each transit agency. This gives each transit user the convenience of using a single fare card for travel on any transit service in the region. The user can purchase and encode on that one card any fare or fares suited for his or her travel needs. The smart card is plastic, like a credit card, and is durable enough to last up to five years. Rather than discarding the card when the encoded fare expires or is used up, the user simply purchases more fare, which is then encoded onto the card. As travel plans change during the year, the user can adjust his or her purchases.1 Payment and validation of fare is as simple as briefly touching the card to a target on a toaster-sized device near the farebox or on the light rail platform. Fare can be purchased and loaded onto the smart card at the ticket vending machines and at terminals installed at customer service centers and selected retail outlets. Based on feedback at the focus groups, both the individual user and the benefits coordinator will appreciate the ability to manage the farecard value purchases online. The user will have the flexibility of linking the farecard to a bank account to ensure that the card is always loaded to pay the fare. The benefits coordinator will no longer need to place monthly orders for printed passes and ticket books to distribute to employees. The transit agencies will be able to end the tedious process of reconciliation of consignment sales. Each agency also gets a better record of transit use, providing a more accurate basis for allocating revenue among transit operators for transfers on linked trips, and for calculating transit use by students.
System Requirements and Cost: A smart card fare system would require the procurement and installation of smart card readers on each bus, in ticket vending machines and on light rail platforms.2 Computers and communications system networks would retrieve and process transaction data from each unit on a daily basis. A regional center would be equipped to retrieve and process the transaction data from each transit agency, from online fare purchases and from retail outlets equipped with smart card readers The computer system at this center will maintain a complete database of all transactions and calculate the revenue to be allocated to each agency. The system will also maintain a database of all registered smart cards so that lost or misused cards can be deactivated. Lost or damaged cards that are registered can be replaced with remaining fare value restored.3
The cost of procuring and installing a regional smart card system will be $5.6-8.3 million, depending upon the number and size of the transit agencies opting to participate. The estimated capital cost (in 2006 $$) is shown in the table on the following page. All estimates include a 20% contingency to cover any unforeseen costs not identified at this early conceptual phase. The decisions made on a number of policy issues will affect the cost impacts of operating and maintaining the regional system when it is in place. Overall, with any scenario, implementing a regional smart card system will increase the cost of collecting fares in the region. This is because the costs of operating the regional center are greater than the
Just as a transit commuter today might forego a monthly pass in August, due to vacation plans, and purchase a 10-ride ticket book instead. 2 The system would not require an upgrade of an agencys farebox, although the smart card reader can be incorporated into the electronic fareboxes available today. 3 Registering a card will not be a requirement for use, as a matter of privacy policy, although certain features linked account purchases, lost card replacement require registration.
- ii -
12/13/2007
reductions in cost and improvements in revenue capture experienced by the individual agencies. The percentage of users shifting to a regional smart card will have a considerable effect on costs. Eliminating a particular type of fare and fare medium cash fare transfers, monthly passes eliminates costs associated with its printing, distribution, sales and revenue counting and reconciliation, and destruction of unused expired media. Replacing printed transfers and passes with electronic fare media can also reduce loss of revenue, which occurs through fraudulent use of expired transfers or student photo IDs and altered monthly passes. Outsourcing some or all of the centralized functions will also affect costs. The cost impact of implementing a regional smart card system is estimated to be in the range of $1.3-2.0 million annually. The low end of the cost increase is defined by participation by all fourteen agencies and a strong shift to smart cards by transit users. The high end is defined by participation by only three agencies and very poor acceptance of smart cards by transit riders. Issues to address if the project moves forward include the following: Agencies participating in the initial system Organizing procuring and then operating the system: lead firm for project management, intergovernmental agreement (IGA) defining governance process, funding, allocation of expected regional costs, and revenue reconciliation; terms and conditions for joining at a later date. Scope of system procurement: incorporating fareboxes into the procurement vs. separate procurement of fareboxes; assignment of centralized duties to the procurement contractor, a separate firm or to a lead agency (e.g., SACOG or RT). Business rules and fare policy: fare incentives to encourage smart card use by riders (e.g., discontinuing legacy fare media; fare discounts)
- iii -
12/13/2007
Capital Cost Estimates for Different Participation Scenarios

# Agencies in Initial Deployment Cost Element All 14 Agency Equipment RT e-tran Paratransit, Inc. Folsom Stage Line SCT/Link El Dorado Auburn Lincoln PCT Roseville Davis Unitrans Yolobus Yuba Sutter Regional Center Project Costs Initial Card Supply Total Capital Costs Total Capital Costs
with 20% Contingency
8 of 14 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,090,505 1,833,150 202,400 133,100 217,800 129,250 190,850 177,705 206,250 697,700 1,287,000 500,000 5,575,205 6,690,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3 of 14 2,213,255 1,833,150 202,400 177,705 697,700 1,226,000 500,000 4,636,955 5,564,000
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
4,334,055 1,833,150 202,400 670,450 133,100 110,000 217,800 79,200 75,350 129,250 190,850 63,800 244,750 177,705 206,250 697,700 1,374,000 500,000 6,905,755 8,287,000
- iv -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Table of Contents
UNIVERSAL TRANSIT FARECARD FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................. 1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................... 1 Report Organization ................................................................................................2 TRANSIT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................3 Transit Service Providers .........................................................................................3 Interagency Service Connections.............................................................................3 Fare Policy and Fare Media.....................................................................................8 Interagency Transfers and Fare Media ................................................................. 13 Fare Media Sales .................................................................................................... 17 Walk-in Outlets: Agency Offices and Retail Stores.........................................................17 Web Site & Mail Purchases .................................................................................................17 Employers..............................................................................................................................18 Schools & Institutions .........................................................................................................19 Joint Transit/Non-Transit ID ............................................................................... 20 Summary of Study Area System Characteristics.................................................... 20 FARE SYSTEMS, PLANS AND PRIORITIES ......................................................... 22 Existing Fare Collection Systems .......................................................................... 22 Other Onboard Equipment and Systems .............................................................. 23 Priorities and Concerns.......................................................................................... 26 General Views on Universal Farecard...............................................................................26 Fare and Fare Media Complexity .......................................................................................26 Farebox Considerations.......................................................................................................26 Onboard Equipment............................................................................................................27 Onboard Equipment............................................................................................................28 Ridership and Revenue Data Collection ...........................................................................28 Fare Abuse.............................................................................................................................28 FARE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY STATE OF THE ART..................................... 29 Fare Media Technologies ...................................................................................... 29 Printed Passes and Tickets ..................................................................................................29 Magnetic Fare Cards ............................................................................................................29 Smart Cards ...........................................................................................................................32
-v-
12/13/2007
Regional Application of Fare Media Technology ................................................. 32 Printed Passes .......................................................................................................................32 Magnetic Fare Cards ............................................................................................................35 Smart Cards ...........................................................................................................................36 Account-Based Systems: Read-only Smart Cards and Magnetic Fare Cards...............36 Smart Card Systems in the U.S...........................................................................................37 Smart Card System Characteristics........................................................................ 40 Using a Smart Card System.................................................................................................40 Smart Card Equipment........................................................................................................45 Smart Card Data Characteristics ........................................................................................45 Regional Smart Card Program Network Architecture ....................................... 51 Overall Network Architecture............................................................................................51 Bus Systems Network Architecture...................................................................................51 LRT Network Architecture.................................................................................................52 Hand Held Terminal Network Architecture ....................................................................52 Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture ...............................................52 Agency Customer Service Center Network Architecture...............................................53 Smart Card Clearing House Architecture .........................................................................53 Smart Bus Network Architecture.......................................................................................53 MARKET RESEARCH............................................................................................... 62 Roundtable Discussion with Non-Transit Institutional Partners......................... 62 Meeting Details .....................................................................................................................62 Meeting Results.....................................................................................................................62 Focus Group Meetings with Transit Users ........................................................... 65 Meeting Details .....................................................................................................................65 Meeting Results.....................................................................................................................65 Lessons Learned Market Applications in Other Regions .................................. 68 TransLink Metropolitan Transportation Commission ................................................68 GO Ventura Card -- Ventura County Transportation Commission ............................70 Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus -- Chicago Transit Authority...................................71 SmarTrip Card -- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...........................73 REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND COST ANALYSIS............................................... 76 System Description ................................................................................................ 76 System Equipment ...............................................................................................................77 Customer Use of the Regional Fare Card.........................................................................83 Institutional Programs with Non-Transit Partners .........................................................84 System Management and Program Support .....................................................................85 Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................... 88
- vi -
12/13/2007
Capital Costs .........................................................................................................................88 Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................92 System Procurement .............................................................................................104 Overall Procurement Approach.......................................................................................104 Central Services Management...........................................................................................106 KEY DECISIONS IN THE NEXT PHASE.............................................................108 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables and Figures

Table 2-1.Transit Service Providers in the Study Area...................................................................4 Table 2-2. Service Characteristics: Interagency Connections and Downtown Service..............7 Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media.............................................................................................9 Table 2-4. Discount Fares.................................................................................................................11 Table 2-4. Discount Fares (continued) ...........................................................................................12 Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT ....................................14 Table 2-6. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements between Agencies, excluding RT .................................................................................................................................................16 Table 2-7. California Sate Offices with Bulk RT Fare Orders ....................................................19 Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment...............................................24 Table 4-1. Fare Media Characteristics............................................................................................31 Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies....................................................33 Table 4-3. Smart Card Programs in Place in the U.S...................................................................38 Table 4-4. Purchasing Fare on a Smart Card System...................................................................42 Table 4-5. Smart Card Equipment in US Market.........................................................................46 Table 4-6. Smart Card Data Fields Conceptual Approach.......................................................48 Figure 4-1: Conceptual Overall Network Functional Architecture...........................................54 Figure 4-2: Conceptual Bus Systems Network Architectures ....................................................55 Figure 4-3: Conceptual LRT Station Networking Architecture.................................................56 Figure 4-4: Conceptual Handheld Terminal Networking Architecture ....................................57 Figure 4-5: Conceptual Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture ..................58 Table 6-2. Using a Smart Card ........................................................................................................84 Table 6-3. Nominal Division of Responsibilities .........................................................................87 Table 6-4. Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates: Three Scenarios...............................................89 Table 6-5. Capital Cost Estimate Detail ........................................................................................90 Table 6-6. Additional Program Funding Items ............................................................................92 Table 6-7. Existing Components of RT Fare Collection ............................................................94 Table 6-8. Incidental Costs of Fare Collection.............................................................................96 Table 6-9. Potential Components of Regional Center Activity..................................................98 Table 6-10. Operating Costs by Level of Smart Card Acceptance............................................99 Table 6-11. Operating Costs by Region System Size.................................................................100 Table 6-12. Cost Detail of Regional Program.............................................................................101
- vii -
12/13/2007
Table 6-13. Impacts on RT Agency Operating Costs ...............................................................103 Table 6-14. Procurement Approaches .........................................................................................104 Table 6-15. Central Services Management Approaches .............................................................106
- viii -
12/13/2007
Sacramento Area Council of Governments Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study
Project Overview
The SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study examines the potential costs and benefits of implementing a regional transit fare instrument that can be used on all transit systems throughout the greater Sacramento region. The study was initiated by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as a step toward creating a regional transit network of coordinated service by the fourteen transit service providers in the Sacramento area. The studys core objective was to determine if it is viable to use available technology to introduce a regional transit farecard that provides seamless, convenient transferring between these services, while continuing to meet the fare-related needs of each of the service providers. The study was composed of the following nine tasks (Tasks 3 through 11)4:
Task 3. Study Area Current System Analysis 4. State-of-the-Art Systems Assessment 5. Study Area Needs Assessment 6. Interagency Coordination Requirements 7. Fare Cycle Cost Analysis Activity Examine transit system characteristics Report on existing fare systems technologies and applications Interviews & site visits: Identify agency needs, priorities, equipment condition Assess reqts including transfer agreements, back-office systems, fare media control & distribution, branding Analyze potential for improved interagency coordination/ regional organization of fare system functions Conduct agency workshops to obtain ownership and consensus Evaluate alternative approaches; Assess single-vendor approach to system implementation Conduct local focus groups and round table discussions of users Identify system details to address in subsequent phases Task Product Task Report Task Report Task Report Workshop presentation Cost analyses in Task 9 report Workshops at project milestones Task Report
8. Interagency Consensus Building 9. Technology Strategy Alternatives 10. Market Research 11. Decision Requirements -
Task Report Presented in this Final Report
Tasks 1 and 2 were related to study initiation, focusing on organization of the study and project team management among the participating agencies.
-1-
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Introduction
LTK Engineering Services, in association with its project team partners, TranSystems, Inc. and The Hoyt Company, was engaged by SACOG to undertake this study effort. The project team interviewed all stakeholders and toured the facilities of transit service providers in the six-county study area. The team also met on a regular basis with representatives of participating agencies and transit management association (TMA). These meeting served as workshops to get operator input at the start of each task and later in the task to discuss team findings. As the LTK project team presented information on available technologies and potential application strategies, SACOG and the participating transit operators provided guidance on their preferred approaches and system requirements. The Hoyt Company conducted a series of focus groups of transit users to identify their priorities and get their insights on the application of new fare system technologies. As the study progressed, SACOG and the partner agencies reached a consensus to focus primarily on the potential of smart card technology for the region. To support its evaluation of alternative strategies for implementing a smart card fare system, the LTK team developed a cost model for estimating both capital costs for initial system investment and annual costs for on-going operations. The model is interactive, enabling the user to analyze a number of what-if scenarios, including the effects of a varying number of agencies participating in a regional smart card system, different policies on the disposition of legacy fare media, and outsourcing of centralized regional activities (e.g., clearinghouse activities).
Report Organization
This report is organized as follows:
Report Section 1. Introduction 2. Transit System Characteristics 3. Fare System Equipment Plans and Priorities Content Project Overview and Report Organization Report on team review and findings of service and fare of transit providers in the study area; based on Task 3 report. Report on team interviews & site visits of study area transit service providers, examining existing fare collection and processing systems and identifying agency plans and priorities; based on Task 5 report. Descriptions of technologies that are available for regional consideration, pros/cons of these technologies and the lessons learned from their application; based on Task 4 report. Report on findings of transit user preferences and priorities from local focus groups and roundtable discussions; based on Task 10 report. Examination of alternative approaches to implementing a regional transit farecard and associated costs of implementation and on-going operation; based on Task 9 report. Identify system details to address in subsequent phases
4. Fare System Technology State-of-the-Art 5. Market Research
6. Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses 7. Key Decisions & Next Steps
-2-
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study
Transit System Characteristics
This section describes the service and fares of transit providers in the study area. Included in this section are descriptions of the following: The transit agencies and system characteristics Interagency service connections Fare policy and fare media Interagency agreements Fare collection equipment The other stakeholders: those large institutional users (i.e., state agencies, corporations, school) who routinely purchase fares for its employees or customers
Transit Service Providers

The study area for this feasibility study encompasses the region for which SACOG is organized. Within the six counties are 14 transit service providers. These are identified in Table 2-1. As the table shows, the transit operators are organized along several lines, including city departments; county department, state-legislated special districts; non-profit corporations; joint powers agency; and student/city partnership. The table also highlights the considerable differences in system size. Most transit systems have between three and 40 buses. RT is the exception with over 250 buses and 76 light rail cars. RT ridership is also one to three orders of magnitude greater than the other service providers. Paratransit, Inc. has a large fleet - 150 vans - primarily for ADA service under contract to RT. RT (and Paratransit, Inc.) serves the Sacramento urban core; the other transit operators provide local and/or demand-responsive (i.e., dial-a-ride) service in more suburban and rural areas, with a number also operating commuter express service to downtown Sacramento.
Interagency Service Connections

Whereas each transit operator is based in a separate part of the six-county region and serves a specific clientele, there are points at which transit services meet to accommodate transfers for continuing travel. Several operators also provide their own commuter service to downtown Sacramento. These service characteristics are highlighted in Table 2-2.
-3-
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Transit System Characteristics
Table 2-1.Transit Service Providers in the Study Area

Service Provided Fixed Local Dial-A-Ride Com-muter Light Rail Transit Operator County Governance System Size Annual Ridership (000s) Notes
Fleet Size
Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) e-tran (Elk Grove) Folsom Stage Line
Sacramento
Transit District
76 LRVs; 258 buses; 17 vans
30,400
Local service includes fixed route and Neighborhood Route Deviation Service; contracts and equips Paratransit, Inc. to provide ADA paratransit. 40% use commuter service
Sacramento
City Dept
39 buses
648
Sacramento
City Dept
18 buses Under contract to Sac RT to provide ADA service; provides paratransit service for other non-transit orgs. Under contract to Sacramento County DPW, which bills City of Galt for service provided. 36% ride commuter service 53% use commuter service Local Service with Route-Deviation for ADA compliance
Paratransit, Inc.
Sacramento
Nonprofit corp.
150 vans
South County Transit (SCT/Link) El Dorado Transit
Sacramento
Nonprofit corp. Transit District City Dept
12 buses
131
El Dorado
40 buses
317
Auburn Transit
Placer
4 buses
47
-4-
12/13/2007
Table 2-1. Transit Service Providers in the Study Area (continued)

Service Provided Transit Operator County Governance Light Rail System Size Annual Ridership (000s) 26 Contracts with Pride Industries CTSA to provide ADA service. 40% use commuter service Commuter: 6 buses Local: 15; Dial-a-Ride: 11 25% use commuter service Serves pre-registered riders: ADA qualified riders and genl public (space/time permitting) 40+ buses 3,140 Serves general public, primarily UC Davis students; operated by students Notes
Dial-aRide X
Commuter
Lincoln Transit Placer County Transit (PCT)
Placer
City Dept
Fixed Local
Fleet Size
3 buses
Placer
County Dept
17 buses
228
Roseville Transit
Placer
City Dept
33 buses
Davis Community Transit
Yolo
City Dept
Unitrans Yolo County Transp. District (Yolobus) Yuba-Sutter Transit
Yolo
Student/City Partnership
Yolo
District
39 buses; 7 vans
1,260
Yuba & Sutter
Jt. Powers Agency
40 buses
675
Commuter:11 buses; Local & Dial-a-Ride: 29 15% use commuter service
-5-
12/13/2007
With a few exceptions, the area transit operators operate commuter service to downtown Sacramento, where riders either walk to their final destination or transfer to RT for the final leg of their trip. Riders can also transfer between agencies that only connect through their commuter service to downtown Sacramento, e.g., e-tran and Placer County Transit. Some operators have service to RT light rail stations either in or near their service area, providing this service either in lieu of or in addition to their direct service to downtown. Interconnecting service is also provided at transit centers for bus-to-bus transfers. Examples include: the Roseville Galleria where Roseville Transit, Lincoln Transit and Placer County Transit meet; the Caltrans Elk Grove Blvd Park-and-Ride and Elk Grove Blvd/Emerald Vista transfer stop, both of which serve both e-tran (Elk Grove) and South County Transit (SCT/Link); and the Florin Mall, which is served by both RT and SCT/Link. Transit operators with no direct connection to RT include: Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit, Davis Community Transit and Unitrans. These service providers do, however, interface with other transit operators. Those transit operators operating direct downtown express service and connecting with RT both downtown and at other locations include: Paratransit, Inc., Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, e-tran, El Dorado Transit and Yolobus. The remaining operators Folsom Stage Line and SCT/Link have local connections to RT but do not operate their own service to downtown Sacramento. The table also identifies those operators that have an interface with service providers in adjacent counties outside the study area, including service provided in Nevada, Amador, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties. Capitol Corridor service, also identified as connecting service outside the study area, is an Amtrak-operated service that is provided using both trains and buses. Although not among the fourteen participating agencies for this study, the service actually originates in Auburn and operates through Rocklin, Roseville, Sacramento and Davis on its way to the Bay Area. Four trains operate in each direction daily. As this study progresses, interfacing with these outside services will be taken into account.
-6-
12/13/2007

Table 2-2. Service Characteristics: Interagency Connections and Downtown Service
Yuba-Sutter Service Downtown
El Dorado
Place Cty
Roseville
SCT/Link
Unitrans
Yolobus
Auburn
Lincoln
Folsom
Sac RT
e-tran
Davis
Transit Service Provider
Paratransit
RT Transfer Points (excl. Downtown)
Non-Study Area Connections
Sac RT e-tran Folsom Paratransit SCT/LINK El Dorado Auburn Lincoln Placer Cty Roseville Davis Unitrans Yolobus Yuba-Sutter X X X X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
(see others) LRT; Transit Ctr Light Rail
San Joaquin, Amador, Cap. San Joaquin, Amador, Cap.
X X X X
Systemwide Transit Center Lodi, Calavaras Cty, San Joaquin
X X X
Light Rail Gold Country, Cap. Corr.
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X X X X X
X X
X X
Light Rail Transit Center
Capitol Corridor Capitol Corridor Capitol Corridor Fairfield/Suisun, Cap. Corr.
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Fairfield/Suisun, Cap. Corr. Cap. Corr.
-7-
12/13/2007
Fare Policy and Fare Media

At the heart of this study is the complexity of having fourteen transit operators, each with their own fare policies and fare media, moving toward a simplified system that is easy for riders to understand and easy for operators to apply. A summary of the fares and fare media for each agency is provided in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The former provides regular (adult) fares, while the latter summarizes discount fares for qualifying individuals, such as seniors, riders with disabilities, students and children. An examination of the fares in Table 2-3 provides the following findings: Most transit operators have a variety of fare types, including single-ride cash fares, day passes, period flash passes, and multi-ride punch passes. Punch passes are multi-ride fare cards that are punched by the driver when boarding a bus. Operators may offer punch passes for 9, 10, 20, 30 or 40 rides. Other Period passes are good for unlimited use during a prescribed interval. In addition to monthly period passes, some operators offer annual passes, semi-monthly passes and quarter (three-month) and half-quarter passes. Most operators charge different fares for each of the types of service they provide, such as local, commuter and dial-a-ride. Among these operators, one or more charge different fares for different lines or distances, for residents and non-residents, commute and reserve commute, and with or without RT transfer privileges. For a particular fare type - local, commuter, dial-a-ride operators set different fare levels. Local fares range from $0.75 to $2.00. The lowest fare for a local monthly pass is $15 and the most expensive commuter monthly is $155. In addition to cash fare transfers, most operators sell unlimited-ride day passes onboard their vehicles. (On-board sale of fare media becomes an important issue when considering smart card systems.)
Table 2-4 shows that most operators provide half fare to seniors, riders with disabilities and students. Commuter service is often excluded from this discount. In some cases, dial-a-ride is excluded as well. In several cases, cash fares are discounted, but passes are not. With regard to seniors, riders with disabilities, and students, Table 2-4 shows that these groups typically pay a discounted fare for transit service, although the discounts, services and ages of eligibility vary. Seniors and riders with disabilities generally pay half-fare on most services. However, several operators offer either a lesser discount or no discount at all on passes and/or commuter services. On the other hand, some operators provide free service to seniors at a specific age (either 60 or 75). Most transit operators allow children under the age of five to ride for free. However, one operator also allows 5 year olds to ride without paying a fare, while other operators do not explicitly include free rides in their fare tariffs. Most agencies charge students half the regular fare to ride, although some offer a smaller discount. Most discount passes as well as cash fares, although there are exceptions. As with the other groups, age eligibility varies by transit operator. Student fares can be valid until age 12, age 18 , or until high school (12th grade) graduation.
-8-
12/13/2007
Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media

Cash Fares Local $1.00 central city, shuttle $1.75 local $1.50 $8.00 airport service $3.00 Commuter Dial-A-Ride Unlimited Ride Monthly Passes Local Commuter Dial-ARide Day Pass Other Fares Other Passes
Transit Operator
Sac RT
$80
Day Pass
Semi-monthly
e-tran Folsom Stage Line Paratransit, Inc.
$60
Day Pass
10-ride
$1.75
$3.00
$80
$80
Day Pass
$8 airport service
$3.25
None
coupon books
SCT/Link
$1.00
$2, $3, $5, $6 based on trip
$3.50; $2.00 Sat.
$35
$140
Day Pass
Local: 10-ride
El Dorado Transit Auburn Transit
$1.10 local$2.00 intercity $0.80
$2.50 - $4.00
Zone fare
$33
$144, $168 incl. RT Day Pass 9-ride; 30-ride 20-ride; 40-ride; Annual pass
$18
Lincoln Transit
$0.75
$2.00
$15
-9-
12/13/2007
Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media (continued)
Cash Fares Transit Operator Local Commuter Dial-a-Ride
Unlimited Ride Monthly Passes
Other Fares
Local
Commuter
Dial-aRide
Day Pass
Other Passes
Placer County Transit
$1.00
$3.50 - $5.00
$2.00-$3.00
None
$110 - $155
Day Pass
Local: 10-, 20-. 40-ride; Commuter: 20-ride
Roseville Transit
$1.30
$2.75 residents; reverse commute; $3.80 non-resident
$3.75
$50
$95 residents or reverse commute; Incl. RT: $125 residents; $130 non-residents
Day Pass
Local: 20-ride Dial-a-Ride: 10-ride; Commuter: 20-ride
$1.25
None
10-ride; 20-ride
Unitrans
$1.00
$21
10-ride; Annual, Quarter & HalfQuarter pass $80 $100 incl. RT
Yolobus
$1.50
$2.00
$2.00 $3.00
$60 $80 incl. RT
Day Pass
Yuba-Sutter Transit
$1 local; $2 rural
$3.00
$4.00; $3.00 eves
$30 excl rural
$100 $140 incl RT
Local/Rural : $10 ticket book; Commuter: 20-ride
- 10 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-4. Discount Fares
Transit Operator
Seniors / Riders with Disabilities
Student / Youth
Children (with Adult)
Sac RT
Half-fare; Seniors (age 75+) are free
Half-fare Half-fare, or one-quarter adult cost for a monthly pass; Half-fare on Local only
Under age 5 ride free
e-tran Folsom Stage Line Paratransit, Inc.
Half-fare; Seniors (age 75+) are free
Half-fare on Local; no discount on Dial-a-Ride
NA Half-fare on Local; lower discount on Commuter and Intercity trips Half-fare on all service excl Commuter Service. Half-fare; no discounted passes
NA
SCT/Link
75% fare on Local only
El Dorado Transit
$25 monthly pass on Local only
Auburn Transit
Half-fare; no discounted passes
Under age 5 ride free.
Lincoln Transit Placer County Transit
Half-fare on Local only; no discounted passes Half-fare on all service except Commuter; no discounted passes Half-fare on all service except Commuter; no discounted passes
Under age 6 ride free, excl Commuter
- 11 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-4. Discount Fares (continued)
Transit Operator
Seniors / Riders with Disabilities
Student / Youth
Children (with Adult)
Roseville Transit
Half-fare on Local and Dial-a-Ride, incl. monthly pass monthly Commuter passes is discounted to $110 ADA-eligible pay $1.00 Seniors (age 60+) are free; Riders with Disabilities are $0.25 40% fare on Local, half-fare on Commuter; no discount passes (discounted RT passes accepted) Half-fare on all service except peak period Commuter Service
Half-fare on Local and Dial-a-Ride (rounded up to nearest quarter), incl. monthly passes, no discounts on Commuter None UCD Undergraduate students free; discounted summer pass for youths age 17 and under Half-fare on all services, no discount passes (discounted RT passes accepted)
Davis Community Transit Unitrans
Yolobus
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Half-fare on all service except peak period Commuter service
- 12 -
12/13/2007
Interagency Transfers and Fare Media

With the many service connections that are in place between transit operators in the region, interagency fare agreements are in place to enable riders to take advantage without being charged a full double fare. Because most of the connections involve RT service, the majority of interagency fare agreements are with that agency. These are identified in Table 2-5. The table shows that, where an agreement is in place, the RT fare media are generally accepted for boarding the buses of the partner agency. In some instances, this transfer is limited to those lines that specifically meet RT service. Certain agencies will levy a surcharge on RT fare media used to board their commuter service (which generally has a higher fare than the local lines); this can be paid in cash upon boarding or by purchasing a sticker in advance to place on RT monthly passes. Transferring to RT generally requires RT fare media. Where an RT pass is honored on the connecting service of the partner agency, the rider will generally have an RT pass for riding both lines. To accommodate cash fares that are transferring to RT, drivers on e-tran, Placer County and Roseville buses are supplied with RT transfers to issue to these riders. e-tran charges for the transfer, while Placer County and Roseville issue the transfers for free. Riders on e-tran who use an e-tran pass can also purchase an RT transfer. RT accepts Yolobus transfers and day passes. The contract between e-tran and RT specifies that e-trans fare media be honored on RT buses if the parties work out an acceptable reimbursement agreement. The interagency fare agreements with RT define formulas for reconciling revenue for interagency travel. Because the partner agencies are accepting RT fare media for boarding riders, the reconciliation typically involves RT paying compensation based upon an estimate (or count) of riders boarding an agencys bus with RT fare media. The formula deducts revenue in those cases where RT transfers are issued on partner agency buses. Because the passes and transfers are not machine-read, calculation of the compensation relies on estimates derived from periodic surveys and passenger counts. In addition to the interagency agreements with RT, a limited number of other agreements exist, as shown in Table 2-6. These involve service providers in Placer County, including the Placer County, Roseville and Auburn transit systems. In these cases, the county system has agreements with each of the two city systems to honor each others transfers. In Yolo County, Unitrans accepts Yolobus fare media. Yolobus accepts University of California at Davis student IDs as fare media (the principal fare medium used on Unitrans), but does not accept other fare media issued by Unitrans. In southern Sacramento County, e-tran and SCT/Link honor each others transfers; a surcharge is placed on the Highway 99 commuter express service, due to its higher fare. In addition, many of the agencies have transfer agreements with agencies that are not participating in this study, including Capital Corridor and San Joaquin.
- 13 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT
Agency with RT Agreement e-tran
To Ride Agency Service
To Ride RT Service
RT Reimbursement to Agency
All RT fare media
RT transfers or daily passes issued by e-tran drivers (fee)
$$=based on counts of fare media use and surveys re: pass use frequency; RT provides transfer books (at printing cost) $$=based on counts of fare media use and surveys re: pass use frequency $$=avg fare * (El Dorado boardings w/RT media less RT transfers issued by El Dorado); RT provides transfer books (at printing cost) El Dorado pays RT half of RT monthly pass price for joint passes sold; $$=cost of mandated ADA service in RT service area, including purchase of equipment.
Folsom Stage Line
All RT fare media (excl. some RT group passes) All RT fare media at RT transfer points only); surcharge or sticker reqd on El Dorado commuter service
RT transfers issued by Folsom driver (free) RT transfers issued by El Dorado driver (free)
El Dorado Transit
Paratransit, Inc.
RT-issued Eligibility ID is required to ride RT-funded Paratransit, Inc. services RT monthly pass w/SCT sticker (excl. RT group pass); RT transfer
RT-issued Eligibility ID issued to ADAqualified patrons
SCT/Link
RT transfers issued by SCT driver
$$=avg fare * (SCT boardings w/ RT media less RT transfers issued by SCT); RT provides transfer books to SCT (at printing cost); No revenue exchange No revenue exchange
Auburn Transit Lincoln Transit
No RT fare media accepted No RT fare media accepted
No Auburn fare media accepted No Lincoln fare media accepted
- 14 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT (continued)
Agency with RT Agreement Placer County Transit (PCT)
To Ride Agency Service
To Ride RT Service
RT Reimbursement to Agency
All RT fare media (on connecting service only); surcharge on PCT commuter service Joint pass valid on all service; All RT fare media excl. RT group passes (at RT transfer points only) No RT fare media accepted
RT transfers issued by PCT driver (free)
$$=avg fare * (PCT boardings w/RT media less RT transfers issued by PCT); RT provides transfer books (at printing cost) $$=avg fare * (Roseville boardings w/RT media less RT transfers issued by Roseville)
Roseville Transit
RT transfers issued by Roseville driver (free)
Davis Community Transit Unitrans Yolobus
No Davis Community fare media accepted No Unitrans fare media accepted Transfers issued by Yolobus driver ($0.50 charge, $0.25 for seniors) RT basic pass w/Yuba-Sutter sticker
No revenue exchange
All RT fare media All RT fare media; surcharge for Yolo commuter service RT basic pass w/ Yuba-Sutter sticker
No revenue exchange $$=based on counts of fare media use and surveys re: pass use frequency Yuba-Sutter sells RT pass at half price to Y-S residents who purchase a Y-S sticker at full price & at full price to Sac residents; RT receives revenue paid for RT pass.
Yuba-Sutter Transit
- 15 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-6. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements between Agencies, excluding RT
Agencies under Agreement
To Ride Each Operators Service
Revenue Reconciliation
Placer County / Auburn Placer County / Roseville South County Transit / e-tran
Accept each others transfers Accept each others transfers Transferring between SCT Hwy 99 Express and e-tran: Free transfer to e-tran service; Upgrade charge to SCT Hwy 99 Express Unitrans accepts all Yolobus fare media No Unitrans-issued fare media accepted on Yolobus (UC Davis undergraduate student ID is accepted on both Unitrans and Yolobus)
No revenue exchange No revenue exchange No revenue exchange
Yolobus / Unitrans
No revenue exchange
- 16 -
12/13/2007
Fare Media Sales

As this study examines methods of providing a regional transit farecard, the means of distributing the cards and, as appropriate, purchasing and adding fare value on the card, becomes a key issue. As Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show, each transit operator in the region offers fare media unlimited-ride period passes, multi-ride punch passes, multi-ride coupon books - that can be purchased in advance. Pre-paid passes and ticket books can be purchased by several methods: Walk-in Sales Outlets: Agency Offices & Service Centers, Retail Outlets Web Sites & Mail Purchases Employers Schools & Institutions
Walk-in Outlets: Agency Offices and Retail Stores Each of the agencies sells its passes and ticket books at its offices. Most agencies have additional outlets at local city halls and civic centers, retail merchants, and satellite customer service centers. Some agencies offices and outlets sell the passes of other agencies under interagency agreements. Passes and tickets are typically distributed to sales outlets on consignment, with sales revenue and unsold stock reconciled on a monthly basis. As the largest system in the region, RT has the largest number of outlets for walk-in customers to purchase passes and tickets. Its web site lists over 50 locations both within Sacramento County and in adjacent counties. The locations include check-cashing stores, grocery stores, municipal offices and the offices of other transit agencies. In addition to RT: Yolobus lists four locations for walk-in purchases, including its offices, two city halls and a check-cashing store. e-tran has nine sale locations, including retail stores, the high school, city hall and a downtown RT outlet. Yuba-Sutter has seven locations in its service area. Auburn Transit sells its passes onboard or at its service desk at City Hall. Roseville Transit lists four sales locations, including its service desk at City Hall.
Web Site & Mail Purchases At this time, no agency offers its riders a means of purchasing a pass or ticket book through its web site. Several do accommodate purchases through the mail. Order forms are provided on their web sites for printing out, complete and mail in with payment. Some include order forms in printed Riders Guide books, which include service schedule, route and fare information as well.
- 17 -
12/13/2007
Employers Employers and other organizations act as satellite sales outlets. The agreements between employers and agencies generally allow the employers to sell passes and tickets to the general public (i.e. to serve as a walk-in sales location) but most employers choose to limit their sales to employees or organization members. Employers are able to take advantage of federal payroll tax incentives to offer the fare media at a discount to their employees. Typically, an Employee Transit Coordinator (ETC) administering the program for an employer places an order (or has a standing order) for bulk quantities of passes and ticket books, which are then sold to employees at the office. Currently, without a common regional fare card, an employer must deal with each transit agency separately. Some employers who provide passes as an employee benefit prefer to issue transit vouchers to their employees; the vouchers can be used as scrip to purchase the pass they need from the appropriate transit service provider. Others contract an outside benefits coordinator, such as WageWorks, to coordinate ordering and distributing fare media to their employees. Because the State government is the largest employer in the region and with many of its departments having offices located in downtown Sacramento, several transit agencies receive orders from these State offices. Whereas the State General Services Administration standardized the employee benefit amounts several years ago, each state office still acts as an independent outlet when ordering and distributing passes to its employees. RT lists nearly 40 State offices to which it distributes bulk orders of fare media, as shown in Table 2-7. A number of offices of the Sacramento County government also place bulk orders on an ongoing basis. Other existing or potential major purchasers identified by a number of agencies include the following: California Public Employees Retirement System [CalPERS] (Sacramento) Intel (Folsom) Folsom State Prison (Folsom) Folsom High School (Folsom) Folsom Community College (Folsom) Elk Grove School District (Elk Grove) Cash Creek Casino (Yolo) University of California at Davis (Davis) {for employees]
- 18 -
12/13/2007
Table 2-7. California Sate Offices with Bulk RT Fare Orders

Dept of Managed Health Care Dept of Human Assistance CA Post-Secondary Education Bureau of State Audits Board of Equalization Franchise Tax Board CA State Teachers Retirement System Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development CA State Library CA Controller Office Dept of Justice State Personnel Board Division of Law / Enforcement (Justice) Dept of Finance Dept of Food & Agriculture Dept of Rehabilitation Dept of Education Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board Secy of State Dept of Corporations Dept of Personnel Admin Dept of Motor Vehicles Dept of Mental Health CA Bay-Delta Authority CA Housing Finance Agency CA Victim Compensation Board Dept of Consumer Affairs Commission of Teacher Credentials CA Community Colleges Treasurers Office Health & Welfare Data Center Assembly Rules Committee Court of Appeals / 3rd Appellate Employment Development Dept Water Resources Dept CA Environmental Protection Agency Office of Administrative Law
Schools & Institutions A number of transit operators sell fare media in bulk to schools, school districts and charitable organizations (as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3)). For charitable organizations, RT provides a discount of up to 50%, if at least 1,000 tickets or daily passes are purchased per month for at least 12 consecutive months. RT has these agreements with Francis House of Sacramento and Volunteers of America. It also allows school entities (including the Sacramento County Office of Education) to purchase student semi-monthly stickers for economically-disadvantaged students for up to 75% off the regular price.
- 19 -
12/13/2007
Joint Transit/Non-Transit ID
Several transit operators honor ID cards that have been issued by non-transit organizations, including several of the colleges and universities. These ID cards are typically valid for a period longer than a single month. Examples of this type of agreement include: California State University Sacramento the student ID can be used as an RT transit pass; the employee ID plus a monthly RT sticker can be used as an RT pass Los Rios Community College the college can issue a card that states it is a Los Rios / RT transit pass; the card is valid for a specific semester South Natomas Transportation Management Association RT provides a photo ID card with a valid period of between 6 months and 3 years Sacramento City Unified School District which provides a student ID card to which RTs semi-monthly sticker can be applied Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (SCDHA) the County purchases RT passes at a discount ($25 per monthly pass) in the form of stickers to be attached to SCDHA ID cards, provided that SCDHA buys these for at least 85% of its case load each month
RT mentioned a considerable concern with the lack of control of college student IDs, with the lack of an expiration date on the ID and continued use of the ID for transit travel well after a student has ended school.
Summary of Study Area System Characteristics

As a data gathering and analysis task, Task 3 was a critical first step for the feasibility study. In conjunction with Task 5 (Study Area Needs Assessment), which involved interviews and site visits of region transit agencies, the task provided a means of getting an understanding and appreciation of both the diverse and similar aspects of the systems. As such, these tasks provide a framework for addressing those issues that are of concern to the participating agencies as potential approaches to implementing a regional fare card system are examined. Among the key findings of this task are the following: The study area itself six counties is a large region which includes an urban core surrounded by small communities, growing suburban centers, and vast exurban and rural areas. The transit operators providing service within this region vary considerably in size, services provided, and fare levels. Most transit operators provide commuter express service to downtown Sacramento, with a sizable number of riders being employees of the several State offices there. Most transit operators have a complex fare structure that reflects the variety of services that are provided, including local, commuter express, and dial-a-ride. Fares vary considerably among operators for similar types of service.
- 20 -
12/13/2007
Most operators have service connections with RT and have interagency agreements with RT to enable riders to conveniently transfer without paying a second full fare. In most cases, this involves honoring RT fare media and issuing RT transfers on these services, with RT paying agencies a reimbursement for carrying riders with RT fare media. Unique restrictions exist in several interagency agreements. On several lines, drivers are responsible for recognizing and honoring the numerous types of fare media issued by the agency and by RT; this is an expressed concern of many agencies. Several operators issue or sell several types of fare media onboard buses. In addition to their own transfers, RT transfers are issued on certain lines. In addition, most operators issue day passes onboard. Another fare collection duty of the driver is hand-punching multi-ride punch passes to deduct a trip. Transit operators have varying age eligibility requirements for those who qualify for discounted fares (i.e., seniors, riders with disabilities, students, young children) Passes and ticket books can be pre-purchased by mail and at agency and municipal offices. No agency sells over the internet, although mail order forms can be obtained at their web sites in several cases. Most agencies issue passes and tickets in bulk on consignment to large employers who then sell or distribute them to their employees. The majority of employers receiving bulk distribution of passes and tickets are State offices. RT and a few other agencies also issue passes and tickets in bulk to partner agencies, merchants, transit management associations, schools, and charitable organizations (in most cases on consignment) for sale or distribution to individuals. RT has the most outlets by far which cover Sacramento County and include locations in neighboring counties as well. Transit operators honor student IDs issued at certain colleges and universities in the area. Other photo IDs are honored by RT when displayed with an affixed RT sticker. Loose controls on these ID cards by the issuing institution can result in fraudulent use on transit
- 21 -
12/13/2007
Fare Systems, Plans and Priorities
At the start of its data gathering effort, the project team conducted interviews and site visits of study area transit service providers (with the exception of Davis Community transit and Unitrans, due to scheduling constraints). During these visits, agency management was interviewed to obtain a good understanding of system characteristics and agency priorities and concerns. While at each site, the team examined vehicles, equipment and facilities as these will have a bearing on decisions and costs associated with implementing a regional transit fare card system. This section documents the findings of the project team, including the following for each agency: Fare collection equipment and facilities existing and planned Other onboard equipment and systems that may affect new farecard equipment Agency management priorities and concerns regarding a regional fare card.
Existing Fare Collection Systems

A summary of the fare collection system in use on each participating transit operator in the SACOG region is provided in Table 3-1. The table also identifies other onboard equipment in the driver area that may need to be considered in any plans to implement a regional fare system. In addition, the table indicates any plans the agency may have regarding its existing fare collection system. As the table shows, only Sacramento RT and Yolobus have electronic registering fareboxes. These are also the only agencies that can process magnetic fare cards. The RT farebox includes a swipe reader for magnetic farecards. The Yolobus farebox includes an attached unit that reads, encodes and prints on inserted magnetic farecards and also issues new magnetic fare cards. RT has applied for funding to replace its fareboxes systemwide. At a minimum, RT will procure new fareboxes to equip the 90+ buses that it will be adding to its fleet later this year. Yolobus refurbished its fareboxes eight years ago and is not contemplating replacement in the near term. With the exception of Paratransit, Inc., the remaining transit operators have simple nonregistering mechanical fareboxes. These boxes consist of money slot, window-enclosed inspection plate, and cashbox. Of these operators, Placer County Transit (PCT) and e-tran are considering a future upgrade to electronic fareboxes. Paratransit, Inc. has no farebox, using instead a cash pouch kept by the driver an off-board electronic payment system and flash passes. The driver remits the cash at the end of shift which is reconciled with the dispatch records. All riders must be registered and reserve the service in advance; this provides a record of the trips taken and revenue that is due. RT also operates a light rail service. Whereas the bus system involves bus driver monitoring of fare payment at the farebox, the light rail system utilizes a proof-of-payment approach. All riders are advised to have a valid ticket or pass prior to boarding the train. Riders without this valid proof-of-payment are committing an infraction and risk a court-enforced
LTK Engineering Services - 22 12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Fare Systems, Plans and Priorities
fine during routine visual inspection by RT fare inspectors. Ticket vending machines (TVMs) are placed at every RT light rail station for those riders who have not already purchased a pass or ticket and do not have a valid transfer. Those with pre-purchased tickets can validate them in the TVM; this process prints and encodes time, date and location on the ticket.
Other Onboard Equipment and Systems

The project team identified any equipment on the buses that might affect plans for installing equipment for an electronic farecard system. There were several reasons for this, including: Determining the availability of space in the driver area for new equipment; Identifying any onboard systems with which the new farecard system might share data; as an example, tying the farecard reader to an AVL system can record where each fare transaction occurred, enabling the agency to track the linked trips of rider. Identifying any existing data communications capability between vehicle and facility; a means of exchanging pertinent data between the onboard farecard equipment and wayside (facility) computers is a typical requirement for electronic farecard systems. Two transit operators RT and Paratransit, Inc. - have mobile data terminals (MDTs) installed for driver use. These MDTs have selection buttons surrounding an LCD display for driver control of one or more functions on the vehicle. On the RT buses, the MDT controls radio, PA and driver log-in. On Paratransit, Inc., the MDT provides dispatch and payment communications between driver and central dispatch. Yolobus is installing MDTs on its buses next year. These MDTs will have the means of reading an inserted contact smart card and can be upgraded to read a contactless smart card. With the exception of Paratransit, Inc., no agency has wireless (i.e., radio or Wi-Fi) data communications on its buses. RT and Yolobus use standard hand-held infrared probing devices to retrieve farebox data when the farebox cashbox is being emptied at the service island. Yuba-Sutter Transit digitally records video images from onboard cameras which are uploaded via USB cable when the vehicle returns to the garage at the end of the day.
- 23 -
12/13/2007
Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment

Transit Agency Fare Media Magnetic period passes; Paper ticket books; Printed stickers for IDs & other passes; Magnetic tickets (issued by TVM); Paper transfers & daypasses (issued on buses) Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes System Size Bus: Buses: 258 Vans: 17 Divisions: 3 Rail: Lt Rail Veh: 76 Stations: 44 TVMs: 90 Yards: 1 System Equipment Bus: Registering farebox with read-only magnetic swipe reader Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) for Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Vaulting at Service Islands Central Cash Counting Facility Rail : Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) with magnetic ticket validator at stations (2003) Non-registering farebox Agency Plans Bus: Purchasing 90+ new buses with new fareboxes; initiating procurement in September 2006; plans to integrate fare card processor into new fareboxes Rail: TVMs are smart-card ready , providing cable connection and space for future smart card processor Upgrade to electronic farebox under consideration No plans for farebox replacement Contracted and funded by RT to provide ADA service. Maintains database of eligible ADA users, who are issued Photo ID by RT; registered riders only
Sacramento Regional Transit (RT)
e-tran (Elk Grove) Folsom Stage Line
Buses: 36 Vans: 9 Buses: 18
Non-registering farebox
Vans: 150 Paratransit, Inc. Paper Tickets & Passes; Electronic pre-payment
No farebox Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) for Computer Assisted Dispatching (CAD) and Automated Vehicle Location (AVL)
South County Transit (SCT/Link) El Dorado Transit
Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes
Buses: 12 Non-registering farebox No plans for farebox replacement
Buses: 40
No plans for farebox replacement
Auburn Transit
Buses: 4
No plans for farebox replacement
- 24 -
12/13/2007
Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment (continued)

Transit Agency Lincoln Transit Fare Media Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes Paper Tickets & Passes System Size Buses: 3 System Equipment Non-registering farebox Agency Plans No plans for farebox replacement; no foreseen value to a regional farecard Joint procurement of electronic farebox under consideration with sister agency Tahoe Area Regional Transit. No plans for farebox replacement
Placer County Transit (PCT)
Buses: 17 Non-registering farebox
Roseville Transit Davis Community Transit
Buses: 33
Vans: 3 Non-registering farebox
Registered riders only; advanced requests only; ADA-eligible riders have preference No plans for farebox replacement. Majority of riders are UC students and employees using ID.
Unitrans
Paper Tickets & Passes / Student IDs
Buses: 47 Vans: 3
Buses: 39 Vans: 7 Yolo County Transp. District (Yolobus) Paper Tickets; Magnetic Passes; Magnetic transfers
Bus: Registering farebox (refurbished 1998) ; TRiM unit (reads/writes/issues/prints magnetic farecards) (installed 1998) Paratransit Vans: Non-registering farebox
No plans for replacement near term; Installing Mobile Data Terminal for Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) by 2007
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Paper Tickets & Passes
Buses: 37 Non-registering farebox No plans for farebox replacement
- 25 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Fare System Technology State-of-the-Art
Priorities and Concerns

Overall the interviews and site visits of twelve of the fourteen transit agencies revealed a common interest in a regional approach to fare system issues, particularly for addressing the complexity of interagency fares and the variety of fare media. Those common threads of interest as well as differing views are summarized below: General Views on Universal Farecard Most agencies interviewed expressed an interest in proceeding with the feasibility study, believing the program to be a potentially positive step for both their agency and for the region. Agencies believe that passengers will benefit by making the system easier to use. Most agencies stressed the need to keep costs down. Agencies with few interagency connections and predominantly senior and/or student riders questioned the value of an electronic regional fare card system to their agency. Fare and Fare Media Complexity Most agencies indicated that the number of fare instruments is unwieldy, especially where it is necessary to accept fares from other agencies. They are looking to regional fare media to consolidate the number of fare instruments that a driver or fare inspector must recognize. This issue was the most often stated motivating interest in a regional farecard system. RT has indicated that its objective is to establish an electronic regional farecard as the basis for transferring to/from RT buses and trains. This would enable it to eliminate printing and distribution of RT transfers to partner agencies. At least one agency Placer County Transit expressed an interest in implementing a stored-value farecard. Lincoln Transit believes that a regional fare card will be of little value to its system. Its service has limited interagency connections and its primarily senior ridership taking local trips and generally eschewing fare cards in lieu of cash. Farebox Considerations RT is planning to replace its registering fareboxes with validating units. It has applied for funding for a system-wide replacement, and will at a minimum install validating fareboxes on the new 90+ buses it is purchasing this year and next. A key objective is to incorporate farecard readers into the new fareboxes. Yolobus has no near-term plans to replace its refurbished registering fareboxes and TRiM units. Most agencies with non-registering fareboxes are uninterested in investing in electronic registering fareboxes: The non-registering fareboxes are adequate for the modest amount of cash processed
- 26 -
12/13/2007
The higher cost of maintaining electronic registering fareboxes was often expressed as a reason in favor of remaining with the non-registering units. Only Placer County Transit and e-tran of Elk Grove mentioned consideration of upgrading to electronic registering or validating units.
Folsom Stage Line non-registering farebox
Auburn non-registering farebox
Yolobus registering farebox (TRiM unit on far side)
- 27 -
12/13/2007
Onboard Equipment Because of the simplicity of operations among the non-registering farebox systems, every vehicle appears to have ample room to accommodate the addition of some fare collection equipment. At the same time, compactness and installation flexibility of any required additional hardware were frequently expressed desires of the agencies. Buses with Mobile Data Terminals have little space for the installation of additional equipment near the driver. Those systems include: RT and Paratransit, Inc., and by next year, Yolobus. Paratransit, Inc.s MDT is part of a recently installed sophisticated CAD / AVL system. As such, there is a reluctance to replace that system.
RT driver area: farebox, mobile data terminal
Paratransit, Inc. console: mobile data terminal
Ridership and Revenue Data Collection Several agencies expressed a desire to have the ability to better track revenue and ridership data, especially for inter-agency transfers. By requiring electronic fare media for all interagency transfers, RT will get an accurate record of these transfers, providing a better basis for allocating trip revenue. Currently, RT pays reimbursement to several agencies honoring RT passes for boarding their buses. Paratransit, Inc. indicated that its method of operation limits the possible advantages of introducing an electronic fare card, such as a smart card, although RT has stated that it may require Paratransit, Inc. to accept the regional smart card for services it operates under contract to RT. Paratransit, Inc. operates on a trip reservation system and its service is limited to pre-registered riders. A record therefore already exists of trip time/date and origin/destination, the rider taking the trip and the fare paid. Fare Abuse A number of operators, particularly RT, expressed concern that student ID cards are not adequately controlled, enabling the cards to be used for transit after an individual has ended school enrollment.
- 28 -
12/13/2007
Fare System Technology State of the Art
This section describes the technology that is in use today in regions with multiple agencies with universal transit farecard programs. It is intended to provide a foundation for further development of alternatives for the Sacramento region. Beginning with a general description of the basic technologies printed media, magnetic fare cards and smart cards this section describes how each fare media technology has been applied to regional systems. It then focuses more on the aspects of smart card technology, describing the programs in place or in the implementation phase in the US, the elements of a regional program and how all the elements can fit together.
Fare Media Technologies

Todays transit systems use one or more of the following forms of fare payment: Cash Tokens Printed passes and tickets Magnetic fare cards Smart cards
Cash will continue to be a means of payment for those without pre-paid fare media. Tokens are in declining use as the fare cards printed and electronic have gained popularity for their ability to adapt to more complex fare structures. Table 4-1 shows the various forms of each type of fare card, their distinguishing characteristics and general application. Printed Passes and Tickets Printed passes and tickets are the least expensive form of media, with corresponding limits on the types of fare for which they can be used. Validation involves visual inspection of the printing. Deducting a trip on a multi-trip ticket (or punch pass) can require either a mechanical ticket validator to print-cancel a ride or a hand-held punch for driver use. Printed tickets are typically of paper stock. Passes can also be of paper stock, although plastic is used for those fares requiring durability for a longer life, typically one month to one year. Magnetic Fare Cards Magnetically-encoded fare media have a limited amount of data encoded on a magnetic stripe on one side of the card. The fare card encoding is read and re-encoded as the stripe is moved across a succession of magnetic heads in a slot or transport device. Devices needing to only read the encoding are considerably simpler and less expensive than those that read
- 29 -
12/13/2007
and encode data. Depending upon the specific need, the cards may be produced on either paper or plastic, the former being less expensive and the latter more durable.
- 30 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-1. Fare Media Characteristics

Data Capacity Expected Life
Media Type Printed Passes and Tickets Printed Paper Ticket
Typical Use
Unit Cost
Interface
Interface Cost
Transfer Single ride Multi-ride Flash pass
$0.0025 to $0.05
None
up to 1 month
Ticket Validator: (only for multi-ride or pre-purchased singleride tickets)
None or $2,500 for Ticket Validator
Magnetic Fare Cards Paper Read-Write Magnetic Stripe Transfer Single ride Stored value Stored ride Day pass Floating period pass Fixed calendar pass (weekly, monthly, annual) Stored value Stored ride Floating period pass $0.01 to $0.10 16 bytes to 64 bytes up to 1 month Electro-mechanical magnetic read/write $2,500 to $4,000
Plastic Read-Only Magnetic Stripe Plastic Read-Write Magnetic Swipe Smart Cards Personal Plastic Contactless Smart Card (memory-only or microprocessor)
$0.05 to $0.50 $0.05 to $0.50
16 bytes to 64 bytes 16 bytes to 64 bytes
up to 1 year up to 1 year
Swipe reader or Electro-mechanical magnetic read/write Electro-mechanical magnetic read/write
$250 to $750 or $2,500 to $4,000 $2,500 to $4,000
Stored value Stored ride Floating period pass Fixed calendar pass Account card Multiple applications Single trip Day pass Limited stored value
$1.50 to $5.00
1 kbyte to 5+ kbytes
up to 3+ years
Radio carrier
$500 to $2,500 (depending on user interfaces)
Disposable Paper Contactless Smart Card
$0.40 to $1.00
32 bytes to 256 bytes
up to 1 week
Radio carrier
$500 to $2,500 (depending on user interfaces)
- 31 -
12/13/2007
Smart Cards Smart cards have an embedded microchip which can hold far more data than the magnetic fare card. The cards in use on transit systems communicate with a reading device via radio frequency when held to within one-half inch, eliminating physical wear and tear (and reducing maintenance costs); thus they are referred to as contactless smart cards5. Depending upon the specific need, the cards may be produced with either paper (disposable) or plastic (long-life) laminate stock. The costs of the smart cards are considerably higher than those of the magnetic fare cards, although they have a considerably longer life. Even the paper disposable cards are not typically considered economical for single-use purposes on a regular basis. The long-life plastic smart cards are marketed as personal cards that are intended to be kept and reloaded and reused for up to three or more years. The plastic smart card can also be issued as a multi-function card in addition to transit use, to serve as an employee, student or senior photo ID and/or building access card and/or (in the future) to pay for parking or a latte.
Regional Application of Fare Media Technology

Each of the fare card technologies printed passes, magnetic fare cards, and smart cards are being used in regional transit fare card programs today. The approaches to applying the fare media to a regional program are described in Table 4-2 and are discussed below: Printed Passes Printed passes and tickets are the most prevalent form of pre-purchased fare media in the country. The printed pass is typically a period pass good for unlimited travel during the specified period printed on the face. They are displayed to the driver or fare inspector for visual inspection. No equipment is required on the vehicle or station platform. They have been applied for multi-agency use in many locations. Two programs are described as examples. Transit systems in Los Angeles County and in the Seattle area currently have regional flash passes that are accepted by all participating agencies. In Los Angeles, the EZ Transit Pass is a monthly unlimited-ride flash pass that is accepted on the local service of twenty transit operators in the County. Zone stickers can be purchased for those services having a higher fare; alternatively, riders without the necessary sticker can pay the zone surcharge in cash.
LAs EZ Transit Pass
These cards are sometimes referred to as proximity cards and follow an ISO14443 standard. Other contactless smart cards vicinity cards allow communication at greater distances but have not been successfully applied to the US transit environment.
- 32 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies
Farecard Technology Printed Pass
Approach Fare card is sold as a period pass which is valid on all local service in a region; Stickers or higher-value fare cards are available for services with higher fares (e.g., commuter, zones, dial-a-ride)
Transaction Processing Rider purchases pass (plus sticker) for desired service. Rider pays additional cash when fare for service exceeds pass value.
Revenue Reconciliation Periodic surveys are used to estimate rider travel patterns. Results are used to allocate revenue.
Pros/Cons One fare card is good on all transit services in the region. Unlimited-ride pass limits usefulness some riders. Revenue reconciliation among agencies is imprecise with reliance on periodic survey and revenue formulas. Limits in card memory limit regional fare complexity; Equipment is costly to purchase and maintain
Current Applications Puget Pass for five agencies in Seattle area (passes sold in multiple values) EZ Transit Pass for 22 agencies in Southern CA. (zone stickers sold)
Can also apply to Magnetic Card (Read only) Pass
Magnetic Card (Read/Write)
Fare card is programmed with either: Desired cash value (fare is deducted for each trip leg), or Period pass (rolling or fixed) good for unlimited regional travel
Rider purchases desired value which is encoded on card. Rider inserts card into read/encode unit which determines validity, deducts fare, encodes trip data If remaining value is not printed on card, handheld unit is used to display encoded info for fare inspection under proof-ofpayment system
With records of all linked trips, revenue for trip is allocated among agencies via predetermined business rules.
MetroCard in LA: stored-value card accepted on five local transit agencies (planned revenue sharing agreements were not implemented)
- 33 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies
Farecard Technology Smart Card (Read/Write) Card-based System
Approach Fare card can be programmed with desired fare(s) and/or cash purse.
Transaction Processing Rider purchases desired fare which is encoded on card; Rider touches card to reader which determines validity, deducts fare (if necessary), encodes trip data For proof-of-payment: fare inspector uses handheld unit to read/display encoded info on smart card. Rider sets up linked account with rules for a recurring autoload. Card reader verifies validity & records trip taken for post-processing of fare due
Revenue Reconciliation With records of all linked trips, revenue for trip is allocated among agencies via predetermined business rules.
Pros/Cons Accurate trip data eliminates reliance on periodic systemwide surveys to determine travel habits and allocate revenue. Costly system investment. Residual value on card is not visible to user.
Current Applications SF Bay Area: (Translink); WMATA (Wash DC; SmarTrip); CTA, PACE (ChicagoCard) Ventura County: (GoVentura) Minneapolis/St Paul:
Smart Card (Read-only) Account-based system Can also apply to Magnetic Card (Read-Only)
Fare card is not programmed with fare information Serial number on card ties to an account linked to checking or credit card account
Fare due for each trip is post-processed Revenue for trip is allocated among agencies via predetermined business rules.
Accurate complete trip data eliminates reliance on periodic systemwide surveys to determine travel habits and allocate revenue Paper proof-of-payment required for inspection on each light rail trip.
ChicagoCard Plus EZ-Pass on NE toll roads, bridges and tunnels; NYCT: Pilot project planned with Citibank MasterCard RFID fob
- 34 -
12/13/2007
Seattle-area Puget Pass
In the Seattle area, the Puget Pass is an unlimited-ride monthly, 3month and annual period pass offered in a number of face-value denominations; the face-value corresponds to the single-ride fare the pass is good for. Riders boarding a service with a higher fare pay the difference in cash. To make the Puget Pass work, the five participating agencies agreed to adjust fares to 25-cent increments and set common eligibility ages for seniors and children.
Interagency agreements in place for the agencies in each program distribute revenue according to formulae that rely on periodic passenger surveys. Both the EZ Pass and the Puget Pass programs will discontinue when the smart card programs that are in development in each region are operational. Magnetic Fare Cards Magnetic fare cards are used by a number of transit agencies in the US. Some have only preencoded period passes that require simple read-only swipe readers to verify validity and count boardings. Under these circumstances the magnetic fare card serves the same purpose as the printed period pass, with the additional benefit of electronically validating the card and recording the transaction. Other agencies have equipment that can encode as well as read data on the magnetic fare card6. This provides the flexibility of implementing stored-value fares where the appropriate fare is deducted with each boarding and rolling period passes which are initialized on first use and thereafter are good for unlimited riding during the period of validity. Depending upon its sophistication, the equipment processing the card will either accumulate rides and revenue collected for future reconciliation, or it will record each transaction so that ridership data on linked trips can be assembled. The magnetic fare card can be used for multi-agency purposes, although actual regional application has been limited. In Chicago, CTA and the suburban bus operator PACE share a common magnetic store-value fare card. Transit agencies in the Minneapolis area accept the SuperSaver stored-value card and SuperSaver 31-day unlimited-ride pass on their buses and trains as well7. Revenue is reconciled among agencies based upon stored-value revenue recorded and interagency agreements on revenue sharing. Both regions have recently implemented smart card programs. In Los Angeles, five municipal and transit zone carriers in the region have magnetic stored-value Metrocards. Although each agency sells its own Metrocard, each is accepted in the fareboxes of the other four agencies. The agencies did purchase the network infrastructure to reconcile revenue among the agencies, but with no business rules or operating procedures in place, do not calculate revenue due or exchange revenue. The Metrocard will be
LA Metrocard
Some of these agencies have GFI-Genfare Cents-a-Bill fareboxes with TRiM units like those on Yolobus, while others purchased Odyssey fareboxes with internal TRiM mechanism from the same manufacturer. 7 The stored-value card is not accepted on the Hiawatha light rail line without an accompanying transfer issued on a bus.
- 35 -
12/13/2007
discontinued with the start-up of the TAP smart card in LA, as it will be accepted by many more transit agencies and the solid-state equipment is expected to be considerably less expensive to maintain. Smart Cards Smart cards are in use or are being implemented by a number of transit agencies. The most prominent type of implementation is as a configurable fare card that can is read and reencoded during use. Encodable smart cards are at the heart of every smart card program in the US. The key feature of smart card technology that is attractive to multi-agency regions seeking to implement a universal fare card is the significant amount of data that can be quickly encoded and stored. While this feature is true of the smart card itself, it is just as important that the onboard devices reading the cards have the capacity to record and store each transaction record of smart card use and that the central computer systems have the capacity to using the data to reconcile revenue and track ridership. When a rider pays to add fare to a smart card, the card is encoded with the transaction and pertinent data is updated. At the same time, a record of that transaction is stored in the regional computer system. When that smart card is used to pay a fare onboard or at a station, a record of the individual transaction is also stored on the card and the pertinent data is again updated. At the same time, a record of that transaction is stored in the system. Records of the fares purchased, the trips made and fares paid are then reconciled at the regional level to determine revenue to be paid to each agency. Whereas the fare that is charged for each leg of a trip will be recorded on both the card and the system, the revenue collected for that trip (or attributed to the trip on an unlimited ride pass) will be shared by the agencies according to interagency business rules programmed into the system. Account-Based Systems: Read-only Smart Cards and Magnetic Fare Cards Encoding the smart card with up-to-date trip and fare data as described above is often referred to as a card-based system. An alternative approach is an account-based system. This treats the smart card more as a read-only fare instrument. All information on transactions with that card is recorded solely on the system. Rather than calculating the fare due at the time of trip to encode on the riders card, the fare due is calculated after the trip. The fare is then deducted from a money account associated with the riders smart card in a post-payment transaction. That account is itself linked to the riders bank account (checking or credit card) which automatically replenishes the smart card transit account when pre-set thresholds are met as the fare payments diminish the card account. A regional smart card system can have uses for both a card-based and account-based approach. The smart card system in Chicago has both types. The Chicago Card is card-based, while the Chicago Card Plus is account-based. CTA has established strong incentives to encourage riders to opt for the Plus card. On other transit systems any registered smart card can be linked to a bank account to replenish funds on the smart card.
- 36 -
12/13/2007
The EZ Pass system on the I-95 Corridor is a good example of an account-based system. A read-only transponder on a car windshield enables a car to use reserved lanes at turnpike, bridge and tunnel tollbooths. The associated EZ Pass account is charged the appropriate toll and is turn replenished by the car owners linked bank account. Revenue is paid out to the agency that is due the toll that was charged. NYCT recently completed a pilot program to gauge the viability of an account-based system using the Citi-Card Master Card PayPass as the fare instrument. Specially-equipped faregates at selected subway stations accepted the PayPass contactless credit card. Having demonstrated viability of the concept, the next phase of the pilot will involve equipping NYCT buses with contactless card readers to accept PayPass on vehicles. Smart Card Systems in the U.S. Smart card programs have been implemented with various procurement approaches which were influenced by overall system needs. Table 4-3 identifies those programs that are either in place or are in the implementation phase. Programs still in the planning or specification phases are not shown. In some cases, the smart card is part of a purchase of an entirely new fare collection system. Other smart card programs add smart card capability without changing out existing equipment. The transit systems in Atlanta and Boston have fully integrated smart card processing capability in new fareboxes, ticket vending machines and fare gates. MTA in Los Angeles has smart card processors in its new fareboxes and ticket vending machines. WMATA (Washington, DC) purchased new fareboxes and rail system add-fare machines for its smart card program. The Cleveland transit authority is also getting new bus and rail fare collection equipment with fully-integrated smart card functionality. On the other hand, the transit systems participating in smart card programs in Seattle, the Bay Area, Chicago, Houston and Minneapolis have retained the existing fareboxes. Onboard smart card equipment has no or very limited interface with the farebox, although there may be an interface with other onboard systems, for recording and/or communicating farerelated data, or for limiting the number of devices in the driver area. For their rail systems, a smart card program has either involved purchasing new TVMs or incorporating smart card processors into existing units to enable riders to add value to the cards at the station. When the smart card is part of a newly-procured fare collection system, the new fareboxes include smart card processing capability. Smart card readers are housed within the farebox and are fully integrated into the farebox logic, controls and displays. Although registering fareboxes can be purchased with smart card units, validating fareboxes have been the predominant type procured when an integrated smart card capability has been required. Neither farebox issues smart cards. When the smart card program is added to an existing bus fare collection system, the smart card onboard equipment typically remains separate from the farebox and farebox controls. It may, however, have an interface with other onboard equipment for data collection and communications.
- 37 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-3. Smart Card Programs in Place in the U.S.
Region/City; Lead Agency; No. Operators San Fran. Bay Area, CA Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC); 6 agencies Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN Metro Transit 13 other Regional Bus operators
System Description
Procurement Approach
Program Status
Translink Smart Card, for bus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, ferry.
Single Contractor managed by MTC, to design / install / manage smart card system
Six-agency pilot phase completed; Full deployment at two agencies (bus, ferry) begins summer 2006
GoTo and MetroPass smart cards for bus, new light rail In future: MinnDOT commuter rail
Single contractor managed by Metropolitan Council; Metro Council funded project and manages central clearing.
Currently in use systemwide by employees and employer-sponsored riders (MetroPass); Full smart card deployment begins Summer 2006 Fully deployed 2002; Upgrade planned for 2007, with new card readers and ISO-standard card.
Ventura County, CA; Ventura County Transport. Commission (VCTC); 6 operators Chicago, Ill; Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) w/PACE Suburban Bus Seattle, WA; Multi-Agency Project office; 7 agencies
Go Ventura smart card for bus; in future: regional rail
Single contractor managed by VCTC, to design / install smart card system; Funded by VCTC; VCTC manages central clearing Single contractor managed by CTA, for new rail fare equipment and systemwide smart card system Single contractor managed by joint project agency, via interlocal agreement, to design / install / manage smart card system Single contractor managed by WMATA, to design / install smart card capability and new fareboxes and addvalue machines; Separate contract for clearinghouse management
Chicago Card Chicago Plus smart cards for CTA bus, heavy rail, and PACE suburban bus ORCA smart card, for bus, light rail, commuter rail, ferry.
Fully deployed on CTA and all PACE buses. Plans to replace fareboxes on hold. Pilot phase deployment Sept 2006.
Washington, DC; Wash. Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
SmartTrip smart card for bus, heavy rail, parking; in future: suburban bus and commuter rail
Full WMATA deployment in 2004
- 38 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-3. Smart Card Programs in Place in the U.S.
Region/City; Lead Agency; No. Operators Los Angeles, CA; LACMTA; 16 agencies
System Description
Procurement Approach
Program Status
TAP smart card for bus, light & heavy rail
Individual contracts with a single contractor; no MOUs but coordination with MTA and among smaller operators; MTA contract for new bus/rail equipment and systemwide smart card system; Other agencies contract for smart card and retain existing fareboxes; Separate contract for clearinghouse management Original two contracts (1) bus smart card, (2) rail fare equipment and smart card system; bus/rail smart card integration by contractor coordination; Third contract now let for a single smart card system & new rail TVMs Single contractor managed by MBTA, for new bus/rail fare equipment and smart card system Single contractor managed by MARTA, to design / install new fare equipment with smart card system
LACMTA installations complete midSummer 2006. Municipal agency installations complete Spring 2007. Smart card deployment begins thereafter.
Houston, TX Houston Metro; Sole agency
MetroCard smart card for bus, new light rail system
In operation on buses end of May 2006; interim operation on rail MaySept, with full deployment September 2006
Boston, MA MBTA; Sole agency Atlanta, GA MARTA; Sole agency
Charlie card for bus, heavy rail, commuter rail
Currently in use by employees. Equipment modifications in progress prior to full deployment System installation in progress; full deployment by end of 2006
Breeze smart card for bus, rail
- 39 -
12/13/2007
For new station equipment on a rail or bus rapid transit line, ticket vending machines also have fully-integrated smart card processors within the housing to add value to the card with cash or credit/debit card. Some TVMs are specified to vend smart cards; The Atlanta TVMs vend both personal (long-term use) and limited-use disposable smart cards. On proof-of-payment fare collection systems, stand-alone smart card validators process pre-loaded smart cards in much the same manner that the smart card unit in the farebox does. Fare inspectors, who must visually inspect a riders smart card to verify that the appropriate fare has been paid, will use a handheld card reader to decode and display the information encoded on the smart card.
MARTA Limited-use Card (paper stock)
Smart Card System Characteristics

Using a Smart Card System
MARTA Extended-use Card (plastic stock)
A smart card system takes full advantage of electronic technology available today, not just in how a fare is paid on a bus or at a train station. It constitutes a paradigm shift in how a card holder purchases fare to load onto the card, with a menu of ways to do so off-site, online or automatically after an initial setup. The card holder is now encouraged to register the card in return for a number of benefits that include replacement of fare on a lost or stolen card, and linking the card to a bank account so the card is never short on fare. Rather than purchasing a new pass every month or punch pass or ticket book every so often, the card holder is also expected to keep the same card for several years replenishing the value on the card. The variety of ways in which a card holder can add value to a smart card is described in Table 4-5. Card holders can add value on an as-needed basis, paying with cash or credit card at a walk-up location such as an agency office, customer service center or ticket vending machine. The individual can opt to add-value online, paying on an as-needed basis with a credit card each time the card needs reloading. If the card is registered and is linked to a bank account, the card holder can pay online or by automated phone system. Or he or she can set up a recurring autoload account that automatically adds value to the card based upon criteria set by the individual. Third-party institutions such as social agencies and schools may bulk purchase limited-use pre-encoded cards for those requiring transit for specific trips. Universities can issue student ID cards that are created on blank card stock, enabling transit agencies to better track transit use by students, control misuse and better associate revenues with ridership. A regional smart card system can be a considerable benefit to employers in the Sacramento region. Rather that purchasing passes and tickets from each of a number of transit agencies in the region, an employer can issue registered smart cards to its employees initially, and then make electronic payments to individual transit benefit accounts that charge a smart card each month with value that expires at months end and retuned unused value to the employer.
- 40 -
12/13/2007
Merchants may be equipped with point of sale devices to add value to smart cards; equipping merchants is a means of providing a region-wide network of locations for loading value, providing a convenience that encourages use of the card. Alternatively, a region-wide network can be provided by equipping buses with validating fareboxes and enabling them to perform reload transactions while in revenue service. WMATA (Washington, DC) provides this service to its riders. Other agencies do not provide this service due to concerns about delays boarding the bus. Paying fare with a smart card is convenient and straightforward. Riders simply touch (tag) their card to the smart card reader when boarding the bus or on the platform before boarding a light rail train. The card never leaves the individuals hand and the transaction is completed in less than half a second. A positive audible tone and light indicates that the transaction was successfully completed. The transaction may include an autoload transaction that adds fare to the card. For trips on lines that may charge zone-based fares, a card holder may first need to indicate the intended destination so that the appropriate fare can be charged. This may involve telling the driver or pressing a destination button on the reader itself. Alternatively, the system can be programmed so that riders tag the card both on entry and on exit, thereby enabling the system to calculate the appropriate fare during the exit transaction. Typically, the maximum fare is deducted on entry and corrected on exit. Actually programming will be determined as part of the business rules defining policy.
- 41 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-4. Purchasing Fare on a Smart Card System Method/Location Basic Walk-Up Methods Agency Offices and Customer Service Centers Social Agencies, Schools, Tourists, Conventions, Hotels, etc. Universities and Colleges Customer Service Terminal Agency Rep
Rep accepts payment, programs terminal to add value; Card holder tags card to target which adds purchased value to the card
Equipment
Personnel
Steps to Purchase Fare
Customer Service Terminal with highvolume smart card printer/encoder Customer Service Terminal with highvolume smart card printer/encoder
Agency Rep
Organization bulk purchases limited-use cards which are encoded in transit
agency back office;

Organization distributes fare cards to individuals who use card for transit.
Agency Rep
Two options for card production: Universities create serialized student photo ID cards using blank cards, which
are activated during student registration

School sends transit agency electronic files of photos and other ID information,
which agency uses to produce personalized card

Students touch card to card reader on bus or station platform; School is post-billed based on trips recorded
Transit Stations; Transit Centers
Ticket Vending Machine
Self-Service
Card holder selects add-value transaction, value to add & means of payment; tags
card to target which adds purchased value to the card.

(Optionally, TVMs can dispense new cards)
Online Methods (For Registered Card Holders Only) Web Site (one-time purchase: "directed autload") Personal Computer with Web Site Access Self-Service
Card holder enters card account and PIN to log-in; selects add-value transaction;
enters value to add, credit card number;

Web site processes and confirms transaction. Later, value ($$ and/or pass) is automatically added when card is touched to card
reader on bus or station platform Automatic (automatic replenishment: "recurring autoload") Personal Computer with Web Site Access; or Agency Office (for setup or changes) Self-service
Pre-set value or pass is automatically encoded onto card according to rules
selected by card holder when touched to card reader on bus or platform

Card-holder can temporarily suspend or modify rules via agency office or online NOTE: Requires one-time step linking card to credit card or checking account in
advance of use: at agency office or online
- 42 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-4. Purchasing Fare on a Smart Card System (continued)

Method/Location Equipment Personnel Steps to Purchase Fare
Online Methods (For Registered Card Holders Only) (Continued) Automated Phone System Telephone Self-service
Card holder calls automated service, enters account number and PIN Phone
system offers menu options

Patron selects add-value option and value to add; Later, value ($$ and/or pass) is automatically added when card is touched to card
reader on bus or station platform

NOTE: Requires one-time step linking card to credit card or checking account in
advance of use: at agency office or online Employers Web Site or Agency Office Employer Transportation Coordinator (ETC)
One-time set-up, linking card to employer-based transit benefit account; ETC maintains employee database; every month places employer-determined
value in each card-holding employee's transit benefits account;

Value is automatically encoded onto card when touched to card reader on bus or
station platform;
Unused value at end-of-month can be programmed to expire and be debited back
to employer (so unused value does not accumulate).

(Optionally, employer can send transit agency electronic files of photos and ID
information for production of joint use employee ID / transit cards. Expanded Regional Coverage: Walk-up Onboard Buses Validating Farebox Driver
Driver sets farebox for add-value transaction; Card holder inserts cash into farebox, tags card to reader which adds cash value
to the amount on the card Merchant (Store, Check Cashing Service, etc.) Retail Sales Terminal Trained Merchant Employee
Employee accepts payment, programs terminal to add value; Card holder tags card to target which adds purchased value to the card
- 43 -
12/13/2007
Because a smart card will have no fare information printed on it, all inspection of card validity will require a reader that provides a visual display of the encoded information. The driver will have a digital display and control panel. A fare inspector on the light rail line will use a handheld card reader. Card holders will be able to check their card at the card readers and TVMs.
Translink Driver Control Unit
Translink Onboard Validator
Translink Handheld Card Readers (in Cradle)
Translink Platform Validator (w/zone buttons)
- 44 -
12/13/2007
Smart Card Equipment As the smart card system has been described, the equipment with which the smart card interfaces has been identified. Table 4-5 provides more details regarding the features of each unit, the suppliers to the North American market and approximate price range. Each of the listed suppliers has successfully implemented smart card systems. While competition for farebox systems remains light with at best only three suppliers at present, the number of suppliers for smart card systems technology itself remains robust with at least five established competitors.
Metro Transit TVM & Validator
Metro Transit Bus w/ smart card football
Smart Card Data Characteristics Earlier mention was made of the considerable capacity for storing data that is a characteristic of the smart card. Whereas a magnetic fare card may hold up to 64 bytes of encoded data, a smart card can currently hold as much as 5000-plus bytes (5KB). This enables the transit agency and the regional system to provide a number of services to the patron. An illustration of how transit systems can take advantage of this data capacity is provided in Table 4-6. The table shows the data fields that can be encoded onto the smart card to establish user profile and then track and process fare transactions. (Note: smart card data formats developed for actual system applications or defined in the pending APTA UTFS standards may differ from those in Table 4-6, but are similar in concept.) While the final data fields defined for the card would be influenced by the needs of the participating agencies and by anticipated standards that are expected to be adopted within the year, the table shows the benefits that can be provided: Greater control and tracking: with unique serial number, card status, and agency identifier, and expiration date Greater fare flexibility: with fields identifying fare category, employer/sponsor, and birth date fields to better define fare eligibilities and restrictions. Improved convenience to the patron: with the ability to establish recurring autoloads with user-defined threshold replenishment criteria; and in other cases, to purchase a pending fare (e.g., a pass for next month) prior to the expiration of the current fare on the card
- 45 12/13/2007
Table 4-5. Smart Card Equipment in US Market Equipment Independent Onboard Contactless Smart Card System Suppliers to North America ACS Transport Solutions Cubic Transportation Sys. ERG Fare Logistics Innovision Scheidt & Bachmann Thales Transportation Syst. Features Processes ISO-compliant contactless cards Registers all transactions individually Multi-line patron display Some provide limited patron selection buttons Most provide separate driver control unit Wireless data communications Optional integration with on-board systems Optional GPS systems (or integrate with) Based on industrial-grade hand-held computer Processes ISO-compliant contactless cards Registers all transactions individually Smart card reader may be integral or separate Single display and control (operator/patron) Battery operated or powered while in cradle Data communications usually via cradle May operate read-only for POP inspection Optional receipt printer via Blue Tooth Usually based on On-board Systems design Rugged stainless steel enclosures Patron displays and controls (subset of driver) Processes ISO-compliant contactless cards Registers all transactions individually Ethernet data communicates May be proprietary or based on OEM product Processes ISO-compliant contactless cards Registers all transactions individually Multi-line operator/patron display Integrated operator controls Integrated receipt printer Smart card reader may be integral or separate Usually do not process credit/debit cards Secure dial-up communications Optional Ethernet communications Approximate Price Range $2,000 to $4,000 base
On-board systems integration priced as NRE
Hand-held Smart Card Terminals
ACS Transport Solutions Cubic Transportation Sys. ERG Scheidt & Bachmann Thales Transportation Sys
$2,500 to $3,500 base
Station Platform Smart Card Validators
ACS Transport Solutions Cubic Transportation Sys ERG Scheidt & Bachmann Thales Transportation Sys
$6,000 to $12,000
Retail Smart Card Point of Sales Terminals
ACS Transport Solutions Cubic Transportation Sys ERG Scheidt & Bachmann Thales Transportation Sys
$2,500 to $4,000
- 46 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-5. Smart Card Equipment in US Market Equipment Agency Smart Card Point of Sales Terminals Suppliers to North America ACS Transport Solutions Cubic Transportation Sys ERG GFI-Genfare Scheidt & Bachmann Thales Transportation Sys Features Usually PC-based Processes ISO-compliant contactless cards Registers all transactions individually Most include touch screen operator interface Smart card reader may be integral or separate Receipt printer (integral or separate) Ethernet communications Can operate as central computer workstation Can operate in bulk encode mode Optional separate patron display Optionally processes credit/debit cards Optional interface with bulk encoder/printer Optional interface with digital camera Validates coins and bills Registers all transactions individually Separate driver control unit Magnetic card swipe reader Wireless data communication Optional contactless smart card system Optional magnetic read/write/print system Optional integration with on-board systems Approximate Price Range $4,000 to $8,000
$500 for separate patron display $500 to $1,000 for credit/debit card processing Optional interfaces priced as NRE
Electronic Validating Farebox
Fare Logistics GFI-Genfare Scheidt & Bachmann
$7,000 to $10,000 base
$500 to $1,000 for contactless smart card option $2,500 to $3,000 for read/write/print magnetic option On-board systems integration priced as NRE $5,000 to $5,500 base
Electronic Registering Farebox
GFI-Genfare
Identifies and counts coins Identifies and counts bills and coupons Registers all transactions individually Integrated driver controls Optional magnetic swipe card reader Optional wireless data communications Optional contactless smart card system Optional magnetic read/write/print system Optional separate driver control unit Optional integration with on-board systems
$500 for optional magnetic swipe reader $500 for optional wireless communications $750 to $1,000 for optional contactless smart card $3,500 to $4,000 for read/write/print magnetic option $1,000 to $1,500 for optional driver control unit On-board systems integration priced as nonrecurring engineering (NRE)
- 47 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-6. Smart Card Data Fields Conceptual Approach
Data Field Issue Records Usually Encoded at Time of Issue Serial Number
Description
Typical Data Range
Unique identifier for each card. Hard-coded at time of smart card chip manufacture. Long-life cards have 16-digit numbers; disposable cards have 32-digit numbers. Field that defines whether card can be used. Initially, cards shall be encoded so that they cannot be used until issued. If an attempt is made to use a card on the bad card list, the card is deactivated to prevent further use.
16 or 32 digits
Card Status
Values can be: UNUSED, ISSUED, DEACTIVATED 1 to 255 16 types 1 to 20,000
Agency Identifier Fare Category Sponsor / Employer Identification Fixed Card Expiration Date Card Replacement Due Date Threshold Autoload Identification Number Recurring Autoload Interval
Identifies issuing agency or region. Identifies cardholders fare eligibilities (i.e., senior, student, disabled, etc.) Unique identification number for employer and other sponsor participants. Used for tracking and possibly postbilling purposes. Some cards (such as student passes or annual employer passes) will be designed to expire on a fixed date. In such cases, this expiration date field is encoded at time of issue and is thereafter read-only. The anticipated life of a card is encoded at the time of issue. Attempts to use the card past this date are permitted, but the card readers will provide a warning message that the card is due for replacement. Each threshold autoload will be assigned a unique identification number by the agency. This field is populated at the time the autoload is authorized, and is thereafter read-only until the autoload is canceled or changed.
Date field
Date field
0 to 250,000
Unlike threshold autoloads which occur based on remaining value or expired passes, recurring autoloads take place on a regular frequency, such as monthly (e.g., for transit benefits). This field defines the frequency at which any recurring autoload is to occur.
8 pre-defined frequency values
-48 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-6. Smart Card Data Fields Conceptual Approach (continued)
Data Field Issue Records Usually Encoded at Time of Issue (continued) Autoload Transaction Fare Type Autoload Transaction Data
Description
Typical Data Range
For smart cards with threshold or recurring transactions, this field will indicate the type of transaction that is to occur when triggered by low value, expired pass, or recurring frequency. This field is populated at the time the autoload is authorized, and is thereafter read-only until the autoload is canceled or changed. Data related to threshold or recurring transaction, such as value to add, number of days of service for unlimited ride passes, or number of trips. This field is populated at the time the autoload is authorized, and is thereafter read-only until the autoload is canceled or changed. If eligibility rules for discount fares (such as senior or student) vary among participating agencies, the Card Holder Birth Date field is used to ascertain eligibility for reduced fare
256 fare types
$0.00 to $250.00 or 1 day to 5 years or 1 to 512 trips Date field
Card Holder Birth Date
Transaction Fields May be Modified for Each Transaction Last Transaction Date Remaining Value This field is updated with each transaction. Cards that have no transaction activity for more than an agencydefine period (typically 2 years) are considered dormant and are rejected for use. Current cash value of the card. Permitted range of maximum and minimum values is agency-adjustable. Negative values are also supported. For each pass, indicates whether the smart card has pass privileges. Field values distinguish between unused (not yet activated) pass and currently active pass. Date field
$-10.00 to $1000.00 Values can be: NONE, PENDING, ACTIVE
Pass Status (multiple concurrent passes supported) Pass Type (for each pass) Pending Expiration Duration (for each pass)
Indicates fare category, such as: Local Full Fare, 3-Zone Full Fare, Express Reduced Fare, etc. May also be used to indicate stored trip pass type. When an unlimited ride pass is pending (not yet activated), this field indicates the number of days of service that are to be provided upon activation (i.e., first use). If pass type is stored trip, field indicates number of trips to be provided.
256 fare types
1 day to 5 years or 1 to 500 trips
-49 -
12/13/2007
Table 4-6. Smart Card Data Fields Conceptual Approach (continued)
Data Field
Description
Typical Data Range
Transaction Fields May be Modified for Each Transaction (continued) Pass Expiration (for each pass) Embedded Transfer Type Embedded Transfer Expiration Transaction Records Expiration date of the active unlimited ride pass. If pass type is stored trip, counter for number of rides remaining. Date field or 1 to 500 trips 256 fare types
If an embedded transfer exists (typically created for each stored value or stored trip usage), this field defines the fare category applicable to the transfer. If an embedded transfer exists, this field defines the date and time that the transfer expires
Date and time field
Records of at least the last 10 transactions, which include date, time, device number, transaction value, transaction type, previous stored value, and other necessary data to implement the agencys fare and transfer policies. Often, add-value transactions are recorded separately from usage transactions.
Multiple fields
-50 -
12/13/2007
Regional Smart Card Program Network Architecture

The following diagrams depict conceptual designs of the possible networking architecture for the various elements of the new fare collection system. Each diagram shows one possible solution; alternative approaches will be identified and evaluated as this study progresses. Moreover, because of the flexibility of modern networking systems, to satisfy the unique needs of the participating agencies, more than one solution for any given component of the system may be implemented. Overall Network Architecture Figure 4-1 shows how smart card transactions and related communications will flow through a regional communications network to the clearing house system. This top-level view of the possible network architecture depicts each element of the system as a separate component. It also shows that a particular approach need not be applied to the entire system; for example, some Point-of-Sales devices may be controlled (or commissioned) by a central regional organization whereas others may be installed and controlled by individual agencies. In either case, the smart card transaction and other data must eventually be shared with the central clearing house. This diagram should not be construed to mean that an agency that operates more than one type of field device (such as on-board card readers and point-ofsales terminals) must have distinct subsystems; an agency can utilize a shared computer system to manage multiple elements. Bus Systems Network Architecture Four possible bus network configurations are shown in Figure 4-2. (Use of wireless communication for transferring data between on-board equipment and the central computer is shown conceptually for each approach.) In the first configuration, the bus is equipped with a smart card reader fully integrated into an electronic farebox. As such, there is a single data connection between the farebox and the garage (depot) computer; all cash and smart card data is exchanged via the single wireless connection. The computer in each depot communicates with the regional smart card clearing house computer, either directly or via an agency computer (which would collect data from all of the agencys depot computers, if applicable). Only data relevant to the Regional Fare Card program need be shared with the clearing house computer. In the second configuration, the bus is equipped with smart card equipment that remains separate from an existing electronic registering farebox. In such cases, the farebox will likely continue using its tethered optical probe for data exchange with the existing farebox computer system, and the stand-alone smart card system would use wireless technology to communicate with a distinct computer system. To provide a coherent view of all fare collection activities (revenue, ridership, etc.), data from both the farebox and the smart card computer are shown being merged in a agency host computer, which then communicates with the regional clearing house computer. (Again, only relevant Regional Fare Card data is shared with the clearing house.) In the third and fourth scenarios, the bus has no electronic registering farebox, and is equipped with a stand-alone smart card reader. In the third scenario, the computer resides in
- 51 -
12/13/2007
the agencys depot, whereas in the other, the computer is the central clearing house system itself. In this latter case, the agency has no computer in-house, but has only the necessary antenna and other communications hardware to link directly to the central clearing house computer. In this case, the clearing house computer would be configured to provide the agency access so that required queries and reports could be generated directly from the clearing house computer database. LRT Network Architecture One potential approach to the network architecture for the LRT component is shown in Figure 4-3. Each TVM and stand-alone smart card validator communicates via Ethernet hub/router and data transmission network with the TVM control computer and central clearing house computer. The hub/router can be located in either a TVM, as shown in the diagram, or a communications enclosure or other cabinet nearby. The smart card reader in the TVM can be fully integrated into the TVM logic, which is more-readily achievable when procured with the TVM. Smart card readers that are retrofitted into existing TVMs may not be fully integrated, but instead may have a communications interface with the TVM logic that facilitates completion of a smart card transaction. With this so-called black box approach, direct communication may also occur between the smart card reader and the central clearinghouse computer. As with the bus systems, only data relevant to the Regional Fare Card would be exchanged with the clearing house. Hand Held Terminal Network Architecture Hand-held terminals are industrial-grade portable devices that may be either custom designed or off-the-shelf personal data assistants (PDAs) with an attached smart card reader. LRT fare inspectors will use hand-held terminals to visually display encoded information on the smart card and to record the inspection. The devices can also hold a database of hotlisted cards and habitual evaders and other miscreants. These portable terminals may also be used by paratransit / dial-a-ride van operators to process fares if vehicle configuration makes installing equipment difficult. For either application, these devices need to communicate with the central computer to upload/download data. Figure 4-4 shows how they communicate with a workstation PC via their charging cradles. The workstation itself communicates with the central system computer via WAN. Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture Two basic configurations for networking the merchant point of sale terminals are illustrated in Figure 4-5. In one case, one or more agencies manage the terminals and maintain communications interfaces via an agency computer. In the other scenario, the central clearing house has the necessary equipment to communicate with terminals that are under the jurisdiction of the region. In either case, these devices typically communicate via standard dial-up phone lines. Under these circumstances, regular communication with the devices is vital to minimize fraud, with specialized communications infrastructure to support the devices while maintaining network security. Typically, the point of sales terminals will use encrypted, password-protected
communications protocols. In addition, all terminals will communicate with a specialized server that, via caller ID features, limits incoming calls to only those phone lines previously identified as being authentic. Network design readily accommodates a mix of retail outlets that communicate either directly with the clearinghouse or through an agency.. Agency Customer Service Center Network Architecture An agency upgrading a sales office to a smart card customer service center will typically equip one or more workstations to provide a broad range of capabilities: sale and initialization of new fare cards; replacement of lost cards including sale, registration, restoration of value, hotlisting of the lost card; production of photo ID smart cards, etc. A network for this customer service function is illustrated in Figure 4-6. The PC-based workstations have peripheral equipment that usually includes: cash drawers, receipt printers, credit/debit card readers and networked report printers, digital cameras and card encoder/printers. All devices in the sales office are networked together, and a link to the central clearing house is also provided. Data can be routed either through the agency computer or directly to the clearing house. Smart Card Clearing House Architecture Conceptually, the smart card clearing house system is shown in Figure 4-7 with each major function supported by a distinct computer system. While this is not an absolute requirement, the diagram reflects the most common architectures implemented for such systems. (Not shown on the diagram is the communications server dedicated to managing telephone communications with the merchant point of sales terminals that would be required should any such devices communicate directly with the clearing house.) Smart Bus Network Architecture Where a bus operator has a smart bus system installed, the ability to support additional operator interfaces can be constrained due to limited space on the bus dashboard. Consequently, it becomes necessary to integrate the stand-alone smart card system with the smart bus system to utilize a common driver interface, and potentially a common wireless LAN infrastructure. Figure 4-8 depicts a possible design for such systems. In this drawing, the farebox remains a completely separate system on the bus, with no integration with either the smart card or the smart bus system. The smart card reader, however, is linked to the on-board computer so that via the common Mobile Display Terminal (MDT), the driver may provide data entry when required (such as when changing a fare set), and so that transaction results may be displayed to the driver. Similarly, the smart card system would utilize the wireless LAN infrastructure of the smart bus system to communicate (via a router) with the agencys smart card computer system. Ultimately, data relevant to the Regional Fare Card would then be shared with the central clearing house computer.
- 53 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Overall Network Functional Architecture
Regional Retail Point of Sales Terminals
Bus Operators
Handheld Inspector Terminals
Agency Retail Point of Sales Terminals
WAN
Rail Platform Systems
Transit Center Sales Terminals
Smart Card Clearing House System
- 54 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Bus Systems Network Architectures
Electronic Farebox with Integrated Smart Card Electronic Farebox with Independent Smart Card Non-Registering Farebox with Agency Computer
Non-Registering Farebox - No Agency Computer
Vaulting Interface
Farebox Probe and Vaulting Interface
ar t Sm
a rt Sm
a rt Sm
i W iF rd an d Ca Da ta art Sm reb o x Fa
i WiF D a ta Ca rd
i WiF D a ta Ca rd
i WiF d D a ta Ca r
Depot Computer
Farebox Depot Computer
Smart Card Depot Computer
Agency Computer
WiFi Point of Presence
Agency Computer
Agency Computer
WAN
- 55 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-3: Conceptual LRT Station Networking Architecture
Typical LRT Station SONET System Controller
Master TVM Patron Display
Typical Hiawatha LRT Station TVM Typical Hiawatha LRT Station

Patron Display
Print
Coin
Bill
Print
Coin
Bill
TVM System Computer
Smart Card TVM Controller Credit Card Ethernet Hub/ Router
Smart Card Validator Smart Card TVM Controller
Smart Card Credit Card
Smart Card Validator Smart Card
Control
Control
WAN
Ethernet
SONET Interface in Station Comm Enclosure
LRT SONET (fiber optic cable transmission system)

Figure 4-4: Conceptual Handheld Terminal Networking Architecture
Police / Fare Inspector Facility
Charging / Data Cradle
RS-232 to Ethernet Adapter
Ethernet
Workstation
Report Printer
Agency Network Computer
WAN
Router Clearing House System
- 57 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-5: Conceptual Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture

Agency-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal Agency-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal
Agency-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal
56K Dial U P
56
i al
UP
UP i al KD 56
Region-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal Region-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal
Region-contracted Merchant Retail Point-of-Sales Terminal
Communications Server
56K Dial U P
56
Di al
UP
56
Di
al
UP
Agency System Computer
Communications Server
WAN
- 58 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-6: Conceptual Agency Customer Service Center Network Architecture
Sales Office Terminal

Credit/ Debit Card Reader Smart Card Reader Patron Display
Receipt Printer
PC with Touch Touch Screen Screen
Bulk Encoder/ Printer
Cash Drawer
Digital Camera
Ethernet
Customer Service / Sales Office
Report Printer
WAN
Router Agency Network Computer Smart Card Clearing House System
- 59 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-7: Conceptual Central Clearing House Architecture
Smart Card Clearing House

Credit/Debit Processor
Internet
SNMP Server Internet Server
Report Server Credit/Debit Server
Ethernet Backbone
Router Database Server User Workstations

Database
Wide Area Network
- 60 -
12/13/2007
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Smart Bus Configuration
Agency Smart Card Computer CAD / AVL Computer
WAN
Router
Farebox Computer
Bus Garage
Smart Card
Bus Vehicle Network Farebox
Wireless LAN
Optical Probe
Mobile Display Terminal
Intelligent Vehicle Logic Unit
Smart Card Validator
- 61 -
12/13/2007
Market Research
This section assesses potential acceptance of a region-wide electronic transit farecard in the Sacramento area. It examines local transit user preferences as a component for developing strategies for structuring a regional program. Based upon study findings to date, this report focused on the application of smart card technology for this program. A two-pronged approach was taken: 1. Non-transit institutional partners: A roundtable discussion was held with representatives of companies, government offices and local schools/universities to discuss potential acceptance by those who sell or issue passes to employees, students and other select groups; 2. Transit users: Four focus group sessions were conducted with representative samples of transit users with a range of travel habits and needs, to identify what features would either encourage or discourage use of the farecard. The results of the group discussions held with both the institutional representatives and the transit users are discussed. The findings focus on how the feedback received from the participants can be related to a regional program strategy. Lessons learned from other regions that have implemented a regional smart card are also discussed, again from the standpoint of developing a program strategy. The process by which the participants of the discussion groups were identified and recruited is described in the appendix. It also describes participant characteristics.
Roundtable Discussion with Non-Transit Institutional Partners

Meeting Details On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, twenty-one stakeholders participated in a roundtable discussion hosted by SACOG. The meeting was held at SACOGs Board Room located at 1415 L Street, Suite 300. Participants included representatives from local universities and schools, private employers, state government offices, and social service agencies. This roundtable was organized to get feedback from those organizations that either sell or distribute passes to employees as a transit benefit, or issue photo IDs that serve both transit and non-transit functions (e.g., student IDs). The project team gave a presentation on smart card technology, fare payment, and farecard distribution and control. Use of online tools to manage and add fare was described, as was the means by which smart card stock could be used for producing and validating student IDs. Potential other non-transit uses were also discussed. Most of the meeting was dedicated to discussion by the meeting participants, answering questions and getting feedback on both positive points and concerns. Meeting Results All meeting attendees actively participated in the discussions following the presentation. As their questions were answered, everyone provided very enthusiastic and positive feedback
- 62 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Market Research
about a regional farecard program incorporating a smart card. Those questions raised were largely related to operational issues. These included: How would it be implemented? What costs would be associated with the card and start-up? How would it function? What technology needs or functions would be required by partners? How would a farecard system be managed? How would farecard funds management and distribution be conducted?
How would a farecard system work for occasional riders? As these operational issues were addressed, those who are responsible for administering employee transit benefit programs indicated that they would take advantage of the system. The main sentiment expressed by the attendees was the regional need for an improved, efficient fare payment system and a desire for timely implementation. They expressed agreement that the stated advantages of the system would benefit them, including: Flexibility in adding different fare types on a card (e.g., monthly pass, cash, multiride) Ease-of-use (e.g., loading cards online, auto load, etc.) Simplified fare payment and card management Processing time and cost savings (e.g., labor, postage) Means of preventing farecard misuse Availability of valuable data (e.g., transit use by employees and students). Issues of Interest, Advantages and Opportunities Cashless Accountability/fraud (at university level) Multi-purpose identification Possible lost saving benefits Processing/administration time Incentives Postage/administration time cost savings Flexibility/universal Ease of Use Pre-tax Ridership data ADA identification Alternative identification
Meeting comments covered the following topics:
- 63 -
12/13/2007
Timely opportunity not to be missed
Issues of Concern, Disadvantages, and Barriers
Different contractors/bargaining/prices Shared technology (e.g., parking) Limited participation (e.g., San Joaquin, Amador, Solano Links not included) Feasibility for smaller agencies Ridership tracking on free ride days Security of information Do not want it to be too regional Labor unions/level of subsidy Integration with existing infrastructure at state offices and others Occasional users and pass they need Still need to accommodate cash
How to Address Concerns
How to enlarge and provide incentives and coordination? How to prevent misuse? Set-up fee structures? Grant funding to implement for transit agencies? How much does this card replace (tickets for occasional riders)?
Other Comments Who is managing money and system? Implementation costs? (Product, software, hardware, etc.) Who sets up? Who pays? Chicago provides incentives for card use (fare discounts) Let us get something going now What is needed for transit operators? Is there a user-processing fee? Pilot program with Regional Transit? Want inter-agency connectivity (Galt, Sacramento, Elk Grove) Provide incentives for other agencies to join Air Quality, use, etc. Can we get this kind of data from this? What colleges coop in Chicago card? Looking at a multi-use type card? Social equality? When will it be implemented?
Stakeholder meeting notes and a list of attendees are provided in the report appendix.
- 64 -
12/13/2007
Focus Group Meetings with Transit Users

Meeting Details Four focus groups were held in the evenings (6:30 pm 8:30 pm) of July 24 through July 27, 2006. Meetings were held at convenient and accessible locations that provided a setting conducive to participation and open dialog. Each focus group was organized by type of transit user: Commuters and frequent riders; Seniors, persons with disabilities or transit dependent riders; Students (K-12, Community College and University Level); and riders; Occasional riders or those who transfer between other transit systems
Forty participants were recruited, ten per focus group. After background information and a presentation were provided for attendees, the four separate groups were asked the same four questions: What farecard/smart card program features would be attractive to users? What do you like/dislike about potential shared or multi-use systems? How would a universal farecard be convenient? Where and how would it be most convenient to purchase or reload farecards?
Participants were also offered the opportunity to provide additional written and oral comments during the discussion meeting. Meetings were audio taped and summary notes were prepared. Meeting Results Overall, the concept was well received. This is borne out by repeated comments relating to the cards flexibility, ease-of-use, personal management, and potential shared or multiple uses. The only major concern identified was security. The following is a summary of common comments received categorized by the four questions. A consolidated list of all comments for each question is provided in the appendix. Discussion group meeting notes for all four groups are also provided in the appendix. Discussion group meeting notes include additional participant comments from their Travel Characteristic Survey.
Attractive Farecard Features
All discussion groups were asked what farecard program features would be most attractive to them. Common participant responses received from all groups included: One card is good on all transit systems, and can be reused for years Ease of use/convenience Eliminates need to obtain a new monthly pass/add money
- 65 -
12/13/2007
Easy fare management (on-line, telephone, mail/money orders, readers at light rail stops) Consolidate the number of cards (used for retailers, other transit uses, etc.) Potential for multi-use, on transit, for non-transit purchases (retail) and other transportation payments (highway/bridge tolls, parking fees) Potential for bonuses and rewards (financial incentives) Personal management/control Simplified regional fares payment system Information line (telephone and Web) The desire for an audio feature Farecard could be used as disabled identification
Comments specific to seniors, persons with disabilities or transit dependent riders included:
Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications
All focus group participants were asked what element(s) they would like or dislike about a shared or multi-use farecard system. Common comments received from all groups about desirable features included: The need for fewer cards The potential for incentives (rewards/discounts at retailers) Retail uses (drug stores, grocery, coffee houses) Student/employee uses (identification, building access, student library, etc.) Community library access Use with multiple transit agencies Parental control (providing money or resources for children) Employer flexibility
The key element the groups disliked about the concept was security concerns (especially if lost or stolen). Seniors, persons with disabilities or transit dependent riders also had the following favorable comments: It would help the visually-impaired individual remain anonymous because they currently have to show all of their cards to cashiers and ask them to select the appropriate card Could provide Paratransit eligibility/identification confirmation when traveling within other transit agency territories
- 66 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Market Research Perceived Relative Convenience
Discussion group participants in all groups were asked how a universal farecard might be convenient for them. Comments received from the groups included: Saves time (do not have to pick-up monthly pass, adding fare, faster boarding, etc.) Cashless Durable (does not break or de-magnetize) Allow various types of payment options Ability to add fare at multiple locations Include customer service telephone number on the card with live customer service access (for account balances, questions, etc.) Shared applications (transit, retail, employee/student identification, taxi fare, shuttle fare, gas, parking garage, etc.) Web-based and automated Employers/Agencies pay subsidies directly (payroll deduction, pre-tax) Ability to access the card 24-hours a day
Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing or Reloading a Farecard
All four participant groups were asked about convenient ways to purchase or add money to farecard. They were asked how and where purchasing and reloading would be most accessible and convenient. Preferred locations among participants from all groups included: Online Telephone Grocery stores ATMs Retail stores (7-11, Wal-Mart, etc.) Transit outlets/near transit Public use facilities (post office, library, etc.) Office/employer site (automatic payroll/employer deduction)
Seniors, persons with disabilities and transit dependent riders identified one additional preferred location: Disability/Social Service organizations and agencies (Easter Seals, Society for the Blind, etc.) Schools
Student riders also identified one additional preferred location:
- 67 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Market Research Additional Questions and Comments
Some participants had additional questions and provided general comments about issues related to fare payment and marketing of a farecard system. These included: Additional Questions Would they cancel your card when it is lost or stolen? How fast and how soon would it be cancelled? If the cards could be connected to financial institutions, how much would you be liable if your card is lost or stolen? Is it like a credit card? Additional Comments Could make it easier for agencies to increase fares. Would be nice to have a universal transit fare rate. At some point, it would be neat to be able to use the same card all over the state and/or nation. Using a public ATM for farecard applications creates personal security concerns. Concern that someone could hack into the system. There is hardly any security on the light rail trains. A person might be able to tamper with the machines on the train. Worry about the card being stolen and used at retail sites. Can see why RT would want to use a Smart Card system. I do not think it would be a burden so long as the machine and technology work well. There is a concern that outreach and education must be comprehensive and well done. They should begin to educate people about the card months in advance. Budget the media perspective, so as to get the word out about the card. The good thing about 511 is that you can talk to a live person. People are receptive to incentives. Preload the first card with an increment of money that could be used toward their first purchase If paying an extra $20 to ride the express bus, the bonuses would make riding the express bus worth our time and money.
Lessons Learned Market Applications in Other Regions

TransLink Metropolitan Transportation Commission On February 1, 2002, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and six San Francisco Bay Area transit agencies (AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, San Francisco Muni and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) launched the pilot phase of the TransLink regional fare payment system. With TransLink, customers use a single smart card the size of a credit card, to ride Bay Area buses, trains, light rail lines, and ferries. The nine-county Bay Area was one of the first regions in the U.S. to test a single card that could be used on all forms of public transit. In 2007, a full rollout of TransLink was completed on routes operated by AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit and Ferry. In 2008,
- 68 -
12/13/2007
TransLink will be rolled out on Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans and VTA, with BART following at a later date.8
Key TransLink Features
TransLink purchase and usage parameters include the following: The card tracks prior rides and automatically grants transfer discounts where appropriate. Golden Gate Transit will offer TransLink cards with discounted fares for youths and seniors. Initially, AC Transit will only offer adult TransLink cards and adult 31-day passes. Riders can add value to a TransLink card at a self-serve Add Value machine, participating store or transit agency ticket office; order online, purchase at the TransLink Customer Service Center or register for Autoload. Riders will be able to load value through an employee transit benefit program. Autoload will pre-authorize a secure transfer from a bank account, credit or debit card directly to the TransLink card. Riders will be able to add e-cash and/or load a transit pass via autoload. If cash is used to purchase a pass or e-cash from an Add Value machine, but exact change is not used, any remaining balance will be added to the smart card as e-cash. TransLink does not offer any discounts when loading e-cash value to a smart card. Commuter Check paper vouchers will be accepted to load value to a TransLink card. Once TransLink is fully implemented on AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit, vouchers can be taken to a participating retail outlet or transit agency ticket office to add e-cash value or load a transit pass or stored rides. Future shared uses could include payment for parking meters, telephone calls, retail purchases and, perhaps, Internet purchases.
Key TransLink Outcomes
Customer-related impacts and benefits from the TransLink pilot project included the following:9 Improved ease of transit usage through ability to use single farecard for seamless travel within the region; also improved ease of use due to contactless nature of cards. Greater flexibility of fare payment through ready access to payment options (e.g., passes, stored rides) provided by individual agencies, as well as e-cash for use on any participating agency vehicle. Improved customer convenience, through features such as allowance of a negative balance (in e-cash), range of pass/e-cash loading options, optional balance protection
8 9
http://www.translink.org/jsp/index.jsp TranSystems, TCRP Report 94, Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies Update, 2003, p. 132
- 69 -
12/13/2007
(i.e., guaranteed replacement of the pass or e-cash balance if the card is lost or stolen; this requires a $5 payment), optional autoload capability (requires $5 payment), and employer-based autoload arrangements. Autoload can take three basic forms: value limit (e.g., when the e-cash value drops below $5), periodic basis (e.g., load pass at the beginning of each month), or one-time autoload. Incentive used to solicit users during the pilot period included the provision of a free card. Once the next phase is implemented in fall 2006, individual agencies will independently market and provide incentives (e.g., providing a limited number of free cards) at their discretion.10
GO Ventura Card -- Ventura County Transportation Commission The Go Ventura Smart Card was implemented in January 2002, and can be used on a total of seven public transit systems in Ventura County. The Go Ventura card can be loaded with a monthly pass or with a stored value e-purse (or both), and can thus be customized to individual travel needs. However, unlike many US electronic payment systems, the passes are for fixed calendar months, rather than rolling periods (i.e., activated on first use). The Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), the lead agency for the card, acts as the clearinghouse for data and accounting activities. Ease of accounting and management of revenues and data among the participating systems necessitated the fixed calendar basis. The Go Ventura e-purse acts much like a pre-paid phone card. The e-purse holds a prepaid dollar amount, making it ideal for people who only use the bus occasionally. E-purse holders also get a discount on regular fares.11 The goal of the Go Ventura program, which was quickly met, was to allow people to more easily use multiple transit systems. 12
Key Go Ventura Features
Go Ventura card purchase and usage parameters include the following: When the e-purse contains less than $5, a little yellow warning light on the reader device will flash to let the rider know. Money can be added to the e-purse on most buses. Free electronic transfers are permitted for 120 minutes. Monthly passes can be purchased one month at a time or for several months in advance. Money can be added to the Go Ventura card at various sales locations throughout Ventura County. The Go Ventura card can be ordered by mail or telephone (MasterCard or Visa accepted).
Merrie DuFrene, Business Manager, ERG, September 5, 2006. http://www.goventura.org 12 Go Ventura is actually the second regional smart card program in Ventura County. The Smart Passport project was initiated in 1994 and ran until 1999. At that point, VCTC issued an RFP for a new system, and this ultimately led to implementation of the Go Ventura program.
10 11
- 70 -
12/13/2007
The initial Go Ventura card purchase using the special discount available to seniors and persons with disabilities must be done in person to verify proof of age or disability. A 10% discount is provided with use of the e-purse (e.g., $0.90 is deducted for a $1 fare). However, this can be configured differently by an operator (e.g., an operator could provide a 15% discount). A rider is allowed to have a $2 negative balance on a card (i.e., the ride is provided even if there is insufficient value remaining in the riders e-purse; the payment for the trip is then deducted from the e-purse the next time the rider adds value). There is a 4-minute lockout period on the reuse of a card, preventing card passbacks.
Key Go Ventura Outcomes
Although no formal market research has been undertaken regarding rider use and opinions of the Go Ventura card, riders have reportedly been quite happy with the program. Based on the lessons learned in the earlier Smart Passport demonstration, VCTC was able to avoid the most serious problems encountered in implementing and operating that project. However, the most important key to the success of the Go Ventura program was apparently getting buy-in to the project from the ground up. In particular, when redesigning the system, VCTC gathered input from the mechanics and the drivers to ensure that they would be comfortable with and easily able to support the new technology. According to the VCTC Director of Technology, the major operational benefit achieved by the Go Ventura program to date has been the daily ridership data that is provided to the operators.13 Use of the card is also one of several factors that have contributed to substantial ridership growth over the past several years. Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus -- Chicago Transit Authority The Chicago Transit Authoritys (CTA) initial smart card pilot program began in August 2000 and was originally scheduled to last for six months. The program was designed to test both the technological feasibility and the customer acceptance of a contactless smart card for fare payment. However, based on the results of the pilot program, the CTA decided to move forward with a broad rollout of the Chicago Card program. The CTA had planned in advance for eventual use of smart cards. When the magnetic Automatic Fare Card (AFC) system was installed, all fare equipment was equipped with card readers and touchpads that could later be used with contactless smart cards. The CTA now offers two different versions of the card: (1) the Chicago Card, which can be loaded, like most electronic fare media, at ticket vending machines or at specially-equipped sales outlets; and (2) the accountbased Chicago Card Plus. These cards can be used on Pace buses as well as on CTAs services.
Key Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus Features
The two CTA smart cards have the following purchase and usage parameters:
13
Steve DeGeorge, Director of Technology, Ventura County Transportation Commission, September 5, 2006.
- 71 -
12/13/2007
Chicago Card currently offers only a pay per use option (i.e., stored value), while Chicago Card Plus offers a 30-Day Pass in addition to the pay per use option. However, CTA plans to extend the 30-Day Pass to Chicago Card and short-term passes to Chicago Card Plus. Chicago Card Plus is an account-based card that requires the user to establish a credit card-based account for card loading or reloading. Alternatively, the cards can be loaded with transit benefits by employers. Chicago Card can be loaded with value (up to $300 can be carried at any time) at CTA TVMs or at off-site Touch-n-Go outlets; the 65 off-site sales outlets (all at Currency Exchanges) were introduced in December 2005. Chicago Card Plus customers can view a history of transactions online. Chicago Card customers can check remaining value at vending machines or at offsite Touch-n-Go devices. Pay-Per-Use customers earn a $2 bonus for every $20 reloaded to their cards. This bonus is no longer available with the magnetic Transit Cards. Registering the Chicago Card is optional, but it protects its value against theft or loss. For a $5 replacement fee, CTA will send a new card, complete with the value that was on the original card when it was reported lost. Registering the Chicago Card Plus is required. Beginning in January 2006, users of both types of cards received a significant new fare incentive: the single-ride cash fare was raised to $2 (and the $0.25 transfer was eliminated for cash payers), and the rail fare using magnetic farecards was also raised to $2 (although the $0.25 transfer was retained); however, the fare using a smart card as well as a magnetic card on bus -- was kept at $1.75 (the $0.25 transfer was retained).
Key Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus Outcomes
While use of smart cards in Chicago grew slowly over the initial years, recent changes in the fare structure and in loading options have resulted in significant growth in usage. Usage figures, as well as results of a Winter 2006 rider survey, are summarized below: Use of smart cards has grown from paying for 7% of total CTA boardings in February 2005 to 17% in June 2006. The June 06 breakdown is Chicago Card (pay per use only) 7%, Chicago Card Plus 10% (pay per use 7%, pass 3%). In contrast, use of cash has dropped from 23% (February 2005) to 7% (June 2006); use of magnetic farecards has remained steady, at 25-27% over this period. The biggest increase in smart card use occurred immediately after the fare restructuring and increase in sales outlets, as the January 2006 figure was 14% of total boardings. The top reasons for using Chicago Card or Chicago Card Plus in the survey were to avoid the fare change and board more quickly; these received an equal percentage of responses.
- 72 -
12/13/2007
The top reasons for NOT using Chicago Card or Chicago Card Plus in the survey were dont know enough about it, followed by dont see a benefit and dont have a credit card. Low income individuals top reasons were cannot pay reduced fares followed by dont know enough about it and dont know where to get one. Customers (responding to the survey) who switched to a Chicago Card mainly used to pay with cash and magnetic farecards. Customers (responding to the survey) who switched to a Chicago Card Plus mainly used to pay with magnetic farecards and unlimited ride passes. The survey findings confirmed the value of increasing sales locations (i.e., the Touchn-Go initiative), which made Chicago Cards more accessible to bus riders. The survey findings also indicated that marketing is a key component of a successful smart card initiative.
SmarTrip Card -- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Regional Smart Card Program provides fare integration though the implementation of the SmarTrip technology throughout the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia region. WMATAs Metrorail and Metrobus services make connections with numerous other operators in the BaltimoreWashington-Northern Virginia region. Together with the Maryland MTA (primarily serving the Baltimore area) and other operators in the region, WMATA is launching one of the largest efforts at regional fare integration in the U.S. The driving force behind this effort is the successful implementation of WMATA's SmarTrip technology in 1999.14 SmarTrip is the underlying technology platform for the regional program.
Key Regional Smart Card Features
SmarTrip purchase and usage parameters include the following: A rider can purchase a SmarTrip card at a customer service counter, by mail or over the Internet, for a fee of $5. The SmarTrip card can be used on Metro buses, at Metrorail faregates and to pay parking fees at Metro-operated parking lots; in fact, SmarTrip is the only option for payment at the parking lots, and is the only prepayment option on Metrobuses (magnetic stripe farecards can still be used on Metrorail). Passengers load value onto their SmarTrip cards at Metrorail ticket vending machines (TVMs) in a manner similar to purchasing magnetic farecards. Value can be loaded using cash or credit/debit cards. The SmarTrip card can be registered to a specific user. The benefit of registering a SmarTrip card is that if it is ever lost or stolen, it can be replaced for a fee of $5. The patron then will be issued a new card that contains the remaining value of the
14
Contactless smart cards (called the GoCard) were first introduced as a demonstration project on Metrorail in 1995, and ran until 1996. This was the first use of a smart card for transit in the U.S.
- 73 -
12/13/2007
previous card at the time it was lost or stolen. More than 98% of SmarTrip customers have chosen to register their cards. WMATA partnered, first with the First Union Bank and now with Citibank, to provide a multi-application card for bank customers. This single card can be used as a debit card at any ATM in the country and also as a SmarTrip card on WMATA. The card is a hybrid card that uses both magnetic stripe technology (for the debit card application) and contactless smart card technology. The SmartBenefits program allows the employer to authorize the amount of an employee's benefit via the Internet using a special access account. To claim the benefit, each employee takes his or her registered SmarTrip card to a TVM at any Metrorail station and taps the card reader. The benefits must be claimed between the first and last day of the benefit month or the employees forfeit their benefit amount and the value is returned to the employer. In addition to using SmartBenefits on Metrorail, WMATA has begun a pilot program to extend SmartBenefits to vanpool customers.15
Key Regional Smart Card Outcomes
WMATA and its regional partners are in the early stages of the rollout of the regional payment program. However, SmarTrip has been in use at WMATA for several years, and has experienced a steady growth in sales and usage. Customer impacts/benefits are identified below.16 Overall, SmarTrip customers are very satisfied with the benefits that they derive from using their cards. In user surveys, customers rate convenience as the single highest factor for using the card. Employers taking part in the SmartBenefits program enjoy the convenience of using the Internet to manage the program, while employees enjoy the convenience of being able to automatically download their benefits through Metrorail TVMs. The key benefit to customers of the regional program will be the ability to travel throughout the region using a single card. Each card can carry more than one type of fare product. For example, a MARC patron with a smart card monthly pass may wish to add a WMATA stored value application to the card. When the card is used on a particular system, that systems fare collection equipment will identify the appropriate fare product loaded on the card. In order to take advantage of the stored value bonus, the convenience of seamless transfers to other systems, and other new fare options, a bus rider will have to purchase a SmarTrip card; the alternative will be to pay for each ride in cash or to use a flash pass.
15 16
TranSystems, TCRP Report 94, Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies -- Update, 2003, p. 173. Ibid.
- 74 -
12/13/2007
WMATA plans to provide cards at no (or minimal) charge to social service agencies; for free distribution to very low-income riders. It will also be necessary to conduct an effective marketing campaign, educating riders as to the nature of the benefits of buying the card (e.g., registration and replacement of value).
- 75 -
12/13/2007
Regional Strategies and Cost Analysis
This section defines and analyzes an overall strategy for implementing a regional transit farecard system in the Sacramento area. A baseline approach is described in detail in order to provide a clear picture of how the system would work and what equipment and operations are required. It also provides a basis for fully analyzing both initial capital and ongoing operating costs. Alternative approaches to specific aspects of the baseline are then discussed for further consideration as this initiative proceeds. The strategies examined focus on smart card technology, consistent with the consensus of the participating transit agencies; magnetic fare media are not examined. Emerging applications of contactless microchip technology are included in the evaluation. The section is organized as follows: System Description System Equipment Customer use of the regional fare card Institutional programs with non-transit partners System management and program support Cost analysis Capital cost Operating cost impacts System procurement Overall procurement approach Central services management
System Description
The regional transit farecard system would be designed around the contactless smart card. This is consistent with the consensus of the SACOG Transit Coordinating Committee, which reached its conclusion following an examination of available fare media technologies. The smart card and associated reading and processing devices have the capacity to store and process the individual fare structures and transfer agreements of each of the transit operators in the SACOG region. In addition, the system can accommodate future revisions to fares and fare types. A regional smart card would be made available that will be accepted by all participating transit agencies in the region. Riders obtaining the card would be able to encode it with the appropriate fare or fares to accommodate their transit travel needs, whether on one or more transit systems. The card would be reusable, with the cardholder loading new fare value onto the card as the need arises. Equipment required for processing transactions and for managing the system would be installed on buses, at agency facilities (offices, customer service centers, bus yards), and at
- 76 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses
light rail stations. Retail outlets currently selling printed passes may be equipped to enable cardholders to reload fare value onto their smart cards. Employers that today purchase and distribute transit passes to their employees would instead be able to manage transit benefit programs online. Some fare system functions associated with the regional smart card would be centrally managed for the region as a whole, while other functions could remain within the domain of the individual agency. In the very least, reconciliation of revenues among participating agencies would need to be centrally managed. There are a number of options for dividing the remaining functional responsibilities. Central management could be provided by one of the participating agencies or by an independent third-party. System Equipment As discussed above, introduction of a regional smart card would require the installation of a new electronic infrastructure; new reusable transit farecard stock; equipment on vehicles and transit stations and agency facilities to process transactions; and a central communications and computer network to manage the regional system and process revenue. The equipment requirements are summarized for ease of reference in Table 6-1 and discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Field Equipment
Buses.
The following equipment would be installed on each bus of a participating transit operator: Smart card reader: to process smart card fare transactions Mobile data terminal: to provide driver display and control of smart card reader Communications equip: wireless device to upload/download data between smart card reader and yard-based (agency or garage) computer
The onboard smart card equipment could be interfaced or integrated with other onboard equipment; or it could be stand-alone, operating independently. Options for integration or interfacing include the following: Farebox integration: The smart card reader could be integrated into the housing of a new farebox. Its logic could be fully integrated with the farebox logic as well. Both validating and registering fareboxes are offered with integrated smartcard readers. Farebox interface: Under some circumstances, the smart card reader could be installed within the farebox housing, but have independent logic that would communicate with the farebox logic and directly with the central network
6-77
12/13/2007
Table 6-1. Equipment Requirements

Equipment Type Field Equipment Location Equipment Description
Buses
Smart Card Reader Mobile Data Terminal Communications Equipment
Process smart card fare transactions Provide driver display and control of smart card reader Wireless device uploads/downloads data between smart card reader and yard-based computer Reload fare value onto pre-purchased smart card; process fare transactions Process fare transactions For fare inspectors: display data encoded on smart card for visual verification of proof-of-payment Process fare transactions Transaction and database management Initialize and customize new smart cards for customers Create digitized photo for employee, senior, student smart cards Process customer card reload transactions Mass production of customized smart cards Load value onto smart card Manage agency equipment and communicate with regional system At yards: exchange data with onboard readers (agency computer can serve this purpose) Communicate with agency systems; Process and reconcile all transactions; Manage web site
Light Rail
Smart Card Reader in TVM Stand-alone Smart Card Reader Hand-held Card Reader
Dial-a-Ride; Paratransit
Off-Site Equipment
Portable Smart Card Terminal Customer Service Terminal Smart Card Printer/Encoder Digital Camera Credit/Debit Card Processor, Cash Drawer, Receipt Printer
Customer Service Centers; Sales Offices
Select Back-office Locations Retail Outlets

System Network and Communications
High-volume Printer/Encoder Point-of-Sale Terminals Agency Computer Wireless Communications Network & Computer System
Agency Office
Regional Center
Central Computer Network
- 78 -
12/13/2007
Multi-functional MDT interface: The mobile data terminal (MDT) could be multifunctional. In addition to providing driver display and controls for the smart card reader, the MDT couls be programmed to provide driver control of PA and radio. AVL Interface: The smart card reader logic and memory could interface with an automatic vehicle locator (AVL) system to record the location (bus stop) of each smart card transaction (in addition to time and bus run data). Shared communications: The smart card reader could upload and download data via an existing smart bus data communications system rather than an independent system.
Agencies might opt for a stand-alone smart card system either because they have no electronic farebox, controls or communications on their buses, or for reasons associated with cost, funding, timing or design decisions. Thus, while electronic fareboxes (registering and validating) could be purchased with an integrated smart card reader, an agency might nevertheless decide not to integrate these two devices. Issues associated with the procurement approach are discussed later in this report. In the Sacramento area, most transit agencies would have stand-alone smart card equipment on their buses. All but two agencies currently have simple drop fareboxes on their buses. RT and Yolobus have electronic fareboxes. Other agencies may procure electronic fareboxes in the future, but at this point plans are not firm. RT has registering fareboxes on its fleet, but plans to purchase new validating fareboxes, initially at least for new coaches. Onboard smart card equipment would most likely be an integrated component within the new farebox and work with a multi-functional MDT and wireless transmission of all transaction records. Yolobus has registering fareboxes and recently-installed multi-functional MDTs. In this environment, the smart card system would likely be stand-alone with an interface to the MDT. Because the registering farebox is nearing the end of its service life, Yolobus has expressed interest in purchasing a validating farebox with an integrated smart card reader.
Light Rail.
The following equipment would be installed on the platforms of each light rail transit station. Smart card reader within the existing ticket vending machine Stand-alone smart card reader Hand-held card reader
In addition, fare inspectors will be equipped with the following: The stand-alone reader would be for fare validation and payment, and for loading prepaid fare (via the autoload function) and not requiring the use of either cash or credit card at the station. The reader within the TVM would be intended for cash transactions loading fare to the card. Whereas the stand-alone reader is typically provided to enable smart card holders to avoid ticket-purchase queues at the TVM, RT could opt to forego the stand-alone reader and program all functions into the TVM reader.
- 79 -
12/13/2007
Smart card readers purchased as part of a new TVM could be fully integrated into the unit, working with TVM logic. Smart card readers installed into existing TVMs have been difficult to fully integrate when the reader and TVM are provided by different suppliers. As an alternative, more workable approach, the smart card reader has independent logic that communicates with both the TVM and the regional center system. This black box approach is likely the method that would be utilized to incorporate the reader and its functions into the RT TVMs. Because the hand-held card reader would be carried by fare inspectors, the unit would need to be rugged, yet small and light weight. Available units provide tradeoffs between these attributes. These card readers would upload and download data while sitting in battery recharging cradles in the agency offices.
Dial-a-Ride and Paratransit. Dial-a Ride and Paratransit vehicle operators wouild be
equipped with the following equipment: Portable smart card terminal The vans and coaches used in dial-a-ride and paratransit services cannot easily accommodate the built-in smart card readers to be installed on the larger buses. Processing of a smart card payment would instead be accomplished using a driveroperated hand-held device. This would likely use the same hardware as the hand-held card readers, with different software. Drivers would be issued the terminals when they report for duty and return them at the end of their shift. Terminal charging and data transfer cradles would most likely be located at the dispatch desk.
Off-Site Equipment
Each agency would be equipped to produce customized smart cards for issue to customers and employees, to manage the database of smart card holders and to load purchased fare onto the cards. This would require the following equipment:
Customer Service and Sales Offices.
Customer service terminal for transactions and database management Smart card printer/encoder to initialize and customize smart cards for customers and employees Digital camera for adding photo IDs onto employee, and senior and student cards, per agency policy. Credit/debit card processor, cash drawer, receipt printer for customer card reload transactions
One or more locations perhaps at RT or a regional center would need to be outfitted, in the back office, with printer/encoders suited for mass production of customized smart cards, whether for initial distribution or for student and/or employee photo ID smart cards.
Retail Outlets. Selected merchants throughout the region could be equipped with the
following equipment:
- 80 -
12/13/2007
Point-of-sale terminal for loading value onto a smart card, for cash or credit card payment.
A number of the regions transit agencies currently have agreements with merchants and employers to sell fare media on consignment. For printed media, a regional network is critical for providing access to transit riders. The ability to electronically load fare onto a reusable smart card either online or via telephone, or automatically via linked account would somewhat reduce reliance on this network. However, transit users either unable or unwilling to link a registered smart card to a bank account, or without an employeroffered transit benefits program, would continue to rely on this network to reload their smart cards. Merchants would use their own cash drawer and credit card transaction processor to receive payment for the sale. These retailers could be linked through an individual agency for processing payments, or they could be tied directly to the regional center.
Web Site. A web site would provide services to customers of the regional smart card
program. The web site would support the following functions: Purchase of a new smart card Register a new or existing smart card One-time reload of a smart card, using a credit card for payment (reload to be performed automatically by smart card reader on bus or rail system within 48 hours) Set up automatic reload (autoload) of smart card by registering card and linking it to a credit card or bank account Review status, history and remaining value of an individuals registered smart card; revise autoload parameters Report lost, stolen or destroyed smart card to hotlist it and request a replacement For administrators of employer-based transit benefit programs, manage and review smart card accounts of employer and participating employees Provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and contact information for customer assistance and service
This centrally-managed web site would be linked to the web sites of participating transit agencies, transit management associations and participating employers to facilitate access. Depending upon the marketing (branding) decisions made by the participating agencies, the site could be designed to appear either as a single regionally branded web site or as a series of similar sites that are unique in design to each agencys information web site.
System Network and Communications
All equipment would be linked in a communications network. This wold support the following functions: Agency and regional monitoring of system status and data processing, Processing payment and reload transactions
- 81 -
12/13/2007
Updating hotlist and reload files for download to smart card readers and other field equipment.
There is considerable flexibility in directing the flow of transaction records and other data and for assigning responsibility for various functions between agency and regional management.
Agency Equipment. Each agency would have the following system network equipment:
Agency computer - for managing the agencys smart card system equipment and communicates with the regional computer system Yard-based wireless network for communications between the onboard units and the agency computer
During the design phase of the regional system, it may be possible for an agency to opt to forego having an agency computer and to instead have the regional center manage agency activities. With this approach, agency customer service terminals and the yardbase wireless network can be linked directly to the regional computer system. For agencies having a large bus fleet and satellite yard facilities RT is the only one in the region yard-based computers would be installed to manage data communications with onboard equipment and then to communicate with the agency system computer. This wireless communications system in the yard would enable transaction and event data to be uploaded from the onboard smart card reader when the bus has returned to the yard at the end of the day and for new files bad card list; new autoload (add fare) files to be downloaded to the onboard unit. There is flexibility as to when and where uploading and downloading of data occurs. The system could be designed so that this data exchange occurs overnight while the buses are parked in the yard. An alternative is to initiate this function at the service island during farebox vaulting or refueling, provided this occurs daily. Each of these approaches is in use today. WiFi technology (802.11) is typically used for the wireless communications system, for its simplicity and low cost. Other wireless technology is available. Where smart bus technology is installed, the smart card system can be tied to the radio system for data exchange. However, in some instances, agencies with smart bus data radio communications opted for WiFi as more assured and less costly than investing in a systems interface. Smart card equipment on the light rail system would be linked via the RT light rail system fiber optic transmission system to the agency smart card server. Recent solutions for installing smart card readers into legacy TVMs have involved separate communications linkages (web-based addresses) for the TVM and reader. The smart card reader communicates with the TVM to complete a transaction and independently with the regional system to process and record the transaction. All smart card system equipment in the Sacramento system would be connected to the central network, including stand-alone and TVM-installed units.
Regional System Equipment
Equipment required for the Regional Service Center would include the following:
- 82 -
12/13/2007
Central Computer System Database Server Networking Equipment Internet Host Modem Servers (for Retail Outlet communication)
Customer Use of the Regional Fare Card Use of a smart card for transit would represent a paradigm shift from the existing printed paper and magnetic fare cards in use today. Rather than purchasing, using and then discarding fare cards of finite validity, smart cards would be retained for a number of years, being reloaded with additional fare when required. Transit riders would be provided the means of conveniently doing the following: Obtaining a smart card Managing a smart card account Registering the card Linking the card to a credit card or bank account Setting up a recurring autoload process Purchasing fare for loading onto the card Paying a fare with the card Replacing a lost, stolen or destroyed card Getting customer assistance
Table 6-2 summarizes how transit riders would be able to use the smart card for their transit needs. Part of the process of purchasing fare value for the smart card would involve defining what that value should be. The cardholder would identify what type of fare is to be loaded. This might include purchase of a monthly period pass for Yuba-Sutter Transit commuter service and a cash purse (stored-value) for use in paying to transfer to RT or another agencys transit service. Another cardholder might opt to load only stored-value onto the card to pay-as-you-go. The participating agencies would set these business rules in advance of system implementation and would provide direction to the regional management organization to update these rules as necessary. Cardholders would be able to change the fare that is purchased and loaded as needs change, whether by single transaction or by pre-authorized recurring autoloads.
- 83 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-2. Using a Smart Card

Request/ Obtain a Card Manage Card Account Load Pre-Paid Fare Value / Pay Fare Purchase Fare Value for Reload Report/ Replace a Lost Card
Walk-up
Agency Customer Svc Retail Outlet
X X
Onboard and In-Station

Bus Smart Card Reader LRT platform smart card reader LRT TVM smart card reader Remote Web Site Call Center Automated Telephone
X X
X (via mail) X (via mail)
X X
X X X
X X
Institutional Programs with Non-Transit Partners Institutional partnerships with larger employers and major educational institutions (e.g., State of California, Cal State University at Sacramento, Los Rios Community College District) are important to the Sacramento area transit agencies. A number of employers many of them state government offices would be enrolled to receive transit fare media on consignment to sell or otherwise distribute to its employees. Most of these employers currently have transit benefit programs that subsidize employee purchase of a transit pass or other fare type. The schools and universities currently have agreements with transit agencies, which honor a student photo ID for riding transit. To take advantage of a key benefit of a smart card program, the smart card would replace monthly delivery of printed passes to employers on consignment. The employers would instead issue a smart card to an employee at the time he or she signs up for transit benefits. The employers transit benefits program administrator would manage the program online,
- 84 -
12/13/2007
adding and removing employees from the program database, and modifying the fares to be loaded on each card. Payment would be accomplished online via linked accounts. Electronic payment of an employees share could also be provided, most likely as a paycheck debit. A roundtable discussion with transit benefit program administrators from a representative group of employers yielded very positive responses toward a smart card program that consolidates all transit fares into a single program that can be managed online. Employers could opt to distribute smart cards strictly for transit use or create employee photo IDs on the smart card stock. The regional center would be equipped to produce employee photo IDs on smart card stock for employers that provide necessary digital graphics and photo. Alternatively, production equipment could be provided to the employer with serialized smart cards issued on consignment and activated when issued. Smart card stock would be issued to school systems and universities to produce student photo IDs. Those institutions using ID cards with a magnetic strip could be issued card stock that has both the smart card chip for transit use and the stripe for continued use by the school. The institution could also opt to invest in a system that utilizes contactless smart card technology for its needs, such as building access and student purchases. By using smart card stock for producing student photo IDs, transit agencies would be able to track the trips being taken by the students from each institution. Use of the photo ID for transit could be restricted to properly registered students by arranging for the school to reactivate the card during student registration each semester (or quarter), using a terminal provided by the regional center. Subject to agency policy, schools and government institutions could request that restrictions (e.g., time of day, days of week) be programmed onto the card to prevent user abuse. System Management and Program Support A regional farecard system requires a central organization to manage certain aspects that must be monitored and controlled on a region-wide basis. Other functions can be managed by the agency, the central organization or shared. Functions that must be conducted on a centralized basis include the following: Maintaining a database of all smart card accounts Updating the accounts to reflect recent transactions for fare payment and reload Managing revenue float cash value loaded onto a card and not yet used as fare payment Reconciling revenue among participating agencies and disbursing funds accordingly Allocating shares of costs incurred by the central operation and shared by the participating agencies Managing the web site Processing credit card transactions paid through the network; at a minimum, for those transactions processed online
- 85 -
12/13/2007
Providing call center customer assistance with technical smart card questions or problems Maintaining system software
Other activities can be centrally managed or they can remain entirely or in part with the individual agencies. These functions include: Administering retail sales concessions Administering employer-based transit benefit programs Servicing and repairing system components Managing material and parts inventory
A typical assignment of duties that would be performed on either a centralized basis or by each of the individual agencies is provided in Table 6-3. Functions that are going to be centrally managed could be performed by a contracted third party. Alternatively, these functions could be assigned to a lead agency to conduct for the region. The participating agencies might prefer to have some functions managed by a lead agency with other functions typically the financial functions managed by one or more third parties. There is considerable flexibility to the assignment of responsibilities. The approach taken should be tailored to the specific interests and capabilities of the agencies in the region. Factors influencing the division of responsibilities include the cost of operation, required technical expertise, and agency desire to retain control of service quality, customer care and the flow of revenue and data. Most regions have opted for a third-party firm; examples include: Washington, DC, Seattle/Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles. Those regions managing the system in-house include Minneapolis/St. Paul and Ventura County; in these cases, the regional coordinating agency Metro Council in the Twin Cities and Ventura County Transportation Commission manages the program.
- 86 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-3. Nominal Division of Responsibilities
Central Management* Fare Media Inventory Control
Individual Agencies
Purchase and store card stock inventory Fill agency requisitions for smart cards Track card inventories in region Produce personalized photo ID smart cards for high-volume orders from employers, schools and other institutions Reconcile card reload and fare payment revenue determine the net position of each (i.e., net amount owed or owing) Electronic funds transfer
Manage agency card inventory Transfer returned smart cards to central system for disposition Personalize smart card during issuance Produce photo ID smart card Electronic funds transfer Reconcile net position as calculated by clearing house with replenishment and fare payment transaction records on agency computer system Transfer replenishment card update instructions received from central system into the agency devices Receive confirmation of completed updates and transfer to central system Provide staffed local sales and customer support centers Answer customer calls of cardrelated inquiries, transferring technical questions to central customer service Recruit employers and institutions to transit benefits program Provide on-going support Operate & administer agency system Generate internal reports to assist in verifying the clearing house calculation of its net revenue position Perform preventive maintenance and swap-out repairs of agency field equipment Maintain agency-contracted retail point-ofsale equipment
Fare Media Personalization
Revenue Clearing and Settlement
Internet-Based Services
Provide and manage the website Transmit replenishment card update instructions to agencies, to transfer to system devices Receive and process card update confirmations from agencies Operate centralized call center for technical card-related inquiries Transfer service-related inquiries to agency for response.
Cardholder Customer Service
Institutional Programs
Set-up and train employers and institutions in program use Provide on-going support Operate & administer central system Provide periodic reports to agencies after calculating its net revenue position
Data Systems and Reporting
System Maintenance and Parts Inventory
Purchase, store and distribute spare parts Perform equipment component repair Maintain & upgrade system software Maintain central-contracted retail pointofsale equipment
* Centrally-managed activities can be performed for the region by either a lead agency or a contracted third party. Some functions may be assigned to both the lead agency and a third-party.
- 87 -
12/13/2007
Cost Analysis
A preliminary cost model has been developed to estimate both capital and operating costs of a regional smart card system for the Sacramento area. This section provides a summary. The full spreadsheet model (provided as a separate project deliverable) provides full cost breakdowns and underlying assumptions. Capital Costs The cost of implementing a regional smart card program is influenced primarily by the number and size of those agencies that opt in to be part of the initial system. There is a cost associated with equipping each bus, rail station and service facility of a participating agency. To a lesser degree, the anticipated degree of smart card market penetration and card use will influence system size, driving the initial supply of smart cards plus the number of customer service terminals and retail point-of-sale (POS) terminals that are installed throughout the service area. As Table 6-4 shows, the preliminary capital cost estimate of a smart card for the Sacramento region is $8.3 million, if all fourteen agencies participate. This estimate includes the cost of all agency equipment, regional center equipment, and non-recurring project costs, such as project management and engineering. The cost of the initial supply of smart cards is also shown, based upon the assumption that these expensive cards (costing $2-$4/card) will be offered free of charge as a promotion to encourage patron use17. Due to the preliminary nature of system definition, the cost estimate also includes a 20% contingency. If fewer agencies opt in, the capital cost is reduced, although the degree is dependent on agency size. In addition to the cost estimate for all fourteen agencies, Table 4 provides estimates for two other scenarios that were discussed among SACOG and stakeholder agencies. One scenario opens the system with three agencies: RT, Yolobus and e-trans. The other scenario opens with eight of the fourteen: RT, Yolobus, e-trans, Yuba-Sutter, Placer County, Roseville, Folsom Stage Line, and El Dorado. The three-agency system would cost $5.6 million to procure and implement. The eight-agency system would cost $6.7 million. The agencies with the largest associated capital cost are: RT, with the largest bus fleet and the sole rail service provider, and Paratransit, Inc, with the largest paratransit van fleet. In the latter case, all vans would be equipped for the smart card system in the cost model. Details of the cost estimate are provided in Table 6-5. The quantities reflect the scenario in which all agencies opt-in. Each bus and van in the fleet of each agency is equipped with smart card equipment. For RT, the incremental cost of a smart card module is shown rather the full cost of the planned validating fareboxes. The estimate also reflects an assumption that all agencies will have agency computers and customer service terminals, while the regional center will manage all retailers and institutional programs.
The quantity of cards in the estimate is probably not sufficient to supply the universities and college district with cards for all students. The supply should be revised if the agencies agree to absorb the cost of providing the contactless smart card stock for student photo IDs.
17
- 88 -
12/13/2007
In addition to the capital cost for the system itself, a decision to proceed with the program will require budgeting for activities related to system design and start-up. These are identified in Table 6-6.
Table 6-4. Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates: Three Scenarios

# Agencies in Initial Deployment Cost Element All 14 Agency Equipment RT e-tran Paratransit, Inc. Folsom Stage Line SCT/Link El Dorado Auburn Lincoln PCT Roseville Davis Unitrans Yolobus Yuba Sutter Regional Center Project Costs Initial Card Supply Total Capital Costs Total Capital Costs
with 20% Contingency
8 of 14 $ 3,090,505 $
3 of 14 2,213,255
4,334,055
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
1,833,150 202,400 670,450 133,100 110,000 217,800 79,200 75,350 129,250 190,850 63,800 244,750 177,705 206,250
697,700 1,374,000 500,000 6,905,755 8,287,000
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
1,833,150 202,400 133,100 217,800 129,250 190,850 177,705 206,250

697,700 1,287,000 500,000 5,575,205 6,690,000
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
1,833,150 202,400 177,705 697,700 1,226,000 500,000 4,636,955 5,564,000
- 89 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-5. Capital Cost Estimate Detail
Item Unit Description Unit Cost Regional / Central
(quantity)
RT
Remaining Agencies
(quantity)
Comments
Eqipment Costs Field Equipment Bus Integrated Farebox Smart Card Modules Bus Smart Card Read/Write Modules Bus Operator Control Units per bus, in electronic farebox: to process smart card transaction per bus, stand-alone: not in farebox: to process smart card transaction per bus, providing driver display and controls
(2006 $'s)
(quantity)
$750 $2,000
258
0 286
assumes RT purchases all new validating fareboxes all agencies except RT install smart card readers as stand-alone units Yolobus programs smart card funcationality and interface into the existing mobile data terminal units Each agency gets one computer for garage and administrative facilities One WiFi network installed at each agency other than RT
$1,500
247
Garage Computers
per agency admin building or bus garage facility, to process data exchange with field equipment per garage or other bus parking location, to send/receive data with onboard devices per TVM, to add smart card reader and related software to TVMs for reload and veliadting capability per TVM, to place a separate smart card validator on platform: enables smart card holders to bypass TVM queues used by fare inspectors to visaully display encoded info on smart card during inspection (one per inspector each shift plus 100% operational spares) one per portable module or terminal, to recharge unit while uploading & downloading records & data
$45,000
13
Wireless LAN / Network Interface Rail Ticket Vending Machine Modifications Stand-alone Smart Card Validators
$5,000
13
$7,500
90
$5,000
90
Handheld Fare Inspector Terminals
$3,500
18
Recharger Cradles for Handheld Terminals
$150
18
- 90 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-5. Capital Cost Estimate Detail (continued)
Item Unit Description Unit Cost Regional / Central
(quantity)
RT
Remaining Agencies
(quantity)
Comments
Eqipment Costs Central Network Central Computer System Database Server Internet Host Credit/Debit Card Processor Networking Equipment Central Network Subtotal Total Equipment Costs Project Costs Engineering Regional System Design TVM / Smart Card Interface Smart Bus Interface Project Management Testing Training Documentation Performance Bond Total Project Costs Initial Card Supply estimate for 200,000 cards fixed estimate adding readers to RT light rail TVMs interface to mobile data terminal on Yolobus one per regional system one per regional system one per regional system one per regional system one per regional system
(2006 $'s)
(quantity)
$350,000 $50,000 $5,000 $50,000 $15,000
1 1 1 1 1 $470,000 $697,700 $1,833,150 $2,500,905
$500,000 $100,000 $75,000 5% 2% $285,000 $114,000 $200,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,199,000 $2.50 $500,000 $100,000 $75,000 Interface readers into RT TVMs Interface for Yolobus MDTs
Total System Cost All Agencies
$6,905,755
$2,396,700
$1,933,150
$2,575,905
- 91 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-6. Additional Program Funding Items

System Design and Procurement Professional Services Agency Staff Participation System Start-Up and Initial Period Public Education Personnel Training Additional Staff during Initial Period Customer Service
Development of technical specifications; support in vendor selection; design reviews, testing Participation in system design and review, business rules development
Prepare riding public for use of fare system Contractor will train back-office and maintenance personnel as well as operations trainers, who will train the drivers.
Anticipated higher level of activity during initial period (1-2 years) promoting and issuing new cards and creating new database Anticipated higher level of activity during initial period, end user support, report generation, database creation
Information Technology (IT)
Operating Costs As the previous section showed, capital costs are sensitive to the number of participating agencies and resulting system size. A relatively small portion of these costs are related to the central infrastructure. Operating costs, on the other hand, are influenced primarily by central operations and administration. These costs are not as sensitive to the number of agencies or to system size, although there are variable cost elements. Policy decisions made to encourage smart card use and to retire legacy fare media will influence the net operating cost impact of the regional program. Division of duties between agencies and third-party contractors will also affect system cost. In order to estimate the costs of operating a regional smart card system in the Sacramento area, an interactive cost model was developed. The model utilized available RT budgetary and ridership data to estimate current fare collection costs and to project the impact of a new regional system on these costs. Data on the cost structures of other regional systems was used to estimate regional center costs. Rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimates were also made of the impacts of smart card implementation on revenue lost due to fare media abuse (e.g., expired transfers, invalid student IDs) experienced with the existing paperbased system.
- 92 -
12/13/2007
Because data of sufficient detail were available only for RT, which also accounts for nearly 90% of transit ridership in the region, the model analyzes the cost impacts for RT and extrapolates the results, as appropriate, to include the other participating transit operators.18 The model was used to examine the costs impacts of the following variables: Agencies opting into regional system participation Policy decisions regarding continuation of existing paper (and magnetic) fare media Percent of riders by fare type likely to shift to smart card For regional center activities (e.g., clearinghouse, card database management), use of third-party contractor vs. lead agency staff (e.g., RT or SACOG)
Components of Agency Fare Collection Costs
The activities that are associated with fare collection on RT, the largest carrier, are identified in Table 6-7, along with a discussion of the impact of a regional smart card on these activities. A smart card program will have operating costs related to activities that are similar to those in place today, including card inventory management, distribution and sales, institutional programs, revenue accounting and inter-agency reconciliation, and customer service. The characteristics of the smart card program using reusable electronic fare media that is customized and registered, common to agencies in the region and can be reloaded online or using linked bank or credit card accounts changes the nature of these activities. If the smart card replaces most printed media, printing and distribution costs can be significantly reduced and institutional programs made more convenient and easier to manage. Customer service and network management duties shift toward network management and assistance in set-up and use of the online program. If the smart card does not replace printed media and simply provides a fare payment alternative, the duties associated with the smart card program will be added to existing duties with less opportunity to reduce associated costs. Smart cards will never replace the cash fare, although a successful smart card program (i.e., one with good market penetration) may decrease the amount of cash that is received and must be processed. A reduction in cash receipts may in turn reduce processing costs, although a significant savings is not anticipated. Other incidental financial impacts are anticipated with the introduction of a smart card. These are identified in Table 6-8. A key objective of RT and the other participating agencies is to stem loss of revenue through abuse of the existing system of printed media. The smart card program will significantly decrease these losses, although no estimates are available on the magnitude of these losses today. New revenue will be generated by the interest on revenue float cash that is pre-paid and carried as stored-value in the smart card e-purse. This will occur if riders currently paying cash fares move to the smart card; riders currently purchasing passes have already pre-paid.
18
The model does not extrapolate cost elements that are unique to RT, such as those related to light rail. It also restricts extrapolation of farebox maintenance costs to Yolobus which is the only other transit operator with electronic fareboxes.
- 93 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-7. Existing Components of RT Fare Collection
Activity Description Departments Impacts of Regional Smart Card
Printed Fare Media Printing Fare Media Labor prepare artwork; procure and/or print tickets, transfers, passes, stickers Materials fare media Procurement, Finance, Marketing reductions in staff time primarily with elimination of media types; e.g., printed transfers and/or passes reductions in material costs associated with elimination of media types or significant reductions in quanitities Finance reductions in time required with elimination of non-reusable fare media (transfers, daypasses, passes)
Storage and Inventory Labor store fare media for future distribution Materials Distribution and Sales Labor sell fare media to public directly and via outside channels
Customer Service
reduction in back-office staff possible with smart card; new staff duties include set-up and support of employers and institutions shifting to smart card program. Retain sales office staff significant reduction in postage with move to electronic reload
Materials Accounting Labor Materials Bank fees
postage & shipping
process pass sales invoices and payments Supplies: billings, invoices
Finance
reduction in labor with shift to electronic payments and reporting reduction in material costs with shift to electronic payments and reporting and reusable fare media continued costs: effect unknown
Customer Service Telephone Ctr Labor assist customers with questions on fares and fare media
Customer Service
no change anticipated (after initial start-up); will answer questions about obtaining and using smart card and refer technical issues to Central Support staff
Fare Equipment Maintenance Fareboxes Labor Materials preventive and corrective maintenance and component repair Maintenance (Bus) no reduction in PMs, slight reduction in repairs and field calls as use of cash descreases slight reduction in repairs and field calls as use of cash decreases
- 94 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-7. Existing Components of RT Fare Collection (continued)
Activity Description Departments Impacts of Regional Smart Card
Fare Equipment Maintenance (continued) Rail FVMs Labor Materials Cash Fare Revenue Processing Farebox Vaulting & Transport Labor emptying cashboxes, transporting vaults Materials fuel Finance (Revenue Ctr) Transportation no reduction in vaulting requirements no reduction in transport requirements significant reduction in ticket purchases may reduce servicing frequency of high-volume FVMs preventive and corrective maintenance and component repair Maintenance (Rail) no reductions in PMs, slight reduction in repairs and field calls as ticket purchases decrease slight reduction in repairs and field calls as ticket purchases decrease
FVM Revenue Servicing & Transport Labor exchanging cashboxes and coin hoppers; transporting to Revenue Center Fuel and maintenance of revenue transport vehicle Cash Revenue Processing Labor counting cashbox cash revenue & readying for deposit; readying coin hoppers for FVMs Materials overalls, canvas cash bags, forms Materials
Finance (Revenue Ctr)
reduction in revenue servicing requirements unknown, assume none.
Fare Inspection (Rail) Fare Inspection Labor inspect tickets, transfers and passes for travel validity; cite riders without valid proof-ofpayment on light rail trains Materials forms, uniforms, equipment Police Services likely increase in time required to inspect with portable smart card readers increase in materials associated with added personnel
System Communications System Network and Software Labor maintain computer network for data processing & reporting; maintain & upgrade system software; manage databases Materials parts, computer & communications components; software licenses Information Technology/ITS responsibilities will increase, particularly if Central Services functions are performed in-house web site and online financial links support smart card purchase and reload
- 95 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-8. Incidental Costs of Fare Collection

Existing Incidental Cost and Revenue Impacts Incidental Cost Impacts Ridership Data Collection and Reporting Passenger Surveys: conducted for data on rider and trip characteristics; data entry, analysis and reporting Incidental Revenue Impacts Revenue Losses University student photo IDs: used by nonmatriculating students: value unknown Fare evasion on LRT: riders riding with no ticket are not inspected Farebox or FVM failure: inability to pay results in free rides Counterfeit or altered fare media: unable to estimate at this time Expired transfers or rail tickets: transfers and tickets are accepted without checking by personnel New Revenue Fare Prepayment: advance payment for extended-use fares (e.g., monthly pass, punch pass) generates interest-bearing revenue float revenue float will increase as cash paying riders shift to smart cards with e-purse linked trip data with smart card use will be recorded; with increasing shift to smart cards, manual survey needs decrease; reporting accuracy improves Impacts of Regional Smart Card
will decrease with shift to smart cards no impact, provided shift to electronic media does not lead to lower inspection levels due to slower inspection rates decrease in equipment failure is tied to decrease in cash fares resulting from shift to smart cards will decrease with shift to smart cards will decrease with shift to smart cards
- 96 -
12/13/2007
An incidental cost savings can be realized by taking advantage of the smart card system to log data on ridership characteristics for service planning and mandated reporting. The seven agencies in the Seattle area program expect data recorded with the smart card program to replace the comprehensive regional passenger surveys performed every three years.
Components of Centralized Fare Collection Costs
As mentioned earlier, a regional fare collection system involves the development, implementation and management of a new organization infrastructure, a regional center responsible for activities that are best undertaken on a regional level. These may include financial management and clearinghouse services, card database management, software maintenance, network administration and equipment maintenance, card stock procurement and distribution, and second-tier customer service. These components are further described in Table 6-9. These central management activities can be outsourced to a private contractor or they may be the responsibility of a lead agency that performs these duties on behalf of the coalition of participating agencies. A third strategy is to assign some duties to a lead agency and to outsource others. Discussions with agencies during project workshops indicated an interest in assigning financial management responsibilities to an independent contractor, while giving a lead agency responsibility for most other duties. A number of other regions have outsourced management of centralized functions. Compensation in some contracts is fee-based. In these cases, there may be a fixed monthly charge plus a variable fee tied to the level of activity. Another pricing scheme is based on the anticipated staffing, materials and facilities needs to accommodate the projected level of activity. The cost model utilizes the fee-based approach for outsourced activity and labor and materials approach for duties assigned to a lead agency.
Operating Cost Projections
The model was used to analyze the costs of a number of scenarios with different agency participation and different degrees of customer acceptance of the smart card in place of existing fare media. Over the range of scenarios examined, the annual cost of collecting and processing fares increases in the range of $1.5 - $2.0 million for the region overall, after adjusting for expected reductions in lost revenue. Whereas each agency experiences a net decrease in their in-house expenses and an improvement in revenues, these reductions do not offset the costs associated with the new regional center. A comparison of the cost impacts for various levels of smart card acceptance is presented in Table 6-10. The table compares scenarios ranging from a near-full shift to smart card use (full shift to smart cards from non-cash fares) to a minimal shift (all legacy media remain; smart cards account for one-quarter of all rides). The results show that policy decisions that encourage smart card acceptance will reduce the cost impacts of the regional system, although not enough to full offset these impacts. Table 6-11 provides a comparison of the impacts of enlisting more transit agencies to participate in the regional system. Due to the fixed costs of the regional system and the relative size of RT to the other agencies, the number of participating agencies has little impact on system costs.
- 97 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-9. Potential Components of Regional Center Activity
Activity Card Inventory Procurement and Inventory Control Card Stock Distribution Customer Service Call Center second tier service, providing customer assistance with technical problems not resolved by agency staff batch card issuance and distribution for agencies, institutions, etc. >100 operation of web site on agency behalf for individuals and institutions; large batch fulfillment. initialize cards, distribute to insitituions; provide customer service, fare card management, clearinghouse services, financial management, network management, transaction data processing and billing, maintain electronic database of all card accounts; provide initialization and card management capabilities procure and maintain inventory of blank card stock; retrieve and destroy returned unusable stock distribute to agencies and institutions, when requisitioned Description
Mail-In Center Internet Insitutional Programs
Fare Card Management
Central Financial and Management Services Clearinghouse Services transaction processing, reconcilie and settle transactions, manage data upload/download to/from clearinghouse; manage interfaces & end points, manage fare tables, provide central DB for reporting, maintain/operate all central DBs for operations collection of revenue from revalue network; billing and collection of revenues from institutional programs; credt/debit card payment authorizations and settlement; check receipt and clearing; collection of any non-fare based fees; cash management services to receive, hold, manage, audit, disperse payments received; merchant of record
Financial Management Services
Network Management Network Management monitor and support network infrastructure (both contractor and agency supplied) for availability and throughput; regular backup of data, off-site archiving, reporting, data recovery, disaster recovery, fault detection or failure. provide hardware, software, communications and tech support for revalue network (attended and unattended devices)
Revalue Network Support Services
Equipment and Software Maintenance Equipment Maintenance monitoring and cleaning, troubleshooting, field repair preventive maintenance, shop repair maintenance management and inventory control, shop repair, component repair, on-call maintenance technical support over the phone to agencies for software, hardware, systems and operational processes system administration, software troubleshooting, revisions and upgrades development, testing and deployment
Technical Support
Software Maintenance
- 98 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-10. Operating Costs by Level of Smart Card Acceptance
Cost Element Maximum Legacy Fare Media Discontinued >> Agency Specific Costs Sac RT Projected Fare Collection Costs Current Costs (Baseline) Change in RT Costs Other Participating Agencies Projected Fare Collection Costs Current Costs (Baseline) Change in Costs of Other Agencies Total Projected Agency Costs Total Change in Agency Costs Centralized Regional Costs Lead Agency Managed Activity Outsourced Activity Total Centralized Costs Total Projected Regional Cost Impact Reduction in Lost Revenue Sac RT All Others Total Reduction in Lost Revenue Adjusted Annual Cost Impact $ $ $ $ (507,000) $ (64,000) $ (571,000) $ 1,602,000 $ (88,000) $ (16,000) $ (104,000) $ 2,084,000 $ (54,000) (16,000) (70,000) 2,063,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,634,000 2,405,000 2,173,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,599,000 2,370,000 2,188,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,518,000 2,289,000 2,133,000 $ $ $ $ $ 70,000 95,000 $ $ 75,000 95,000 $ $ 77,000 95,000 (18,000) 2,206,000 (156,000) $ $ $ 2,060,000 2,267,000 $ $ 2,105,000 2,267,000 $ $ 2,129,000 2,267,000 (138,000) All Media * Smart Card Acceptance Moderate Passes ** Minimal None ***
(207,000) $
(162,000) $
(25,000) $ 2,130,000 $
(20,000) $ 2,180,000 $
(232,000) $
(182,000) $
* - 100% shift to smart card from printed fare media, and 25% shift from cash fares ** - 100% shift to smart card from 10-trip and monthly passes, and photo ID users; 25% shift from cash fares, transfers and day passes. *** - 25% shift from all fare types All scenarios are based on particpation by eight agencies: RT, Yolobus, e-tran, Folsom Stage Line, El Dorado, PCT, Roseville, Yuba-Sutter All scenarios assume outsourcing of centralized functions for : financial management & clearinghouse, software maintenance, technical support and 2nd-tier customer call center
- 99 -
12/13/2007
SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Regional Strategies and Cost Analyses Table 6-11. Operating Costs by Region System Size
Cost Element All 14 Agency Specific Costs Sac RT Projected Fare Collection Costs Current Costs (Baseline) Change in RT Costs Other Participating Agencies Projected Fare Collection Costs Current Costs (Baseline) Change in Costs of Other Agencies Total Projected Agency Costs Total Change in Agency Costs Centralized Regional Costs Lead Agency Managed Activity Outsourced Activity Total Centralized Costs Total Projected Regional Cost Impact Reduction in Lost Revenue Sac RT All Others Total Reduction in Lost Revenue Adjusted Annual Cost Impact $ $ $ $ (507,000) $ (136,000) $ (643,000) $ 1,522,000 $ (507,000) $ (64,000) $ (571,000) $ 1,602,000 $ (507,000) (35,000) (542,000) 1,635,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,653,000 2,424,000 2,165,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,634,000 2,405,000 2,173,000 $ $ $ $ 771,000 1,627,000 2,398,000 2,177,000 $ $ $ $ $ 140,000 192,000 $ $ 70,000 95,000 $ $ 42,000 56,000 (14,000) 2,102,000 (221,000) $ $ $ 2,060,000 2,267,000 $ $ 2,060,000 2,267,000 $ $ 2,060,000 2,267,000 (207,000) # of Participating Agencies 8 of 14 * 3 of 14 **
(207,000) $
(207,000) $
(52,000) $ 2,200,000 $
(25,000) $ 2,130,000 $
(259,000) $
(232,000) $
* - The eight agencies are: RT, Yolobus, e-tran, Folsom Stage Line, El Dorado, PCT, Roseville, Yuba-Sutter ** - The three agencies are RT, Yolobus, e-tran All scenarios are based on maximum shift to smart card from printed fare media, and 25% shift from cash fares All scenarios assume outsourcing of centralized functions for : financial management & clearinghouse, software maintenance, technical support and 2nd-tier customer call center
Additional detail of the costs in Tables 6-10 and 6-11 is provided in the following tables. Table 6-12 provides a breakdown of costs for RT and the other participating agencies and for central management. The centralized costs are detailed by assignment to either a thirdparty firm or a designated lead agency.
- 100 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-12. Cost Detail of Regional Program

Agency Specific Costs Cost Category Sac RT Fare Media Procurement and Inventory Control Fare Media Procurement and Control Order, Inventory; Distribute to Agencies Order, Inventory, Distribute to Sales Centers Fare Media Stock Printed Fare Media Smart Card Media Customer Service Agency Sales Customer Service Center Sales Mail / Phone / Internet Sales Central Sales and Service Central Service Management Retail Outlets Employers & Institutions Web Site Management Customer Service Telephone Support Customer Service Telephone Center (Agency - 1st Tier) Call-in Help Center (2nd Tier) *** Fare Media Revenue Processing Agency Revenue Accounting Pass Sales Invoices & Payments Central Revenue Processing Services Financial Management & Clearinghouse Services Card Database Management Bank Fees Transaction fees $11,200 $1,300 $969,168 $79,200 $0 $0
(incl. in Fin.Mgt Svcs)
Centralized Regional Costs ** Agency Managed Contracted Activity
Other Participating Agencies
$37,500 $5,500 $18,927 $81,031 $600 $2,153 $9,218
$23,000 $23,000
$2,600 $2,600 $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $12,500
$72,000
$8,200
Support contract
$180,000
System Communications and Network Management System Network and Software Agency Network Central Network Software Maintenance *** Retail Network Support Services $70,000 $8,000 $157,500
Support contract (incl in Central Net)
$384,000
- 101 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-12. Cost Detail of Regional Program (continued)

Agency Specific Costs Cost Category Sac RT Equipment Maintenance Fareboxes Labor & Materials Rail FVMs Labor & Materials Regional Program Equipment Labor and Materials Technical Support *** Cash Fare Revenue Processing Farebox Vaulting & Transport Personnel, Fuel & Veh Maint $19,500 $0 $0 $27,200 $201,563 $305,000 $8,400 $0 $0 $313,750
Support contract
Centralized Regional Costs ** Agency Managed Contracted Activity
Other Participating Agencies
$21,761
FVM Revenue Servicing & Transport incl in Cash Rev Proc FVM servicing & transport Cash Revenue Processing Personnel & Materials $239,000 Fare Inspection (Rail) Fare Inspection Personnel & Materials Fare Collection Costs (rounded) $990,000 $2,060,000
$0 $70,000 $771,000 $1,634,000
Scenario is for eight agencies particpating and full shift to smart cards * - FTE = "Full Time Equivalet"; staff tme spent on fare collection related duties divided by the total hours worked by one employee ** - Agency-managed cost estimate does not include facilities-related costs; Cost estimate for Contracted services does include facilities related cos *** - Some activities may continue to require supplier support, including system software maintenance, technical support and 2nd tier call-in center
Table 6-13 shows the impact the program would have on RT agency costs, comparing its current costs of fare collection to those that would be incurred internally if the scenario involving eight agencies and full transition to smart cards is implemented. Cost associated with fare media printing and distribution would decrease. Revenue accounting costs associated with fare media sales would also decrease as more fares are purchased electronically and the fare media do not require replacement on a frequent basis. If the smart card program can achieve a 25% shift of cash fares to smart cards, a modest reduction may be experienced in costs related to cash acceptance and processing, such as farebox and TVM maintenance and cash counting.
- 102 -
12/13/2007
Table 6-13. Impacts on RT Agency Operating Costs

Agency Specific Activities Existing Annual Cost Scenario Description Cost Category Card Procurement and Inventory Control Fare Media Procurement and Storage prepare artwork, procure and/or print and store tickets, transfers, passes, stickers 0.1 $5,500 $164,000 0.1 $5,500 $100,000 staff time in Procurement, Finance, Marketing tickets, passes, transfers ready for distribution and sale. FTEs FTEs Annual Cost
Staff Fare Media Customer Service Distribution and Sales Distribute to 3rd party resellers
3.6
$97,000
0.8
$21,000
sell fare media to public directly and via outside channels staff time in Customer Service, for administration and shipping media to thirdparties and bus divisions staff time in downtown Customer Sales office, direct sales to patrons postage & shipping Customer Service
Customer sales office Delivery to 3rd parties Customer Telephone Service Staff providing customer assistance re fares & media Revenue Processing Revenue Accounting Staff in Finance Materials Bank fees Farebox Vaulting & Transport Personnel Veh. Fuel & Maintenance FVM Revenue Servicing FVM servicing & transport Cash Revenue Processing Personnel Materials
1.9
$23,000 $10,000
1.9
$23,000 $2,000
2.0
$48,000
3.0
$72,000
accounting of tickets and passes 1.0 $37,000 $500 $9,900 0.3 $11,000 $200 $0 pass sales invoices and payments Supplies: billings, invoices on non-smart card media only emptying cashboxes, transporting vaults Transportation fuel exchanging cashboxes and coin hoppers 0.0 included with Cash Rev Processing 0.0 included with Cash Rev Processing Finance (Revenue Center) staff counting cash revenue from cashboxes 4.5 $260,000 $13,000 3.9 $228,000 $11,000 Finance (Revenue Center) staff
0.2
$16,000 $3,500
0.2
$16,000 $3,500
System Communications and Network Management Agency Network Personnel Fare Equipment Maintenance Fareboxes Personnel Materials Rail FVMs Personnel Materials Fare Inspection (Rail) Fare Inspection Personnel Materials 18.0 $945,000 $45,000 18.0 $945,000 $45,000 Police Services 3.0 4.0 $190,000 $25,000 3.8 $178,125 $23,438 preventive and corrective maintenance $180,000 $125,000 3.0 $180,000 $125,000 Rail Maintenance staff preventive and corrective maintenance Bus Maintenance staff 1.0 $70,000 1.0 $70,000 maintain network and software; provide user support IT staff
Agency Fare Collection Costs
39.3
$2,267,400
36.0
$2,059,763
- 103 -
12/13/2007
System Procurement
Overall Procurement Approach A number of regions have either implemented a regional transit farecard program or are nearing implementation. Several procurement models have been followed with many lessons learned. These approaches are identified in Table 6-14 and discussed below.
Table 6-14. Procurement Approaches
Program Development Joint Agency Cooperation Project Management System Deployment Case Studies
Joint Procurement with Letter of Agreement (LOA) and single contract Individual procurement contracts, following joint selection of contractor
Regional Deployment Phased Deployment Regional Deployment
Seattle/Puget Sound SF Bay Area, South Florida Los Angeles
Central Funding Agency Single Agency Initiation
Contract management by central funding agency Single agency procures and implements system; Other agencies adopt system at a later date
Regional Deployment Single Agency Deployment, Others follow later
Ventura County; Minneapolis Washington, DC
Joint Multi-Agency Procurement
Participating agencies cooperate under an interagency agreement. The agreement defines functional responsibilities for design, procurement and operation of the system, and provides a formula for sharing capital and operational costs. A single RFP and technical specification is prepared and a single contractor is selected to provide the system. This procurement approach is being followed in Seattle/Puget Sound, in which seven agencies are participating. Bringing this project to implementation has taken over twelve years. The learning process and coordination among the agencies contributed to this extended program timetable. Development and programming of agency business rules have proven to be more complex than anticipated. In the Bay Area, a multi-agency program has similarly taken a number of years to bring to implementation. In this case, each agency is deploying the system according to its own timetable. At this time, Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit are fully implementing the Translink smart card, with a number of other participating agencies anticipating deployment by the end of this year.
Parallel Procurements
As with the joint procurement described above, participating agencies cooperate during system development and contractor selection. Following selection of a single contractor for new equipment including smart card technology, individual contracts are executed with the
- 104 -
12/13/2007
contractor by each agency, to administer on their own. All agencies cooperate during the procurement phase, with their common interest in a workable regional system. Los Angeles followed this model. LACMTA prepared a specification for an entirely new fare collection system for its bus/rail system. The agency worked with other local operators to include specifications for a new regional smart card system. All agencies cooperated in evaluating proposals and selecting the contractor for the MTA procurement, which included options pricing sheets for the other carriers. Individual contracts let by each operator refer to the specifications and prices in the MTA contract. This approach has given each agency more control over its part of the program. It also enabled MTA to proceed with procurement of an entirely new fare collection system for its bus and rail systems ahead of the regional smart card portion of the contract. In a variation of this approach, the smart card system can be developed and specified cooperatively by participating agencies. A single contract can be advertised for phased implementation, utilizing priced contract options for those operators that dont immediately opt in. Following joint agency evaluation and selection of the preferred contractor, one or more operators can participate in the initial procurement and implementation, with other operators joining later after start-up. Sharing the cost of the initial investment, which will include the lions share of engineering, project management and regional center costs, will need to be addressed at the start of the project in the event each operator is expected to contribute to system funding.
Regional Agency Procurement
The regional agency is responsible for funding and procuring the system from a single contractor for implementation on all transit agencies in the region. This is the approach followed in both Ventura County by the Transportation Commission and in Minneapolis by the Metro Council. These regional agencies also provide all central clearinghouse and management services. The centralized planning, policy and funding responsibilities already residing with these agencies help to expedite this centralized procurement approach.
Single Agency Procurement
One transit agency, typically the largest transit operator serving the urban core, issues an RFP and procures a smart card system for itself, with an ability to expand to other neighboring systems. The system is installed and made operational on the one agency. Once established, partner agencies can elect to opt in, through separate procurements. This approach was followed by WMATA in Washington, DC. Because the original contract involved the one agency, the system was up and running in much less time than procurements involving several operators. Use of proprietary smart card technology and utilizing the same supplier as the one having installed all equipment on the system no doubt simplified and expedited the process. Other agencies in the region are now working to integrate this proprietary technology onto their buses or ticket vending machines. The challenges being experienced involve cooperation in integrating the smart card system with legacy equipment supplied by another vendor. Future systems following this approach in which the agencies in a region do not collaborate on the initial design and procurement will benefit from evolving standards in contactless smart card technology. By specifying a non-proprietary design that requires the use of
- 105 -
12/13/2007
standardized equipment and system architecture, the potential for conflict between competing suppliers equipping different operators is diminished (although likely not eliminated). Specifying cards and readers that meet ISO 14443 ensures that, in the very least, the card will be capable of communicating with the reader, regardless of supplier. Once fully developed and adopted by the transit industry, the Contactless Fare Media Standard (CFMS) under development by APTA will provide a means for the card, reader and back office system to understand one another, again regardless of supplier. Access to system source code, whether through ownership or license, provides a means for the lead agency to revise or upgrade the system software as necessary to accommodate agencies that opt in several years following start-up. Central Services Management As with development and procurement of the system itself, a number of approaches have been followed for management of the clearinghouse and central services functions. These are identified in Table 6-15 and described below.
Table 6-15. Central Services Management Approaches

Contract Approach Single Contractor Separate Contractor In-House Management Description Examples
A single contract is awarded to install and then support the system with central services System Procurement and Central Services are contracted separately System is managed by funding agency following system deployment
Seattle, SF Bay Area Los Angeles, Washington, DC Ventura County, Minneapolis
Single Contractor
In some cases, participating agencies issued a single contract to first develop and install the smart card system, and then to operate it. In both Seattle and the Bay Area, ERG is the system supplier and is providing financial clearinghouse functions, customer support, smart card inventory control, system administration and second-tier equipment maintenance (shop repair). Advantages of this approach are that the selection process is streamlined to executing one contract; and the firm that operates and maintains is most familiar with its design and is not subject to conflicts over intellectual property rights.
Separate Contractor
Participating agencies in other regions have opted to contract with one supplier to design and install the smart card system and then to issue a separate contract to another firm to provide clearinghouse functions. In Washington, DC, Cubic Transportation Systems has provided the SmarTrip smart card system for WMATA, and is now working with other operators in the region to implement the system on their service. ERG has been contracted to provide clearinghouse functions once one or more of these agencies joins WMATA in the SmarTrip program. An advantage of this approach is that contracts can be awarded to the
- 106 -
12/13/2007
best firm for each project system implementation and system operation. More competition can be expected for each contract from qualified firms. On the downside, contracting with two competitors increases the potential for conflict when cooperation is required.
In-House Management
Some regional systems are being managed by a lead agency. In both Ventura County and Minneapolis, the central agency that funded, designed and procured the regional system manages clearinghouse and customer service activities, inventory management, and troubleshooting and field maintenance. The supplier that installed the system provides ongoing software maintenance, technical call-in support, and shop repair of failed equipment. Use of in-house staff can reduce the cost of managing the system, provided staff has the training and technical expertise, the agency is organized for effective system management, and the agency has the confidence of the other participating operators. In a variation of this approach, a lead agency may be responsible for all central management functions with the exception of the financial clearinghouse, software maintenance, secondtier call-in support, and second-tier component repair. This focuses third-party involvement on revenue management and activities specific to system design.
- 107 -
12/13/2007
Key Decisions in the Next Phase
This section identifies key decisions to be made by SACOG and the partner agencies in order to move forward with implementation of a regional transit farecard program. These decisions fall under the following general categories: Project participation, management and governance Project scope, task and schedule Business rules of policy, operation and settlement
Program Organization
Agency Participation As a first step in Phase 2 of the regional farecard program, SACOG and the partner agencies need to commit to moving forward with the project; to commit to fund, procure and implement a regional fare system that is based on the contactless smart card as a universally accepted fare medium. Some agencies will commit to participate and others will either opt to defer their participation or decline entirely. Project Funding Agreements on participation may hinge on funding and the funding source. Sources for funding both the system procurement and on-going support and operation should be identified, so that agencies will understand how the program may affect their own capital and operating budgets. If funding is to be provided by more than one agency, a formula for allocating these costs among the contributing agencies may be needed. Similarly, if the costs of operating the system are to be covered by more than agency, a formula for cost allocation will be needed. Project Governance Those agencies that opt to participate will need to be organized for project management and program governance. Project management will entail assignment of staff to run the project on a regular basis for the long-term. Program governance will entail project oversight and policy decisions that set program direction. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) or Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) can lay out agreed-upon terms of cooperation among the participating agencies. This document should include definition of the responsibilities and authority that staff personnel and executive management will have for project management. It should define the process by which decisions of policy and direction are made.
- 108 -
12/13/2007
The IGA should also describe the process by which agencies that have either declined or deferred participation will be able to opt in at a later date, after initial system start-up. This may entail compensation to the charter agencies that had invested in system design and procurement. Project Scope The participating agencies should develop a clearly defined system scope. This scope will describe what is to be procured for the regional system and what functionality is to be provided. It should also describe what on-going tasks are expected to be provided by the selected system vendor. The agencies may opt to outsource some duties and to assign others to a designated lead agency from among themselves. Discussions with SACOG and its partners have indicated that financial services and clearinghouse activities may be outsourced while others remain in-house assigned to either SACOG or RT. The outsourcing of system support tasks may be included as part of the procurement contract itself. Alternatively, these tasks may be outsourced under separate contract to either the same system contractor or a different independent contractor. Choosing the same contractor for on-going services has been the more prevalent approach where stand-alone smart card systems have been installed. Where the smart card system is part of a full fare collection system procurement, in which fareboxes, TVMs and other hardware account for the lion share of procurement cost, an independent contractor has been awarded clearinghouse, card database management and financial management responsibilities. The best contractor for supplying a fare collection system is not necessarily best suited to provide financial services and clearinghouse functions. The scope of work of the procurement contract may also include other fare system hardware, such as new fareboxes or TVMs. This equipment is not central to the smart card system itself. However, there are clear advantages to having an interface between this equipment and the smart card system. These advantages include the ability to reload value onto the smart card at the TVM or farebox, and the ability to consolidate bus driver log-in and controls, and transaction databases both on vehicle and in the back office. Procuring in one contract provides for a more fully integrated system. However, as discussed above, the contractor with the best fare collection hardware may not be best suited to provide the smart card system with its sophisticated back office processing requirements. As the project progresses in the next phase and the program is further defined, decisions on scope and assignment of responsibilities may be reconsidered and revised. Implementation Planning and Schedule At the start of the next phase, an implementation plan should be developed along with a general timeline for completing each step toward start-up. Obtaining professional services to assist in this effort with technical support is recommended. Consider long-lead items that should be addressed early in the process. Begin early discussions with institutional partners that may need to begin their own planning for system implementation. Introducing a smart card-based photo ID card system for the universities and school and college districts may affect their own plans for system upgrade.
- 109 -
12/13/2007
Business Rules and Fare Policy Participating agencies will need to fully define all business rules that will govern the processing of fares, revenue, costs and rider and cardholder data. The fare tariffs and transfer and service agreements in place today will provide a foundation for further defining these rules. Processing transactions and revenue electronically will involve entirely new approaches and paths for routing, reporting these data and for banking the associated revenue. As discussed in the earlier sections of this report, a regional smart card system can accommodate the fare tariffs and transfer agreements currently in place. The state-of-the-art of smart card technology provides the processing power necessary to accommodate all of the unique fare tariffs and the transfer agreements that are currently in place, without revision. However, the regional fare system presents an opportunity to examine the fare policies and fare structures of the participating transit agencies. The potential for redefining elements of these fares to be more consistent among these agencies should be explored. The regional system will benefit from agreeing on common definitions of terms, eligibility requirements for reduced fares, and on designations of the types of service (local, circulator, express, premium, etc.). Creation of a fare or fares that are valid on all services would simplify system use for the customer, simplify system development, and simplify system administration for the agencies and regional center. The State legislature recently mandated that the Bay Area transit agencies participating in the Translink smart program establish a regional pass that would be valid on all transit systems. Technological Advances As the program progresses, advances in the state-of-the-art may warrant changes to project scope. The APTA standards for data formatting, security and processing on contactless fare media systems has been completed since this feasibility study was initiated, providing a means for specifying a system that will held avoid the proprietary systems that have been implemented in the US. However, the fare system suppliers may include the cost of modifying their proprietary systems to meet these standards in the price of their system, particularly if the Sacramento is the first or among the first to specify that the standards by followed. In addition to implementing a smart card system that is dedicated to use for regional transit a so-called closed system consider specifying that the regional system also accept and process contactless credit cards that are issued by more and more banks, as MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave, and by American Express. In limited use in US (and in much greater in Europe and Asia), the potential of using a credit card at the farebox on a transit bus will soon be tested. As more experience is gained with these on-board micropayments, the agencies may opt to include this capability in its specification. At this time, the system should be specified to, in the very least, require hardware that is certified to read the contactless bank cards, to avoid costly change-out of equipment in the future.
- 110 -
12/13/2007
Appendix Focus Groups and Round Table Discussions
12/13/2007
Appendix A: Discussion Group Meeting Methodology

The goals of the guided focus group meetings were to address the following questions: o What are transit user preferences for farecard uses, features and options? o What is important to users about a farecard system? o What will the user best respond to in order to make the farecard program a market success? Transit User Focus Group Organization and Recruitment In order to determine the types of participants (i.e., market segments) to include in each focus group, market segments were identified that grouped riders by similar usertype or those with shared ridership characteristics. Working with SACOG and participating transit agencies and transportation management associations (TMAs) on the Transit Coordinating Committee, it was determined that the four focus groups should be composed of the following general market segments: 1. Seniors/persons with disabilities/transit dependent riders 2. Students (K-12, community college and university level) 3. Commuters and frequent riders 4. Transfer riders and occasional riders When recruiting individuals for each focus group, the project team also sought to achieve a diversity of the following characteristics: General Location within the Region o Sacramento urban area and adjacent areas served by RT and intersecting transit service providers (Roseville Transit, Yuba-Sutter, Yolobus, e-tran and El Dorado Transit) o Outlying areas of the six-county region Diversity of age, gender and household income Participants were asked to complete a short survey to identify their travel characteristics. The process of identifying and recruiting individuals from each targeted market segment involved working with the transit agencies and other interested organizations (RT, SACOG, TMAs, schools and universities, and employers) to access readily available databases or survey information. Notices were placed on transit agency web sites and e-mailed to qualified individuals. Recruitment also involved phone calls to candidate participants. Qualified individuals meeting participation criteria were offered free monthly transit passes, donated by agencies, or the payment of nominal compensation.
H The Hoyt Company
-1-
September 12, 2006
Discussion Group Composition and Travel Characteristics Forty participants (10 for each group) were chosen from 125 initial rider responses. An additional 25 responses were received after the initial solicitation period closed. All 125 initial respondents were provided with a short questionnaire that requested a description of their transit uses and activities. Those that returned this material were grouped according to the four previously established rider categories. The selection process included a diversity assessment of residential locations, transit systems used and employer or academic affiliation. These focus groups included transit users defined by the following distinct characteristics: Frequency of travel o Regular transit users: those who commute or make frequent trips o Occasional transit users: those who use transit, but on an irregular basis General Location within the Region o Sacramento urban area and adjacent areas served by RT and intersecting transit service providers (Roseville Transit, Yuba-Sutter, Yolobus, e-tran and El Dorado Transit) o Outlying areas of the six-county region Diversity of age, gender and household income Participants were asked to complete a survey to identify their travel characteristics. Total meeting participation was 95% of confirmed participants with two participants failing to attend. One participant left mid-way during a meeting. The gender distribution of participants was 67% female and 33% male. Only 10% of attendees requested parking reimbursement for attending the meeting. Approximately 90% of participants arrived at meetings via transit, on foot, bicycle or carpool. The $40 cash incentive was the primary motivator for attendance with 95% of attendees choosing this compensation. Only two participants opted to receive a free monthly transit pass ($80 and $100 values) instead of cash.
Distribution by Residential Location
Selected participants represented 23 residential ZIP codes encompassing three counties and eight cities. Table 1 shows the distribution of residential cities and ZIP codes for attendees.
H The Hoyt Company
-2-
September 12, 2006
Table 1 Residential Cities and ZIP Codes

Home City Davis Carmichael Elk Grove Sacramento Sacramento/Greenhaven Sacramento Sacramento Citrus Heights Citrus Heights Davis Davis Elk Grove Granite Bay Roseville Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento, South West Sacramento West Sacramento Total Participant Distribution Home ZIP code 95616 95608 95758 95814 95822 95816 95825 95610 95621 95617 95618 95624 95746 95661 95815 95821 95824 95828 95833 95864 95831 95605 95691 Participants 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 Percent 13.5% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 5.4% 5.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 100.0%
A large majority of participants over 88% - lived in areas served either directly by RT or by transit service that connects to RT services. The remaining 11% lived in outlying areas not served by RT or a connecting service. Table 2 shows the distribution of attendees who lived in these areas.
H The Hoyt Company
-3-
September 12, 2006
Table 2 Attendees Served by RT

Location of Residence # of participants % of participants Area served by RT and/or connecting transit service 31 88.6% Outlying area not served by RT or connecting service 4 11.4%
Distribution by Primary Transit Agency
Focus group participants reported being users of seven (or half) of the 14 regional transit agencies. More than 32% of participants used only one transit agency for service with the remaining 68% using two or more agencies in the normal course of their ridership. Table 3 shows the distribution by the primary transit agency used. Table 4 shows the distribution of participants reporting use of one, two, three of four transit service providers. Table 3 Distribution of Transit Agencies Represented
Transit Agency RT Yolobus Unitrans Paratransit, Inc. Davis Community Transit Roseville Transit e-tran Auburn Transit El Dorado Transit Folsom Stage Line Lincoln Transit Placer County Transit South County Transit/LINK (Galt) Yuba-Sutter Transit Percent 32 16 12 9 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distribution 38.6% 19.3% 14.5% 10.8% 6.0% 6.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
H The Hoyt Company
-4-
September 12, 2006
Table 4 Distribution of Participants by Number of Transit Agencies Used

# of Transit Services Used 1 2 3 4 2 # Focus Group Participants 12 11 9 3 5 % Focus Group Participants 32.4% 29.7% 24.3% 8.1% 5.4%
Distribution by Age, Gender and Household Income
Participants ranged in age from 16 to 68 years old with incomes ranging from zero ($0) for students, $3,000 to $150,000 per year. Table 5 shows participant demographics. Table 5 Participant Demographics
Age 55 30 56 51 54 49 51 50 48 35 51 38 1 1 55 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Male 1 1 Female Income $150,000 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $66,000 $65,000 $60,000 $55,000 $52,000 $50,000 $50,000 $40,200 $40,000 $39,000 Administrator Environmental Technician Computer Security Manager for State of California Planner, Sacramento County Planning Department Human Resources Analyst Energy Specialist I Administrative Assistant Disabled Research Administrator Office Specialist Personnel Technician Human Resources Administrative Assistant Volunteer Coordinator Library Assistant Occupation
H The Hoyt Company
-5-
September 12, 2006
Age 48 59 53 32 60 44 59 41 22 22 46 51 18 68 36 45 51 53 37 16 20 19
Male
Female 1 1 1
Income $37,776 $32,000 $30,000 $20,000
Occupation Information Systems Technician Retired - Investigative Assistant Account Manager Student, Civil Engineer Intern (Sacramento County) Retired/part-time worker/community activist Social Services Retired/ disabled teacher Student, Sacramento City College Student Student Student/CSUS Teacher (in the future again) Caregiver Retired Community Development Civil Service Air Quality Planner Program Technician - State Worker None - disabled Student Community Relations Computer Technician
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
$20,000 $17,000 $15,000 $12-$16,000 $10,812 $10,812 $10,000 $10,000 $3,000 SSI Below Poverty N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
H The Hoyt Company
-6-
September 12, 2006
Appendix B: Consolidated Focus Group Comments

General Questions and Concerns of the Participants Participant Questions: What about confidentiality? Will the light rail inspector be holding the light rail reader? If you scan the card on the bus, can see your balance/card information? How does the card get encoded? How does it check which fare you are using? Is this a study researching whether it is feasible or how to best implement it? Would there be a picture on the card? How is identification accepted? Is it the same as the magnetic strip type of card that Sacramento City College uses? With the current card, it is convenient that a friend can borrow my pass. Could a friend use my Smart Card? When the transponder reads your card, will you be able to see your balance? Is Amtrak involved in this study, and will they be incorporated into the system? Will you still have to get your card validated on RT or the bus? How would it know if you are using a daily pass and not making transfers between RT buses? Can I still have a monthly pass? When riding to Roseville, one way accepts transfers, while others dont. Will they figure this discrepancy out? What if the bus is late, will the card still know it is a transfer? Is there anything to encourage or discourage multi-person use? What if you travel with more than one person on a rare basis? Will this new technology slow the boarding process? Will there be portable readers for Paratransit? Can you make overnight deposits on to your farecard? H The Hoyt Company -1September 12, 2006
General Questions and Concerns of the Participants If I put $200 on my card, can I ride Regional Transit and Yolobus? Does the card know if you get a discount? Right now I have payroll deduction. Will this be the same? How does it know how much to deduct? On light rail, how do you prove to the fare inspector that you paid? Can you see on the card how much value is remaining? Would this replace other fare payment technologies? How do you pay for transfers? What happens if you do not have enough value on your card? What if you lose your card? Do you have to start over if the card is lost? How durable are the farecards? What if you lose your card? Will going through the washer/dryer hurt it? Would there be a geographic limitation (e.g., Vacaville, San Francisco)? Does the Sacramento State University card include Paratransit? Can someone still jump on light rail without a pass? Who uses this system? Do other cities have operational (hardware or software) glitches with the farecard system? When is the target date to start using the Smart Card system? What about a Central City fare? When will activation occur? If you swipe the card before the train comes, you lose time on your allowable transfer time before the train comes. What happens if you have realized that you are on the wrong bus too late? Will you be charged twice for your mistake? Will there be a feature so that children can be included on their parents card?
H The Hoyt Company
-2-
September 12, 2006
General Questions and Concerns of the Participants Participant Comments/Concerns: Worry about slowing the boarding process. This has the potential to be one more thing that can go wrong with the equipment not working. The farecard could serve as a second form of identification for Paratransit users. Overall goals of this study should be to increase transit ridership I would be worried that it would deduct more than it should.
Identification of Attractive User Features Question: What smart card program features would be most attractive to you? Participant Responses: Ease of use/loading card, convenient, automated Eliminate the need to physically go to add money Flexibility to add money through more than one medium; do not have to go to transit agency; self-administer Reduces the need to carry cash (convenience, safety) Telephone recharge/reload access Reduces the need to carry cash Ease of use/banking/transit savings account (reserve) Being able to manage it online. Readers and payment machines at the light rail stops that accept ATM cards. They need to be kept in good working order. Being able to pay for the card by mail with money orders. Two people stated that being able to see on the card how much value is left without having to locate a card-reading machine would be most attractive Two people expressed that it would be a benefit if the Department of Rehabilitation, which currently pays for their transit, could load money on the account directly so that they dont have to pay and then get reimbursed later. There could be a toll free phone number that you call to check the balance.
H The Hoyt Company
-3-
September 12, 2006
Identification of Attractive User Features Service agencies that subsidize transit being able to load the card directly Being able to pay in advance. Being able to call on your cell phone to get balance information would be useful. Online management. Simplified regional fares Eliminate the need to go to the office to obtain monthly pass Payroll deduction, pre-tax opportunity Will not have to obtain a transfer ticket Can access via Web Serve as an identification card/employee access/multi-use Good to use for multiple buses/line systems Reusability between systems/ long-term usage Integrated systems Multi-use with parking garage/parking meter/complete integrated system It will save time Easier fare management Disabled identification (Paratransit) Not magnetic, wont demagnetize Include information line or telephone number on the card Reusability. I dont have a lot of time to get more passes. Link to 511 Card readers to accommodate multiple languages Not be Braille dependant Make audible readers with headphones It would be good to be able to view a statement with a transit transaction history A benefit would be that the card would be sturdier. The current cards break easily. Protective hard case for carrying with easy accessible
H The Hoyt Company
-4-
September 12, 2006
Identification of Attractive User Features Reliability Personal management/control, can be self administered Reusability between systems/ long-term usage Bonuses and rewards Increased security and safety Easier fare management Gives the rider peace of mind, less stress and more incentive to ride an express bus with bonuses Able to know that a child will not be stranded/reliability Being able to use it for taxicabs as well. Increases safety Option for bonus rewards, discounts (financial incentives) Allows flexibility of payment Nice not to have to collect cash Great for people who pay cash Can be given as a gift Environmental advantages It should tie in with FasTrak Get a refund or rebate if a bus doesnt arrive or breaks down An audio feature would be preferred, but this might be a security issue This could be addressed by using headphones, but it may be cumbersome to have to carry around headphones. People with vision impairment who need to use the audio feature could carry headphones. It would have to be different than the BART system, because that system gives you a new card.
Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Question: What do you like/dislike about a shared multi-use system? H The Hoyt Company -5September 12, 2006
Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Positive Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Coffee/retail usage (Starbucks) Retail (drug stores, grocery, coffee houses) Retail sites only near transit (TOD locations) Retail (drug stores, department store, grocery) Points for Starbucks, Jamba Juice, PetCo, etc. Two participants would like to get discounts at retail establishments. Bonus rewards at retail/coffee shops or student related campus shops or school activities Connect to retail near bus stop/transit Small retail discount with card, retail incentives Accumulate ridership points program where one could accumulate points that can be used as discounts at local retailers. Movie Rental On-site cafeteria Entertainment center Theater pass Vending machines, food kiosks/vendors near transit Vending around light rail stations/kiosks Parental control for students Lunch money for kids (student identification, attendance tracking) Put money on card for kids, parental control Transfer money from gift cards on to farecard Ability to add or transfer other gift card balances Ability to pay fines with card Do not see how you can make it look like a credit card and ID, but it would be good if it could be linked with any bank, not just one sponsoring bank. Connectivity to bank or credit union
H The Hoyt Company
-6-
September 12, 2006
Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Connection to financial institutions If you lose it, it is just like losing an ATM card. You can just call the bank and have it cancelled. Social Service agencies being able to load the card directly for both subsidized transit fares and bookstore items Useable for multiple transit systems Being able to use it with Amtrak and Greyhound Being able to use it with other transit agencies Taxi-cab fare Shuttle fare Parking fare Taxi/shuttle fare Toll bridges/all-transit related (e.g. gas, parking, tolls) Travel related expenses, such as gas, parking garage expenses, tolls Bridge tolls Parking for city and county employees, and at colleges, universities and Amtrak stations. Bicycle locker access at transit stations Make any/various shared applications options for activation or not at the rider's choice. Government travel Do not have to rely on other people Use as a telephone card Medical facilities Upload at hospital Library Library card Use as a library card
H The Hoyt Company
-7-
September 12, 2006
Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Linked to bank and library, including being able to use it with the copiers and printers at the libraries Using the same card for transit and library access Linked with the CSUS One Card Employer flexibility- an employer could opt for a parking or cafeteria option through the card. Online management Could provide Paratransit eligibility/identification confirmation when traveling to other counties. Employee identification/building access Photo identification Use it as a form of identification Reduce number of other cards need to carry, consolidated convenience Fewer cards. Would like consolidation of as many cards as possible, especially with any sponsoring businesses, so that I do not have to juggle so many cards. It would be good if there were a phone number that I could call if it were stolen. Two participants with sight impairment like that it would help them remain anonymous, because they currently have to show all of their cards to cashiers and ask them to select the appropriate card. A consolidated card would reduce or eliminate that.
Negative Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications It should be only for transportation uses (not other shared uses) Security concerns, fraudulent use if stolen Possible loss of privacy. Would not like it linked to a bank account Would like to be able to opt out of any linked features If you lose the card, you are losing a lot It would not necessarily be better for me. Right now all I have to do is show my CSUS sticker. Should be only transportation related uses Keep it focused for transportation only
H The Hoyt Company
-8-
September 12, 2006
Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Question: How would a universal farecard be convenient for you? Participant Responses: Eliminating check writing, money order for payment process Eliminate paperwork Eliminate the need for employer reimbursement of subsidies Could our employer subsidy be transferred to our card? Agencies could pay subsidies directly onto the card Payroll deductions Payroll deduction, pre-tax Universal pass, universal transit system acceptance After all the information gathering is done, and the farecard becomes a feasible option, do we know if all transit agencies are on board? I would not have to worry about exact change or carrying cash at all. Not having to have exact change Multi-functioning card Allows other sources of payment options Reusability and usability for multiple types of services (transit, retail, etc.) Shared applications (e.g., retail, employee identification badge) Buy at retail outlet (use same process now at Belair) Shopping Saves time The farecard would cut driving time for pick-up of monthly passes at various destinations. Time savings/payment ease It would be faster, so you wouldnt miss the train, but the machines need to be in good working order Having everything automated, makes life easier and saves time.
H The Hoyt Company
-9-
September 12, 2006
Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card No picking up a pass each month Faster boarding, will not slow boarding process May ease transition during fare increase periods Being able to put money on the card at school Easier to manage than a student pass Equally as convenient as the CSUS pass that I currently use It would be more convenient for someone who is not a student Not having to think about it Worry-free process, can check the value balance at any reader Automated aspect, would simplify transit fare planning process I would enjoy the flexibility to add money whenever and wherever, and to choose my destination locations quickly and easily. I would like to be able to fill out my farecard information online, and have the card mailed to my home. I would enjoy having a farecard, provided that there are multiple pay points. Rider control - helps to manage transit needs (business and personal) More control. Being blind, I am not able to know if Paratransit drivers are giving me correct change. Maintain independence Can make daily changes or choice options if needed Web based convenience Can easily arrange for time off or vacation uses (non use) No magnetic strip/electronic signing Durable and sturdy It would be nice to have something with longevity, so I dont have to replace it one or more times a month. They should make the cards in a smaller size, so you can keep it on a key chain. Still have concerns about it being stolen, but it would be good to be able to report it stolen and not lose any money H The Hoyt Company - 10 September 12, 2006
Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Safer than carrying cash Privacy is important Would there be a liability limit if it were lost? Would you lose up to a certain amount that would not be recovered if it were stolen? Dont like the idea of being linked with a financial institution. Would like to be able to opt out of linked features. I do not want everything on one card. I do not want to have to give out my Social Security number to get on transit. I like the extra incentives. Include customer service telephone number on the card (511) with access to the balance on your card. It would be convenient if I could use it as a library card. Include customer service telephone number on the card with live customer service access Is there a financial agency shared application (like paying bills online)? Consolidated cards Possibility to expand service area outside the region
Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Question: Where would it be most convenient for you to purchase/add money to your farecard? Corner stores/mini-marts Grocery store Grocery store (Safeway) Grocery store Grocery stores Two people prefer malls and major retail Walgreens or Western Union Retail stores (7-11, Wal-Mart)
H The Hoyt Company
- 11 -
September 12, 2006
Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card All major malls Banks/credit unions Credit card Automated Teller Machine-like machine in office Automated Teller Machines ATMs (without an extra fee!) I would not need to reload it because it would be paid for by the school. If I were no longer a student, I would prefer to pay at a machine that accepts ATM/credit cards. The machines should at least be located at all light rail stops. Office/employer site I would like to be able to buy my card from my employer Web site. Staffed kiosks (Having the 13th Street office as the only staffed light rail station is very inconvenient.) Machine at major transfer points/intersections/exchanges Light rail ticket machines Light rail stations Existing transit outlets Everywhere near transit Schools parents go there (can include lunch money/student identification) Universities Social services departments City Hall/government buildings Community center Public use facilities (library, Society For the Blind, senior centers, medical facilities) Library Public library Post office
H The Hoyt Company
- 12 -
September 12, 2006
Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Public locations around town with long or flexible hours (e.g., Amtrak) Disability organizations and agencies (Easter Seals, etc.) Mutually beneficial sites, key points around town Well-lit places with help telephone Places that are well populated/safe locations Additional Comments Means of Purchasing: There should be an incentive such as a discount if you purchase a larger amount in advance. Will the rider have to pay a fee for the card when they first get it? If there is a fee for the card, they will keep raising the price. The corporate sponsors should pay for the initial card cost. If it has your picture on it, it would be good to have several locations available to have your picture taken and to purchase the card. There should be a location in each area served. Multiple locations Everywhere, the more the better NOT on board buses NOT on board transit How would it be most convenient to purchase/add money to your farecard? Cash Cash or credit Credit card Over the Phone By phone with the option of automated process or live customer service representative By phone on 511 Two people prefer to pay by telephone, possibly through 511 system Via telephone Via telephone (with 24/7 live customer service, 511) H The Hoyt Company - 13 September 12, 2006
Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Whatever is the most private telephone or online Auto pay/credit card/bank Automatic payroll/employer deduction Online and at light rail stations Online, Web Online/Internet Two would prefer online with a credit card Whatever is quickest at the time Various payment options should be available
H The Hoyt Company
- 14 -
September 12, 2006
How did you learn about this discussion group meeting? Yolobus email Email from Roseville Transit E-mail from Yolobus Work Transportation Coordinator e-mailed information. From City of Roseville, webmaster@roseville.ca.us Email distribution list Friend on bus E-mail UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services email from Kathy Souza, County ETC On Paratransit Yolobus listserve A friend Paratransit call waiting message It was announced on the line when I called for reservations Flyer where I live. From Paratransit customer service Flyer posted on a Paratransit Vehicle Friend Paratransit recording Summer School Teacher A flyer posted at Sacramento State. I received an e-mail from Yolobus. CSUS Word of mouth On-hold telephone message at Paratransit
H The Hoyt Company
- 15 -
September 12, 2006
How did you learn about this discussion group meeting? I am on the Commuter Club mailing list (email) Yolobus announcements email list. e-mail e-mail 50 Corridor Group, Karen Levy Yolobus listserve Employer email Through email. E-mail at work E-mail from County RT contact
H The Hoyt Company
- 16 -
September 12, 2006
Appendix C: Stakeholder Group Meeting Notes Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Non-Transit Partners Roundtable Discussion July 12, 2006 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. SACOG Board Room - 1415 L Street, Suite 300
Stakeholder Attendees Suzanne Bracamonte, California State University, Sacramento Ann Davies-Nesbitt, University of California, Davis Rachel Dubose, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Bill Fairbairn, Assoc. for Commuter Transportation, North Natomas TMA Lynn Frank, County of Sacramento, Department of Health and Human Services Rebecca Garrison, 50Corridor TMA Patrick Kelly, Sacramento TMA, State Controllers Office Mauro Lara, Pride Industries, Inc. Linda Lee, Kaiser Patti Lum, Sacramento TMA, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Alfredo Orozco, California State University, Sacramento Chardonnay Provine, California State University, Sacramento Solvi Sabol, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Assoc. for Commuter Transportation Kirk Schneider, CalTrans Timothy Swank, Alta California Regional Center, Inc. Sue Teranishi, Sacramento TMA, Cal Environmental Protection Agency Mark Thomas, City of Rancho Cordova Laurie Sato, Department of General Services, Fleet Carlos Chavez, Department of General Services, Fleet Presentation Staff Ed Pollan, LTK Engineering Services Elizabeth Hughes, The Hoyt Company Kristy Day, The Hoyt Company Davida Douglas, The Hoyt Company SACOG Staff Robert McCrary, SACOG
H The Hoyt Company
-1-
September 12, 2006
Appendix C: Stakeholder Group Meeting Notes
Welcome and Introduction E. Hughes welcomed the 21 attendees and opened the meeting with introductions. She explained that the purpose of the meeting is to gauge interest among the non-transit partners about an electronic transit farecard system and how it could provide transit and administrative benefits and accommodate shared uses on one card. She presented a brief background of the SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study. Overview/Description of a Farecard System E. Pollan gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of electronic farecards, including: Smart Card technology How the farecard works o Using the farecard on transit o Purchasing fare (passes, tickets) for the farecard Partner applications o Providing transit benefits to employees o Providing both transit and non-transit applications on one card Roundtable Discussion E. Hughes provided a quick wrap-up and summary of the presentation and opened the meeting to questions and comments. The following is a brief summary of the questions and comments provided by meeting attendees during the ensuing discussion, as well as the corresponding responses by the presentation staff: P. Kelly: Im responsible for distributing transit passes to employees belonging to different bargaining units, with different agreements concerning pricing subsidies. Will the online system for managing transit benefits enable me to issue passes with these different pricing subsidies? E. Pollan: The system can be designed to program different pricing and discounts into the rules, e.g., if different employees receive different subsidies.
H The Hoyt Company
-2-
September 12, 2006
P. Kelly: Will the program administrator at each agency office be able to modify the database for the online order? E. Pollan: Yes. A. Davies-Nesbitt: Regarding incorporation with student passes; currently UC Davis has a separate pass for parking privileges. We include a parking benefit for employees as well. I am concerned with technology sharing for parking validation. However, I think the Smart Card system would offer an advantage in preventing misuse of student IDs for transit and parking. E. Pollan: A smart card can be programmed for use as ID with set validity dates and can accommodate both temporary parking privileges and transit use. Parking privileges can be controlled by number of days, time of day, etc. M. Lara: How expensive is it to implement? E. Pollan: The reusable card itself costs between $2.30 - $5.00 each, depending on quantity and type of card. The cost of implementation would include software, card readers, etc. and would depend upon the type of centralized system and the network available in the area for users to recharge the cards. We have yet to work out the details of the exact costs. M. Lara: You mentioned that the smart card could become a multi-purpose form of identification. If the transit portion is deactivated, any remaining applications, services or identification could remain active on the card. I would like to be able to compare the costs for the Smart Card to current identification cards. E. Pollan: Conceptually, the transit agency or regional transit system clearinghouse could stock and issue the smart card stock to universities and other institutions to use for production of photo ID cards. We dont know at this point what the additional cost is and how it would be paid. For transit smart card holders, a transit agency often issues the first smart card at no charge but then charges for replacement if it is lost or damaged. However, on a registered card, the value stored on that card can be moved to the replacement card. P. Kelly: Would we have to buy software? E. Pollan: No. The system would be set up to be accessed by employers and employees on-line. M. Thomas: In Chicago, they provide incentives for transit riders to get and use the card (discounts, etc.). E. Hughes: The Smart Card provides more opportunities to increase ridership through incentives. E. Pollan: The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) introduced both magnetic farecards and smart cards with its new fare collection system. The smart card was not widely used
H The Hoyt Company -3September 12, 2006
initially, as the magnetic card was more convenient and provided the same benefits. Smart card use increased significantly when transit fare incentives were introduced. T. Swank: We would save on postage and labor. We currently mail out passes each month. B. Fairbairn: There is a lot of mention of central systems, networks, etc. I think it is overkill. There has been enough talk about a regional system. It is time to get something implemented now to take care of the riders. A. Davies-Nesbitt: What would it involve for the transit providers? Is Amtrak/Capitol Corridor included? E. Pollan: Amtrak is not currently included. We want to make sure that it works for the 14 transit providers within the SACOG region. Once the initial system has been established, other service providers can opt in. L. Lee: Some of our employees use Solano or San Joaquin transit. How can we give incentives to those employees? How will it be coordinated with the different agencies? What agencies are being considered for inclusion? E. Pollan: The fourteen transit agencies are: El Dorado Transit, Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, Elk Grove Transit, Folsom Stage Line, Paratransit, Inc., Sacramento Regional Transit, South County Transit/LINK, Davis Community Transit, Unitrans, Yolo County Transportation District and Yuba-Sutter Transit. The transit systems in Solano, Amador and San Joaquin areas are not included in the SACOG study P. Kelly: Why is San Joaquin not included? E. Hughes: San Joaquin is not part of the SACOG region. We are currently focusing just on the SACOG region, but that does not mean that they would necessarily be excluded from future involvement. K. Schneider: It seems to be chopped up into different regions. With the prepaid FasTrak card, it is prepaid. There is less control, but more flexibility. It works like a credit card. E. Pollan: There is a national effort to define transit smart card standards so that eventually a smart card might be usable nationwide. We are also seeing growing interest in contactless smart cards by the banking industry. It would work like the Pay Pass credit cards so that systems could be more easily integrated. As the credit card industry gets more involved in the application of contactless smart card technology, as with the PayPass, we can expect to see growth in that type of system. A. Orozco: Is there a potential for misuse of the card because there is no photo on it?
H The Hoyt Company
-4-
September 12, 2006
E. Pollan: Conceptually, the blank smart card stock could be given to the universities, which would then produce the IDs as they currently do. The photo and other pertinent information would be placed on the card. The point made in the presentation was that there is no transaction data printed on the card as on a BART card which always shows remaining value. S. Sabol: It seems like ease-of-use is good, but is it feasible for smaller agencies? For example, some agencies offer free boarding on Spare the Air days. Hopefully that could be included while still gauging ridership. E. Pollan: The field units fareboxes, card readers, and ticket vending machines can be programmed from the central computer, including permanent or temporary changes in fare policy. Thus, on a particular day, the transit agency can program the field units to record the ride but not deduct a fare. The downloads occur daily and include hot lists of cards not to be honored because they are lost, stolen or expired. S. Sabol: Is there a processing fee for the user to recharge the card? E. Pollan: It would depend on how it is set up. It can be either way. Some agencies do charge a fee. S. Teranishi: Are you looking at a pilot program with Regional Transit only? The Smart Card would offer some advantages over stuffing envelopes, etc. Doing it on-line would also save processing time. E. Pollan: We have just started the task of identifying the various approaches to implementing a regional system. The amount of buy-in from the different agencies will be important. We have discussed the possibility of all agencies immediately buying-in as well as if only one agency RT - does. L. Frank: Could you load the cards without people having to come into an office? If so, it would be very beneficial for the people we serve. It is also helpful that lost or stolen cards can be deactivated. E. Pollan: Yes, being able to reload the card online or to set up a recurring auto load (requiring only an initial set-up) is a key feature of a smart card program. This enables the individual cardholder to receive the added value without having to come into the office. M. Thomas: The City of Rancho Cordova just finished their Transit Master Plan. One option is to let Regional Transit operate our transit, or we may choose to operate our own. We are currently looking at Paratransit shuttles to get people to Regional Transit. Is Paratransit being considered for inclusion with the Smart Card system? E. Pollan: Yes.
H The Hoyt Company
-5-
September 12, 2006
M. Thomas: Who will manage the system and how does the money get distributed? In Chicago it is taking a long time to work out these issues. Is it possible to have incentives for smaller agencies to join, such as grants for start-up costs, etc.? E. Pollan: Funding both the initial investment and on-going costs is something we will be examining later in the study. As far as who manages the system, we will be looking at alternatives for that as well. Some systems are managed by one of participating agencies, although in most case, a third-party is contracted to perform financial clearinghouse functions, including reconciling revenue receipts. P. Kelly: I am concerned with security of the information. It would be good if these types of systems could be coordinated with the State Controllers office. Can users and administrators access the information on-line? E. Pollan: Typically, individuals and administrators need to be able to log in, to see their accounts. When setting up the system, we would specify strict security requirements to protect user data. We are currently dealing with credit card industry standards that all merchants (including transit agencies) accepting credit cards must comply with. K. Schneider: Regarding who will be managing the money, it seems like with the FasTrak system, it seems like they have it figured out. E. Pollan: Like FasTrak and EZPass on the East Coast, standard systems are expanding beyond the original region toward a nationwide application. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has developed standards for transit smart cards defining data formats, so that eventually a users card from one region could conceivably be recognized by agencies in other parts of the country, although that is sometime off in the future. The focus for us is on the Sacramento region at this point. P. Kelly: There might be an issue with the labor unions because the different bargaining units decide the levels of transit subsidy for different employees. E. Hughes: For state employers, pre-tax money can be used to pay for parking and transit. The system could accommodate a pre-tax component for transit costs. A. Davies-Nesbitt: Can agencies be provided with reports including data such as how many miles were traveled, ridership numbers, etc? E. Pollan: With the current technology, an agency will get a record of each transaction. There would be a lot of information available. For example if someone boarded at one stop then transfers a couple of times before getting to the final destination, the central computer system will be able to assemble the three boardings into a single linked trip using the serial number of the smart card and the data recorded for each boarding. A. Davies-Nesbitt: Have you worked with ASUCD or anyone with Unitrans? Smart Cards would need to be implemented for student identification and other student tracking.
H The Hoyt Company -6September 12, 2006
E. Pollan: Yes. Unitrans is one of the agencies. The cards can have a dual use. We can also combine different types of card technologies, contactless, contact and magnetic stripe cards. M. Lara: Im also with the Pride Transportation Services Agency, which provides transportation mainly to seniors and disabled. There will also be a need for disability identification. We currently use a standard fare box. I would like to find a way to go to a cashless system. It will be a challenge to coordinate with all 14 agencies. E. Pollan: A single regional smart card will simplify fare payment and card management. The system can be set up so you would need to deal with only one regional agency rather than with each of the fourteen agencies. During a couple of our interviews of transit service providers, we were told that seniors might be reluctant to switch from paying cash to using a farecard. M. Lara: Will the software be a Web-based program? E. Pollan: Yes. A. Orozco: Are there currently any colleges or universities in other areas that are using a Smart Card? E. Pollan: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority provides blank smart card stock to local schools and school districts. The stock includes a magnetic stripe for school use, while the smart card component is used for transit. M. Lara: Chicago has a lot of universities. They probably are involved. E. Pollan: The University of Washington is looking into converting from a U-Pass to a Smart Card. E. Pollan: Do your employers have employee photo identification cards? Are they used just for identification or does it also control building access? M. Lara: Large employers with different sites would benefit from using a Smart Card system because it could be deactivated if an employee quits, etc. M. Thomas: We use photo ID, which is also used for office access. E. Pollan: Would you consider incorporating Smart Card with employee IDs? The key would be using access standards. P. Lum: There would be an advantage for regular transit riders, but would occasional riders still be able to purchase individual tickets? E. Pollan: That is one element of the various regional approaches we are starting to examine: the question of to what extent the Smart Card would replace the standard fare. The card does not have to be coded as a monthly pass. It could be coded with a
H The Hoyt Company
-7-
September 12, 2006
dollar amount. We are looking at both a universal multi-use card and also a system that would be just for transit. E. Hughes: We will be having a focus group with infrequent riders to look into that further. K. Schneider: We are a long way from a cashless society. I think you would have to maintain a cash option. L. Frank: The County of Sacramento has a separate identification card for each department. By the time the Smart Card gets started, the County may be up-to-date. P. Kelly: It would be bad if we miss this great opportunity. A. Davies-Nesbitt: On our campus there are a lot of old buildings. It might be difficult to incorporate them for access cards. How long will the study take prior to implementation? E. Pollan: We need consensus among the agencies. After we establish consensus, then we have to get funding. I cant tell you an exact time. This is the first of what will probably be four phases.
H The Hoyt Company
-8-
September 12, 2006
Next Steps and Adjournment E. Hughes reviewed the next steps in the study including: Market research o Process Stakeholder discussion (opportunities, concerns, etc.) o Recruit focus group/transit rider participants o Conduct guided discussion/focus groups o Issue market research findings report Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study o Evaluate costs and benefits of an electronic regional transit farecard o Issue a study report on feasibility and recommendations on further steps o Reach a consensus among transit agencies on further action regarding universal transit farecard implementation Meeting participants were invited to submit any additional comments, shared application suggestions or questions to: Elizabeth Hughes Stakeholder Coordinator (916) 448-2440 ph (916) 448-5305 fax Elizabeth@thehoytco.com The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
H The Hoyt Company
-9-
September 12, 2006
Summary of Meeting Comments

Issues of Interest, Advantages and Opportunities
Cashless Accountability/fraud (at University level) Multi-purpose identification Maybe lost saving benefits Processing/administration time Incentives Postage/administration time cost savings Flexibility/universal Ease of Use Pre-tax Ridership data ADA identification Alternative identification Timely opportunity not to be missed
Issues of Concern, Disadvantages, and Barriers

Different contractors/bargaining/prices Shared technology (e.g., parking) Limited participation (e.g., San Joaquin, Amador, Solano Links) Feasibility for smaller agencies Ridership tracking on free ride days Security of information Do not want it to be too regional Labor unions/level of subsidy Integration with existing infrastructure at state offices and others Occasional users and pass they need Still need to accommodate cash
How to Address Concerns

How to enlarge and provide incentives and coordination? How to prevent misuse? Set-up fee structures? Grant funding to implement for transit agencies? How much does this card replace (tickets for occasional riders)?
H The Hoyt Company
- 10 -
September 12, 2006
Other Comments
Who is managing money and system? Implementation costs? (Product, software, hardware, etc.) o Who sets up? o Who pays? Chicago provides incentives for card use Let us get something going now What is needed for transit operators? Is there a user-processing fee? Pilot program with Regional Transit? Want inter-agency connectivity (Galt, Sacramento, Elk Grove) Provide incentives for other agencies to join Air Quality, use, etc. Can we get this kind of data from this? What colleges are involved in Chicago? Looking at a multi-use type card? Social equality? When will it be implemented?
H The Hoyt Company
- 11 -
September 12, 2006
Appendix D: Discussion Group Meeting Notes Discussion Group #1 - Commuters and Frequent Riders July 24, 2006 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Attendees
First Name Susan Betty Susan Bruce Darenda Phyllis Vicky Denny Brian Janlee Last Name Brown Chrisman Geanacou Katayama Kimm Nahale Salas Smith Steele Wong Home City Davis Granite Bay Davis Carmichael Roseville Elk Grove Sacramento Elk Grove Sacramento Davis Occupation
Civil Service, County Energy Specialist I, State State Dept. of Finance Air Quality Planner, SMAQMD Information Systems Technician, State Program Technician - State Human Resources Analyst, SHRA Computer Security Manager, State Research Administrator, UC Davis Administrator, non profit
Ridership Characteristics and Demographics

Transit Utilized
e-tran 1 1
2
Roseville Transit RT Unitrans Yolobus M 1

1
F 1 1 1 1 1
Age 45 49 51 48 53 54 56 48 55
Income $65,000 $37,776 $66,000 $90,000 $52,000 $150,000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8
1 1 1 1
4
1 1 1 1 1
5
1 1 1 1
H The Hoyt Company
-1-
10/31/2006
Appendix D: Discussion Group Meeting Notes
Presentation and Facilitation Staff Ed Pollan, LTK Engineering Services Elizabeth Hughes, The Hoyt Company Nicole Angeloni, The Hoyt Company I. Welcome and Introduction E. Hughes welcomed the 10 attendees and opened the meeting with introductions. She explained that the purpose of the meeting is to expose transit riders to and educate them about the study and to gauge riders reactions to fare/smart card systems and their possible applications. She presented a brief background of the SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study. II. Overview/Demonstration of Smart Card System E. Pollan gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of electronic fareards, including: Smart card technology How the farecard works o Using the farecard on transit o Purchasing fare (passes, tickets) for the farecard
General Questions and Concerns of the Participants:
Following the presentation, the participants had the following questions and commentsParticipant Questions: 1. How does the card get encoded? 2. Does money get added to the card? 3. What if you lose your card? 4. Do you have to start over if the card is lost? 5. Is there anything to encourage or discourage multi-person use? 6. What if you travel with more than one person on a rare basis? 7. If you scan the card on the bus, can see your balance/card information? 8. Will this new technology slow the boarding process? 9. What about confidentiality? 10. Will the light rail inspector be holding the light rail reader? 11. Right now I have payroll deduction. Will this be the same? 12. How does it know how much to deduct? 13. What about a Central City fare?
H The Hoyt Company -210/31/2006
14. How does it check which fare you are using? 15. Is this a study researching whether it is feasible or how to best implement it? 16. Will going through the washer/dryer hurt it? Participant Comments/Concerns: 1. Worry about slowing the boarding process. This has the potential to be one more thing that can go wrong with the equipment not working. 2. Would this replace other fare payment technologies? 3. Would there be a geographic limitation (e.g., Vacaville, San Francisco)? 4. Is Amtrak involved in this study, and will they be incorporated into the system? 5. Overall goals of this study should be to increase transit ridership III. Identification of Attractive User Features Question: What smart card program features would be most attractive to you? Participant Responses: o Ease of use/loading card, convenient, automated o Eliminate the need to got to the office to obtain monthly pass o Eliminate the need to physically go to add money o Payroll deduction, pre-tax opportunity o Option for bonus rewards, discounts (financial incentives) o Great for people who pay cash o Will not have to obtain a transfer ticket o Can access via Web o Allows flexibility of payment o Nice not to have to collect cash o Good to use for multiple buses/line systems o Serve as an identification card/employee access/multi-use o Multi-use with parking garage/parking meter/complete integrated system o It should tie in with FasTrak o Offer $100 bonus reward to random riders as an incentive to ride transit more often o It will save time IV. Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Question: What do you like/dislike about a multi-use system?
H The Hoyt Company
-3-
10/31/2006
Participant Responses: Positive Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications o Parking fare o Coffee/retail usage (Starbucks) o Retail sites only near transit (TOD locations) o Employee identification/building access o Small retail discount with card, retail incentives o Put money on card for kids, parental control o Reduce number of other cards need to carry, consolidated convenience o Library card o Transfer money from gift cards on to farecard o Taxi/shuttle fare o Travel related expenses, such as gas, parking garage expenses, tolls o On-site cafeteria o Connect to retail near bus stop/transit o Ability to pay fines with card o Government travel o Parental control for students o Ability to add or transfer other gift card balances Negative Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications o It should be only for transportation uses (not other shared uses) o Security concerns, fraudulent use if stolen V. Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Question: How would a universal farecard be convenient for you? Participant Responses: o Time savings/payment ease o Shared applications (e.g., retail, employee identification badge) o Faster boarding, will not slow boarding process o Eliminating check writing, money order for payment process o Eliminate paperwork o Can easily arrange for time off or vacation uses (non use) o No picking up a pass each month o Payroll deduction, pre-tax o Eliminate the need for employer reimbursement of subsidies o Consolidated cards o May ease transition during fare increase periods o Universal pass, universal transit acceptance o Rider control - helps to manage transit needs (business and personal)
o Buy at retail outlet (use same process now at Belair) o Automated aspect, would simplify transit fare planning process o Web based convenience VI. Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Question: Where would it be most convenient for you to purchase/add money to your farecard? Participant Responses: o Automatic payroll/employer deduction o Grocery store (Safeway) o Online, Web o Post office o Via telephone o Light rail ticket machines o Automated Teller Machine-like machine in office o Machine at major transfer points/intersections/exchanges o Public locations around town with long or flexible hours (e.g., Amtrak) o Public library o Community center o Mutually beneficial sites, key points around town o Social services departments o NOT onboard buses VII. Adjournment, Completion of Travel Characteristic Survey and Distribution of Participant Compensation Additional Comments by Participants: Transit service times need to be expanded system-wide. Could make it easier for agencies to increase fares. Would be nice to have a universal transit rate
H The Hoyt Company
-5-
10/31/2006
E. Hughes thanked the 10 attendees for attending and participating in the discussion group. She then asked them to fill out any additional information or comments on their pre-completed travel characteristic surveys and adjourned the meeting. Participants received an incentive gift for attending. Comments from Rider Characteristics Survey Excellent meeting - well run. For transit to be a viable alternative in the outlying areas, service times need to be expanded. I live equal distance from a Roseville Commuter stop and the Folsom Historic Sutter stop. However, if I have to work any evening after 5:45 p.m., there are no Roseville buses available, and the same after ~6:20 p.m. for Regional Transit. Roseville Transit should offer a mid-day run also, from Roseville to downtown and back, as offered by Yuba-Sutter transit. Thank you for the group. I'd be glad to participate at a later time if necessary. I feel to increase ridership, the RT system should improve/expand service times and make mult-transit systems have a universal pass available. The discussion group was very informative and not as much pressure that I thought might occur. Thank you. I am looking forward to the discusion group meeting. Great concept, Limit to transit needs only, incorporate debit card capability for non-public transit needs, e.g., taxi and shuttle services. Schedule reader, library card, fare discounts (tickets), meter parking, tolls, car dealers - repair, good meeting, well facililtated.
H The Hoyt Company
-6-
10/31/2006
Discussion Group #2 - Seniors (age 62+), Persons with Disabilities or Transit Dependent Riders July 25, 2006 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Attendees First Name Regina Lena Anne Shirley Benita John DeeAnn Merle Last Name Brink Contreras Evans Muller Pascual Dezsi Heath Levy Home City Sacramento Davis Davis Sacramento Carmichael Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Occupation Volunteer Coordinator Community Development Retired/ disabled teacher Retired - Investigative Assistant Retired None - disabled Disabled Administrative Assistant

Transit Utilized
Davis Community Paratr Roseville Transit ansit Transit RT Unitrans Yolobus M F Age
Income
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 59 59 68 37 50 51
$40,000 Below Poverty $15,000 $32,000 SSI $55,000 $60,000
H The Hoyt Company
-7-
10/31/2006
Presentation and Facilitation Staff Elizabeth Hughes, The Hoyt Company Nicole Angeloni, The Hoyt Company I. Welcome and Introduction E. Hughes welcomed the nine attendees and opened the meeting with introductions. She explained that the purpose of the meeting is to expose transit riders to and educate them about the study and to gauge riders reactions to fare/smart card systems and their possible applications. She presented a brief background of the SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study. II. Overview/Demonstration of Smart Card System E. Hughes gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of electronic farecards, including: Smart card technology How the farecard works o Using the farecard on transit o Purchasing fare (passes, tickets) for the farecard
Following the presentation, the participants had the following questions and commentsParticipant Questions: 1. Will there be portable readers for Paratransit? 2. How durable are the farecards? 3. What if you lose your card? 4. Would there be a picture on the card? 5. How is identification accepted? Participant Comments/Concerns: 1. The farecard could serve as a second form of identification for Paratransit users.
H The Hoyt Company
-8-
10/31/2006
III. Identification of Attractive User Features Question: What smart card program features would be most attractive to you? Participant Responses: o Reusability between systems/ long-term usage o Flexibility to add money through more than one medium; do not have to go to transit agency; self-administer o Integrated systems o Easier fare management o Disabled identification (Paratransit) o Not magnetic, wont demagnetize o Reduces the need to carry cash (convenience, safety) o Increases safety o Ease of use/banking/transit savings account (reserve) o Able to know that a child will not be stranded/reliability o Include information line or telephone number on the card o Telephone recharge/reload access o Link to 511 o Not be Braille dependant o Protective hard case for carrying with easy accessible o Reliability o Personal management/control, can be self administered IV. Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Question: What do you like/dislike about a multi-use system? Participant Responses: o Retail (drug stores, department store, grocery) o Photo identification o Library o Medical facilities o Entertainment center o Theater pass o Upload at hospital o Vending machines, food kiosks/vendors near transit o Toll bridges/all-transit related (e.g. gas, parking, tolls) o Useable for multiple transit systems o Taxi-cab fare o Shuttle fare
o o o o o o
Connectivity to bank or credit union Vending around light rail stations/kiosks Do not have to rely on other people Lunch money for kids (student identification, attendance tracking) Should be only transportation related uses Could provide Paratransit eligibility/identification confirmation when traveling to other counties.
V. Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Question: How would a universal farecard be convenient for you? Participant Responses: o Reusability and usability for multiple types of services (transit, retail, etc.) o Maintain independence o Save time o Multi-functioning card o Safer than carrying cash o No magnetic strip/electronic signing o Shopping o Durable and sturdy o Allows other sources of payment options o Include customer service telephone number on the card with live customer service access VI. Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Question: Where would it be most convenient for you to purchase/add money to your farecard? Participant Responses: o All major malls o Via telephone (with 24/7 live customer service, 511) o Online/Internet o Existing transit outlets o Everywhere near transit o Grocery store o Public use facilities (library, Society For the Blind, senior centers, medical facilities) o Disability organizations and agencies (Easter Seals, etc.) o Post office
H The Hoyt Company - 10 10/31/2006
o o o o o o o o o
Universities Banks/credit unions Automated Teller Machines Schools parents go there (can include lunch money/student identification) City Hall/government buildings Places that are well populated/safe locations Multiple locations Auto pay/credit card/bank Well-lit places with help telephone
VII. Adjournment, Completion of Travel Characteristic Survey and Distribution of Participant Compensation Additional Comments by Participants: 1. Make audible readers with headphones 2. Card readers to have multiple languages 3. Using a public ATM for farecard applications creates personal security concerns. E. Hughes thanked the nine attendees for attending and participating in the discussion group. She then asked them to fill out any additional information or comments on their pre-completed travel characteristic surveys and adjourned the meeting. Participants received an incentive gift for attending.
Comments from Rider Characteristics Survey Accessible for people who cannot see, include audio component. I really enjoyed helping out. Very interesting. I look forward to having a Smart Card. Please use community radio/tv programs. Need Computer and phone access. Participated in discussion - embellished upon other suggestions. Have cards available in many places within ZIP code. Have renewals by phone or computer only. Have financial institutions (e.g., River City) help to transfer funds (i.e. Smart Card) over phone. My daughter pays for my monthly pass. Recently my sister gave her enough money to pay for two years. She had to open a separate bank account.
H The Hoyt Company
- 11 -
10/31/2006
I get a monthly pass, which is not an easy task some months. To do it via return mail means writing a check when funds may be low and hoping all goes well. The way I do it is to send my husband to Paratransit at the end of the month and hope he gets there before they close. Therefore, I suggest that the Smart Card be integrated into the pass system so we have 24/7 access to pass purchasing.
H The Hoyt Company
- 12 -
10/31/2006
Discussion Group #3 Students (K-12, Community College and University Level) Thursday, July 26, 2006 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Attendees First Name Malinda (Rosie) Susan Matthew Jassamin Leonard Robby Aaron Nick Tony Marquita Last Name Boucher Brewer Carrigan Khoshbakht Low Picking Schiestel Schmalenberger Thiara Vinson Home City West Sacramento Greenhaven Sacramento Carmichael Sacramento Citrus Heights Sacramento Davis Sacramento South Sacramento Occupation Caregiver, Sac City Student, Sac City Student, CSUS Student, ARC Student/CSUS Student, High School Sac County/Student, CSUS Computer Technician, Sac City Community Relations, ARC Student, Sac City

Transit Utilized
Paratransit Roseville Transit RT Unitrans Yolobus M F Age Income
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 3
18 41 51 22 46 16 32 19 20 22
$3,000 $12-16,000 $10,000 $10,812 $10,000 $20,000
$10,812
H The Hoyt Company
- 13 -
10/31/2006
Presentation and Facilitation Staff Elizabeth Hughes, The Hoyt Company Davida Douglas, The Hoyt Company I. Welcome and Introduction E. Hughes welcomed the 10 attendees and opened the meeting with introductions. She explained that the purpose of the meeting is to expose transit riders to and educate them about the study and to gauge riders reactions to fare/smart card systems and their possible applications. She presented a brief background of the SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study. II. Overview/Demonstration of Smart Card System E. Hughes gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of electronic farecards, including: Smart card technology How the farecard works o Using the farecard on transit o Purchasing fare (passes, tickets) for the farecard
Following the presentation, the participants had the following questions and commentsParticipant Questions: 1. Is it the same as the magnetic strip type of card that Sacramento City College uses? 2. Does the Sacramento State University card include Paratransit? 3. How do you pay for transfers? 4. On light rail, how do you prove to the fare inspector that you paid? 5. I would be worried that it would deduct more than it should. 6. Can you see on the card how much value is remaining?
H The Hoyt Company
- 14 -
10/31/2006
III. Identification of Attractive User Features Question: What smart card program features would be most attractive to you? Participant Responses: o Two people expressed that it would be a benefit if the Department of Rehabilitation, which currently pays for their transit, could load money on the account directly so that they dont have to pay and then get reimbursed later. o Being able to use it for taxicabs as well. o Reusability. I dont have a lot of time to get more passes. o Being able to manage it online. o Readers and payment machines at the light rail stops that accept ATM cards. They need to be kept in good working order. o Being able to pay for the card by mail with money orders. o Two people stated that being able to see on the card how much value is left without having to locate a card-reading machine would be most attractive. The following related comments were made: An audio feature would be preferred, but this might be a security issue This could be addressed by using headphones, but it may be cumbersome to have to carry around headphones. People with vision impairment who need to use the audio feature could carry headphones. It would have to be different than the BART system, because that system gives you a new card. There could be a toll free phone number that you call to check the balance. o Service agencies that subsidize transit being able to load the card directly o Being able to pay in advance. o Being able to call on your cell phone to get balance information would be useful. o Online management. IV. Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Question: What do you like/dislike about a multi-use system? Participant Responses: Positive Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications o Fewer cards. Would like consolidation of as many cards as possible, especially with any sponsoring businesses, so that I do not have to juggle so
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
many cards. It would be good if there were a phone number that I could call if it were stolen. Two participants with sight impairment like that it would help them remain anonymous, because they currently have to show all of their cards to cashiers and ask them to select the appropriate card. A consolidated card would reduce or eliminate that. Two participants would like to get discounts at retail establishments. If you lose it, it is just like losing an ATM card. You can just call the bank and have it cancelled. Bonus rewards at retail/coffee shops or student related campus shops or school activities Points for Starbucks, Jamba Juice, PetCo, etc. Using the same card for transit and library access Linked with the CSUS One Card Online management Being able to use it with other transit agencies Do not see how you can make it look like a credit card and ID, but it would be good if it could be linked with any bank, not just one sponsoring bank. Linked to bank and library, including being able to use it with the copiers and printers at the libraries Social Service agencies being able to load the card directly for both subsidized transit fares and bookstore items Bridge tolls Being able to use it with Amtrak and Greyhound Movie Rental
Negative Features of Multiple/Shared Card Applications o Possible loss of privacy. Would not like it linked to a bank account o Would like to be able to opt out of any linked features o If you lose the card, you are losing a lot V. Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Question: How would a universal farecard be convenient for you? Participant Responses: o Agencies could pay subsidies directly onto the card o Possibility to expand service area outside the region o Not having to have exact change o Being able to put money on the card at school o Easier to manage than a student pass o Equally as convenient as the CSUS pass that I currently use
o It would be more convenient for someone who is not a student o Still have concerns about it being stolen, but it would be good to be able to report it stolen and not lose any money o Not having to think about it o Would like to be able to opt out of linked features. I do not want everything on one card. I do not want to have to give out my Social Security number to get on transit. o It would be faster, so you wouldnt miss the train, but the machines need to be in good working order o More control. Being blind, I am not able to know if Paratransit drivers are giving me correct change. o Privacy is important o Would there be a liability limit if it were lost? Would you lose up to a certain amount that would not be recovered if it were stolen? VI. Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Question: Where would it be most convenient for you to purchase/add money to your farecard? Participant Responses: o I would not need to reload it because it would be paid for by the school. If I were no longer a student, I would prefer to pay at a machine that accepts ATM/credit cards. The machines should at least be located at all light rail stops. o Walgreens or Western Union o Two people prefer malls and major retail o Grocery stores o Light rail stations o Two people prefer to pay by telephone, possibly through 511 system o Corner stores/mini-marts o Staffed kiosks (Having the 13th Street office as the only staffed light rail station is very inconvenient.) o Online and at light rail stations How would it be most convenient to purchase/add money to your fare card? o Cash o Credit card o Two would prefer online with a credit card o Whatever is quickest at the time o Cash or credit
o Whatever is the most private telephone or online o By phone with the option of automated process or live customer service representative o By phone on 511 o Various payment options should be available o NOT on board transit
Additional Comments Means of Purchasing:
1. There should be an incentive such as a discount if you purchase a larger amount in advance. 2. Will the rider have to pay a fee for the card when they first get it? 3. If there is a fee for the card, they will keep raising the price. The corporate sponsors should pay for the initial card cost. 4. If it has your picture on it, it would be good to have several locations available to have your picture taken and to purchase the card. There should be a location in each area served. VII. Adjournment, Completion of Travel Characteristic Survey and Distribution of Participant Compensation Additional Questions and Comments by Participants: 1. It would be good to be able to view a statement with a transit transaction history 2. A benefit would be that the card would be sturdier. The current cards break easily. 3. Will there be a feature so that children can be included on their parents card? 4. With the current card, it is convenient that a friend can borrow my pass. Could a friend use my Smart Card? 5. I can see why RT would want to use a Smart Card system. I do not think it would be a burden so long as the machine and technology work well. 6. I have concerns that someone could hack into the system. 7. There is hardly any security on the light rail trains. A person might be able to tamper with the machines on the train. 8. If you swipe the card before the train comes, you lose time on your allowable transfer time before the train comes. 9. When is the target date to start using the Smart Card system? 10. It would not necessarily be better for me. Right now all I have to do is show my CSUS sticker. 11. The good thing about 511 is that you can talk to a live person.
E. Hughes thanked the 10 attendees for attending and participating in the discussion group. She then asked them to fill out any additional information or comments on their pre-completed travel characteristic surveys and adjourned the meeting. Participants received an incentive gift for attending. Comments from Rider Characteristics Survey I think it would be good to get a spare card just in case you lose your smart card, because then you would still have one instead of waiting to order one in. To get people to use the smart card initial, have free drawings for those who sign up and give away prizes donated by sponsors like Jamba Juice and Starbucks gift cards, I-pods, etc. Blockbuster - free rental points. Lower fares Privacy, anonymity very important. Credit card, ATM, cash loading stations at all light rail stops. I do not think it is "more" convenient, but I also don't think it is a burden. On-line account management is a must. I would like to see how much my card is being charged at each use.
H The Hoyt Company
- 19 -
10/31/2006
Discussion Group #4 - Occasional Riders or Riders who Transfer Between Other Transit Systems Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Attendees First Name Gigi Loretta Tallie Amanda Michael Matt Carol Judy Barbara Last Name Croteau Firestone Greer Hakim Hendrix Matuszak Mills Robinson Stanton Home City Citrus Heights Davis Elk Grove Sacramento West Sacramento Sacramento Elk Grove Sacramento Sacramento Occupation Personnel Technician Library Assistant Office Specialist Environmental Technician Social Services Human Resources Administrative Assistant Account Manager Planner, Sac County Retired/part-time worker/community activist

Transit Utilized

1 1 2
e-trans
1 1 2
Roseville Transit
1 1 2
RT Unitrans
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 5
Yolobus
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
M F Age
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 55 35 30 44 38 53 51 60
Income
$50,000 $39,000 $50,000 $100,000 $17,000 $40,200 $30,000 $80,000 $20,000
H The Hoyt Company
- 20 -
10/31/2006
Presentation and Facilitation Staff Elizabeth Hughes, The Hoyt Company Matthew Ramos, The Hoyt Company I. Welcome and Introduction E. Hughes welcomed the nine attendees and opened the meeting with introductions. She explained that the purpose of the meeting is to expose transit riders to and educate them about the study and to gauge riders reactions to fare/smart card systems and their possible applications. She presented a brief background of the SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study. II. Overview/Demonstration of Smart Card System E. Hughes gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of electronic farecards, including: Smart card technology How the farecard works o Using the farecard on transit o Purchasing fare (passes, tickets) for the farecard
Following the presentation, the participants had the following questions and commentsParticipant Questions: 1. Can you make overnight deposits on to your farecard? 2. If I put $200 on my card, can I ride Regional Transit and Yolobus? 3. Does the card know if you get a discount? 4. Will you still have to get your card validated on RT or the bus? 5. Can someone still jump on light rail without a pass? 6. Who uses this system? 7. What happens if you do not have enough value on your card? 8. When the transponder reads your card, will you be able to see your balance? 9. How would it know if you are using a daily pass and not making transfers between RT buses? 10. Can I still have a monthly pass? 11. Do other cities have operational (hardware or software) glitches with the farecard system?
12. When riding to Roseville, one way accepts transfers, while others dont? Will they figure this discrepancy out? 13. What if the bus is late, will the card still know it is a transfer? III. Identification of Attractive User Features Question: What smart card program features would be most attractive to you? Participant Responses: o Reusability between systems/ long-term usage o Bonuses and rewards o Increased security and safety o Easier fare management o Simplified regional fares o Environmental advantages o Reduces the need to carry cash o Gives the rider peace of mind, less stress and more incentive to ride an express bus with bonuses o Get a refund or rebate if a bus doesnt arrive or breaks down o Can be given as a gift IV. Potential Acceptance and Use of Multiple/Shared Card Applications Question: What do you like/dislike about a multi-use system? Participant Responses: o Retail (drug stores, grocery, coffee houses) o Parking for city and county employees, and at colleges, universities and Amtrak stations. o Use as a library card o Use as a telephone card o Connection to financial institutions o Accumulate ridership points program where one could accumulate points that can be used as discounts at local retailers. o Employer flexibility- an employer could opt for a parking or cafeteria option through the card. o Keep it focused for transportation only o Use it as a form of identification o Bicycle locker access at transit stations
H The Hoyt Company
- 22 -
10/31/2006
o Make any/various shared applications options for activation or not at the rider's choice. V. Perceived Relative Convenience of Universal Fare/Smart Card Question: How would a universal farecard be convenient for you? Participant Responses: o I would not have to worry about exact change or carrying cash at all. o The farecard would cut driving time for pick-up of monthly passes at various destinations. o Can make daily changes or choice options if needed o Having everything automated, makes life easier and saves time. o I would enjoy the flexibility to add money whenever and wherever, and to choose my destination locations quickly and easily. o It would be nice to have something with longevity, so I dont have to replace it one or more times a month. o Include customer service telephone number on the card (511) with access to the balance on your card. o They should make the cards in a smaller size, so you can keep it on a key chain. o It would be convenient if I could use it as a library card. o I like the extra incentives. o I would like to be able to fill out my farecard information online, and have the card mailed to my home. o I would enjoy having a farecard, provided that there are multiple pay points. o Is there a financial agency shared application (like paying bills online)? o Could our employer subsidy be transferred to our card? o Payroll deductions o Worry-free process, can check the value balance at any reader o Dont like the idea of being linked with a financial institution. o After all the information gathering is done, and the farecard becomes a feasible option, do we know if all transit agencies are on board? VI. Preferable Location and Means of Purchasing/Reloading a Fare/Smart Card Question: Where would it be most convenient for you to purchase/add money to your farecard? Participant Responses:
o o o o o o o o o o o
Retail stores (7-11, Wal-Mart) Everywhere, the more the better Library Credit card Office/employer site Grocery store ATMs (without an extra fee!) Online, web Over the Phone I would like to be able to buy my card from my employer website. NOT on board transit
VII. Adjournment, Completion of Travel Characteristic Survey and Distribution of Participant Compensation Additional Comments by Participants: 1. What happens if you have realized that you are on the wrong bus too late? Will you be charged twice for your mistake? 2. I pay an extra $20 to ride the express bus. I feel that the bonuses would make riding the express bus worth our time and money. 3. At some point, it would be neat to be able to use the same card all over the state and/or nation. 4. Would they cancel your card when it is lost or stolen? How fast and how soon would it be cancelled? How much would you be liable for? Is it like a credit card? 5. If the cards could be connected to financial institutions, how much would you be liable if your card is lost or stolen? 6. Worry about the card being stolen and used at retail sites. 7. When will activation occur? 8. There is a concern that outreach and education must be comprehensive and well done. They should begin to educate people about the card months in advance. 9. People are receptive to incentives. I would preload the first card with an increment of money that could be used toward their first purchase. 10. I would budget the media perspective, so as to get the word out about the card.
H The Hoyt Company
- 24 -
10/31/2006
E. Hughes thanked the nine attendees for attending and participating in the discussion group. She then asked them to fill out any additional information or comments on their pre-completed travel characteristic surveys and adjourned the meeting. Participants received an incentive gift for attending.
Comments from Rider Characteristics Survey Great idea, but really need to improve RT service: buses on-time, communiccation if bus stop temporarily not in use (e.e. due to construction or detour re-routes a bus around a normal stop, signs saying when and which bus will arrive), running past 6:30 p.m. in downtown Sacramento. Thank you Elizabeth for the laughs. A universal card that can be re-loaded by the user at any ATM or convenience store and one the identify the individual user budget. Including Amtrak in transit corridor discussion or part of this future discussion -Incentives for employers to provide additional funding towards monthly pass purchase. -AJ29Flexibility to pre-determine blocks of time with monthly pass option. 1) Is this going to affect all riders including monthly pass riders? Yes 2) Will Smart Card be the only payment form? No 3) Is this like the card in Las Vegas? 24 hour daily pass - Loretta knew 4) Deducts fare what if not enough? Reader will tell rider if not enough and rider has to pay. 5) Who has this system now? BayLink/TransLink in Bay Area - Chicago.
H The Hoyt Company
- 25 -
10/31/2006
WHAT WE DO
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is an association of Sacramento Valley governments formed from the six regional countiesEl Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yubaand 22 member cities. SACOGs directors are chosen from the elected boards of its member governments. SACOGs primary charge is to provide regional transportation planning and funding, as well as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues. In this role, SACOG prepares the regions long-range transportation plan; approves distribution of affordable housing around the region; keeps a regionwide database for its own and local agency use; helps counties and cities use federal transportation funds in a timely way; assits in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and airport land uses; and has undertaken the Blueprint Project to link transportation and land development more closely. SACOG has an annual operating budget of about $12.8 million, funded from local, regional, state and federal transportation funds. It has a staff of about 50, including employees and consultants.
EXECUTIVE STAFF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mike McKeever Executive Director Peter Hathaway Director of Transportation Planning Kenneth Hough Director of Community Planning & Operations Karen Wilcox Director of Finance Gordon Garry Director of Research and Analysis
PROJECT STAFF
Mike Mattos, Sacramento Regional Transit Terry Bassett, Yolo County Transportation District Keith Martin, Yuba-Sutter Transit Carlos Tovar, Elk Grove Transit Mike Wixon, Roseville Transit Matt Mauk, El Dorado Transit Jim Brown, SACOG
Robert McCrary, Project Manager Anne Novotney Luis Elizondo

Utffs Sacog 07-042

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Utffs Sacog 07-042

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SACOG-07-042

Universal Transit Farecard

MEMBER COUNTIES & CITIES

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Executive Summary

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Executive Summary

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Executive Summary

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Executive Summary

Capital Cost Estimates for Different Participation Scenarios

3 of 14 2,213,255 1,833,150 202,400 177,705 697,700 1,226,000 500,000 4,636,955 5,564,000

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Table of Contents

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Table of Contents

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Table of Contents

LTK Engineering Services

Sacramento Area Council of Governments Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study

Task Report Presented in this Final Report

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Introduction

4. Fare System Technology State-of-the-Art 5. Market Research

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study

Transit System Characteristics

Transit Service Providers

Interagency Service Connections

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Transit System Characteristics

Table 2-1.Transit Service Providers in the Study Area

76 LRVs; 258 buses; 17 vans

South County Transit (SCT/Link) El Dorado Transit

Nonprofit corp. Transit District City Dept

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Transit System Characteristics

Table 2-1. Transit Service Providers in the Study Area (continued)

Lincoln Transit Placer County Transit (PCT)

Davis Community Transit

Unitrans Yolo County Transp. District (Yolobus) Yuba-Sutter Transit

Yuba & Sutter

Jt. Powers Agency

Commuter:11 buses; Local & Dial-a-Ride: 29 15% use commuter service

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Transit System Characteristics

LTK Engineering Services

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study Transit System Characteristics

Transit Service Provider

RT Transfer Points (excl. Downtown)

Non-Study Area Connections

(see others) LRT; Transit Ctr Light Rail

San Joaquin, Amador, Cap. San Joaquin, Amador, Cap.

Systemwide Transit Center Lodi, Calavaras Cty, San Joaquin

Light Rail Gold Country, Cap. Corr.

Light Rail Transit Center

Capitol Corridor Capitol Corridor Capitol Corridor Fairfield/Suisun, Cap. Corr.

Fairfield/Suisun, Cap. Corr. Cap. Corr.

LTK Engineering Services