TransitWiki - User contributions [en]

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T20:57:02Z

Transrand18:

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system used on the bus, heavy rail and (in the near future) regional rail networks of the [http://www.septa.org/ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)], which serves the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The system, which was launched on subway, bus and high-speed train routes in August 2017, replaces the agency's original token-based payment system with one based on contactless smart card technology. It is the third open-loop ticketing system to be installed by a major transit agency in the United States (after those installed by UTA and in the [[Ventra|Chicago]] region).

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media<ref name=":0">SEPTA. “The Program.” [http://www.septa.org/key/more-info.html]</ref>. The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store one-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that holds monetary value (at a minimum of 10$) for use on single rides<ref>SEPTA Key. "Fare Products." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe?SWENeedContext=false&SWECmd=GotoPageTab&W=t&SWEC=1&SWEBID=-1&SRN=&SWETS=&SWEScreen=ATL+Fare+Proudcts+Screen&SWEScrnCap=Fare+Products&SWETS=1512071157425&SWEC=1&SWENoHttpRedir=true]</ref>. The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations<ref name=":0" />. It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft<ref name=":1">SEPTA Key. "Home." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe]</ref>. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet<ref name=":1" />.

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007<ref>Campisi, Anthony. “SEPTA Awards $129.5 million contract to build new fare system.” Plan Philly. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2011/11/17/septa-awards-1295-million-contract-build-new-fare-system]</ref>. The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008. The agency received bids from three companies<ref>Campisi, Anthony. "A Quick Look at SEPTA's Potential Smart Card Vendors." Plan Philly. August 25, 2010. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2010/08/25/quick-look-septas-potential-smart-card-vendors]</ref>: ACS [http://www.services.xerox.com/transportation-solutions/local-transportation/public-transit/ennz.html Xerox], [https://www.scheidt-bachmann.de/en/ Scheidt and Bachmann] (a German Company that built and installed the MBTA's Charlie Card) and [https://www.cubic.com/Transportation Cubic Transportation Systems] (which has designed most [[Automated Fare Media in California|smart card-based ticketing systems]] in California). The agency ultimately awarded the $129 million contract to ACS Xerox<ref>Laracy, Charlotte. “SEPTA Key Now Two Years Behind Schedule.” [http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/04/septa-key-delayed-again]</ref>. An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone<ref>“SEPTA installs one of the nation’s first Open Fare Payment Systems.” Mass Transit Mag. 2012. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/10617568/septa-installs-one-of-the-nations-first-open-fare-payment-systems]</ref>.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system.

The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 on city transit and 2014 on regional rail<ref name=":2">Laughlin, Jason. “Still Coming Soon: The SEPTA Key Card Smart Card.” December 29, 2015. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20151229_Still_coming_soon__The_SEPTA_Key_transit_smart-card.html]</ref>. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016<ref>Laughlin, Jason. “SEPTA smart-fare system to debut June 13.” Philly.com. April 16, 2016. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160416_SEPTA_smart-fare_system_to_debut_June_13.html]
</ref>, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017<ref>Laughlin, Jason. SEPTA’s New Card Gets Rolled Out.” March 9, 2017. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160610_SEPTA_s_new_fare_card_gets_rolled_out.html]
</ref>. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail<ref name=":0" />. Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s [[Ventra]] System (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay<ref>Wolfe, Jeff. “SEPTA Delays Implementation of New Payment Technology.” 2/27/14. [http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20140227/septa-delays-implementation-of-new-payment-technology]</ref><ref>Orso, Anna. “Wonder why the SEPTA key is taking so long? Just ask Chicago.” 4/10/15. [https://billypenn.com/2015/04/10/wonder-why-the-septa-key-is-taking-so-long-just-ask-chicago/]</ref>. An article from December 2015<ref name=":3">Saksa, Jim. “Why is SEPTA Key Arriving Two Years Late?” [http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/12/23/why-is-septa-key-arriving-two-years-late]</ref> noted more generally that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project<ref name=":3" />.

The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million<ref name=":2" />. In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015<ref name=":3" />, but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.
<references />

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T20:53:41Z

Transrand18: Added in sentence on bidding.

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail networks of the [http://www.septa.org/ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)], which serves the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The system, which was launched on subway, bus and high-speed train routes in August 2017, replaces the agency's original token-based payment system with one based on contactless smart card technology.

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media<ref name=":0">SEPTA. “The Program.” [http://www.septa.org/key/more-info.html]</ref>. The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store one-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that holds monetary value (at a minimum of 10$) for use on single rides<ref>SEPTA Key. "Fare Products." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe?SWENeedContext=false&SWECmd=GotoPageTab&W=t&SWEC=1&SWEBID=-1&SRN=&SWETS=&SWEScreen=ATL+Fare+Proudcts+Screen&SWEScrnCap=Fare+Products&SWETS=1512071157425&SWEC=1&SWENoHttpRedir=true]</ref>. The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations<ref name=":0" />. It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft<ref name=":1">SEPTA Key. "Home." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe]</ref>. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet<ref name=":1" />.

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007<ref>Campisi, Anthony. “SEPTA Awards $129.5 million contract to build new fare system.” Plan Philly. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2011/11/17/septa-awards-1295-million-contract-build-new-fare-system]</ref>. The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008. The agency received bids from three companies<ref>Campisi, Anthony. "A Quick Look at SEPTA's Potential Smart Card Vendors." Plan Philly. August 25, 2010. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2010/08/25/quick-look-septas-potential-smart-card-vendors]</ref>: ACS [http://www.services.xerox.com/transportation-solutions/local-transportation/public-transit/ennz.html Xerox], [https://www.scheidt-bachmann.de/en/ Scheidt and Bachmann] (a German Company that built and installed the MBTA's Charlie Card) and [https://www.cubic.com/Transportation Cubic Transportation Systems] (which has designed most [[Automated Fare Media in California|smart card-based ticketing systems]] in California). The agency ultimately awarded the $129 million contract to ACS Xerox<ref>Laracy, Charlotte. “SEPTA Key Now Two Years Behind Schedule.” [http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/04/septa-key-delayed-again]</ref>. An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone<ref>“SEPTA installs one of the nation’s first Open Fare Payment Systems.” Mass Transit Mag. 2012. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/10617568/septa-installs-one-of-the-nations-first-open-fare-payment-systems]</ref>.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system.

The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 on city transit and 2014 on regional rail<ref name=":2">Laughlin, Jason. “Still Coming Soon: The SEPTA Key Card Smart Card.” December 29, 2015. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20151229_Still_coming_soon__The_SEPTA_Key_transit_smart-card.html]</ref>. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016<ref>Laughlin, Jason. “SEPTA smart-fare system to debut June 13.” Philly.com. April 16, 2016. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160416_SEPTA_smart-fare_system_to_debut_June_13.html]
</ref>, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017<ref>Laughlin, Jason. SEPTA’s New Card Gets Rolled Out.” March 9, 2017. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160610_SEPTA_s_new_fare_card_gets_rolled_out.html]
</ref>. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail<ref name=":0" />. Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s [[Ventra]] System (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay<ref>Wolfe, Jeff. “SEPTA Delays Implementation of New Payment Technology.” 2/27/14. [http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20140227/septa-delays-implementation-of-new-payment-technology]</ref><ref>Orso, Anna. “Wonder why the SEPTA key is taking so long? Just ask Chicago.” 4/10/15. [https://billypenn.com/2015/04/10/wonder-why-the-septa-key-is-taking-so-long-just-ask-chicago/]</ref>. An article from December 2015<ref name=":3">Saksa, Jim. “Why is SEPTA Key Arriving Two Years Late?” [http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/12/23/why-is-septa-key-arriving-two-years-late]</ref> noted more generally that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project<ref name=":3" />.

The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million<ref name=":2" />. In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015<ref name=":3" />, but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.
<references />

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T20:45:23Z

Transrand18:

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail networks of the [http://www.septa.org/ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)], which serves the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The system, which was launched on subway, bus and high-speed train routes in August 2017, replaces the agency's original token-based payment system with one based on contactless smart card technology.

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media<ref name=":0">SEPTA. “The Program.” [http://www.septa.org/key/more-info.html]</ref>. The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store one-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that holds monetary value (at a minimum of 10$) for use on single rides<ref>SEPTA Key. "Fare Products." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe?SWENeedContext=false&SWECmd=GotoPageTab&W=t&SWEC=1&SWEBID=-1&SRN=&SWETS=&SWEScreen=ATL+Fare+Proudcts+Screen&SWEScrnCap=Fare+Products&SWETS=1512071157425&SWEC=1&SWENoHttpRedir=true]</ref>. The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations<ref name=":0" />. It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft<ref name=":1">SEPTA Key. "Home." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe]</ref>. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet<ref name=":1" />.

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007<ref>Campisi, Anthony. “SEPTA Awards $129.5 million contract to build new fare system.” Plan Philly. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2011/11/17/septa-awards-1295-million-contract-build-new-fare-system]</ref>. The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008, and awarded a $129 million contract to ACS [http://www.services.xerox.com/transportation-solutions/local-transportation/public-transit/enmy.html Xerox] corporation in 2011<ref>Laracy, Charlotte. “SEPTA Key Now Two Years Behind Schedule.” [http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/04/septa-key-delayed-again]</ref>. An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone<ref>“SEPTA installs one of the nation’s first Open Fare Payment Systems.” Mass Transit Mag. 2012. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/10617568/septa-installs-one-of-the-nations-first-open-fare-payment-systems]</ref>.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system.

The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 on city transit and 2014 on regional rail<ref name=":2">Laughlin, Jason. “Still Coming Soon: The SEPTA Key Card Smart Card.” December 29, 2015. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20151229_Still_coming_soon__The_SEPTA_Key_transit_smart-card.html]</ref>. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016<ref>Laughlin, Jason. “SEPTA smart-fare system to debut June 13.” Philly.com. April 16, 2016. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160416_SEPTA_smart-fare_system_to_debut_June_13.html]
</ref>, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017<ref>Laughlin, Jason. SEPTA’s New Card Gets Rolled Out.” March 9, 2017. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160610_SEPTA_s_new_fare_card_gets_rolled_out.html]
</ref>. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail<ref name=":0" />. Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s [[Ventra]] System (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay<ref>Wolfe, Jeff. “SEPTA Delays Implementation of New Payment Technology.” 2/27/14. [http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20140227/septa-delays-implementation-of-new-payment-technology]</ref><ref>Orso, Anna. “Wonder why the SEPTA key is taking so long? Just ask Chicago.” 4/10/15. [https://billypenn.com/2015/04/10/wonder-why-the-septa-key-is-taking-so-long-just-ask-chicago/]</ref>. An article from December 2015<ref name=":3">Saksa, Jim. “Why is SEPTA Key Arriving Two Years Late?” [http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/12/23/why-is-septa-key-arriving-two-years-late]</ref> noted more generally that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project<ref name=":3" />.

The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million<ref name=":2" />. In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015<ref name=":3" />, but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.
<references />

File:SEPTAKey.jpg

2017-11-30T19:58:48Z

Transrand18:

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T19:55:42Z

Transrand18: Added sources

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail networks of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). The system, which was launched on subway, bus and high-speed train routes in August 2017, replaces the agency's original token-based payment system with one based on contactless smart card technology.

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media<ref name=":0">SEPTA. “The Program.” [http://www.septa.org/key/more-info.html]</ref>. The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store one-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that holds monetary value (at a minimum of 10$) for use on single rides<ref>SEPTA Key. "Fare Products." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe?SWENeedContext=false&SWECmd=GotoPageTab&W=t&SWEC=1&SWEBID=-1&SRN=&SWETS=&SWEScreen=ATL+Fare+Proudcts+Screen&SWEScrnCap=Fare+Products&SWETS=1512071157425&SWEC=1&SWENoHttpRedir=true]</ref>. The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations<ref name=":0" />. It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft<ref name=":1">SEPTA Key. "Home." [https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe]</ref>. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet<ref name=":1" />.

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007<ref>Campisi, Anthony. “SEPTA Awards $129.5 million contract to build new fare system.” Plan Philly. [http://planphilly.com/articles/2011/11/17/septa-awards-1295-million-contract-build-new-fare-system]</ref>. The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008, and awarded a $129 million contract to Xerox corporation in 2011<ref>Laracy, Charlotte. “SEPTA Key Now Two Years Behind Schedule.” [http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/04/septa-key-delayed-again]</ref>. An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone<ref>“SEPTA installs one of the nation’s first Open Fare Payment Systems.” Mass Transit Mag. 2012. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/10617568/septa-installs-one-of-the-nations-first-open-fare-payment-systems]</ref>.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system.

The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 on city transit and 2014 on regional rail<ref name=":2">Laughlin, Jason. “Still Coming Soon: The SEPTA Key Card Smart Card.” December 29, 2015. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20151229_Still_coming_soon__The_SEPTA_Key_transit_smart-card.html]</ref>. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016<ref>Laughlin, Jason. “SEPTA smart-fare system to debut June 13.” Philly.com. April 16, 2016. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160416_SEPTA_smart-fare_system_to_debut_June_13.html]
</ref>, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017<ref>Laughlin, Jason. SEPTA’s New Card Gets Rolled Out.” March 9, 2017. [http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20160610_SEPTA_s_new_fare_card_gets_rolled_out.html]
</ref>. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail<ref name=":0" />. Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s Ventra Card System (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay<ref>Wolfe, Jeff. “SEPTA Delays Implementation of New Payment Technology.” 2/27/14. [http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20140227/septa-delays-implementation-of-new-payment-technology]</ref><ref>Orso, Anna. “Wonder why the SEPTA key is taking so long? Just ask Chicago.” 4/10/15. [https://billypenn.com/2015/04/10/wonder-why-the-septa-key-is-taking-so-long-just-ask-chicago/]</ref>. An article from December 2015<ref name=":3">Saksa, Jim. “Why is SEPTA Key Arriving Two Years Late?” [http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/12/23/why-is-septa-key-arriving-two-years-late]</ref> noted more generally that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project<ref name=":3" />.

The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million<ref name=":2" />. In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015<ref name=":3" />, but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T19:31:40Z

Transrand18: Edited intro

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail networks of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). The system, which was launched on subway, bus and high-speed train routes in August 2017, replaces the agency's original token-based payment system.

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media (link). The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store One-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that can store monetary (minimum 10$) value for use on single rides (next link). The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations (link). It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet (https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe#SWEApplet2).

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007 (Laughlin, Campisi 2018). The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008, and awarded a $129 million contract to Xerox corporation in 2011 (Laracy 2016). An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system. The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 (Laughlin 2015) on city transit and 2014 on regional rail. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail (see SEPTA website). Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s Ventra Card System <link> (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay. More generally, an article from December 2015 noted that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project (Saksa 2015). The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million (Laughlin 2015). In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015 (Saksa 2015), but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.

SEPTA Key

2017-11-30T19:29:25Z

Transrand18: Created page with "SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail network..."

SEPTA Key is a somewhat open, standards-based automated fare payment system that (when complete) will be used for fare payment on the bus, heavy rail and commuter rail networks of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). The system accepts

==Description==
Electronic validators that have been installed on bus fareboxes and at turnstiles on the system’s Broad Street and Market Street heavy rail lines and that will soon be installed at commuter rail stations will accept a agency-issued “Key Card,” Single-ride “Quick Tickets” and contactless bank cards as fare media (link). The Key Card is a contactless smart card that can store One-day, weekly or monthly passes, as well as a “travel wallet” that can store monetary (minimum 10$) value for use on single rides (next link). The card can be purchased at customer service outlets, online or from ticket kiosks at stations (link). It can be registered on the key card’s website to permit online loading of value and to preserve cards’ balance in case of theft. The Quick Trip is a magnetic stripe paper ticket that can be used to purchase individual rides (although it costs 50 cents more than an individual fare paid for through the travel wallet (https://www.septakey.org/ecustomer_enu/start.swe#SWEApplet2).

==History==
SEPTA’s planning for a new ticketing system, to replace its token-based payment system, began in 2007 (Laughlin, Campisi 2018). The agency issued a Request for Proposals in 2008, and awarded a $129 million contract to Xerox corporation in 2011 (Laracy 2016). An article that appeared in Mass Transit Magazine shortly after the contract was signed, claimed that the proposed system would allow passengers to pay fares with a “‘contactless’ credit or debit card or even their smartphone.” The contract provided for the system’s installation on the bus, trolley, subway and regional rail system. The system’s roll-out was initially scheduled for 2013 (Laughlin 2015) on city transit and 2014 on regional rail. However, a “limited” release of the system to 10,000 passengers did not occur until June 2016, with the system’s full release on city transit (subway, bus and high speed service) transpiring in March 2017. The system has yet to be implemented on regional rail (see SEPTA website). Articles from 2014 and 2015 cite the agency’s desire to avoid the pitfalls experienced by Chicago’s Ventra Card System <link> (also released in 2013) as a rationale for delay. More generally, an article from December 2015 noted that the agency failed to grasp the complexity, in devising its timetable, of upgrading to an open-loop fare payment system for services on six transportation modes. A series of software bugs in detected in 2015 further impeded progress on the project (Saksa 2015). The system’s contractor (ACS Xerox) imposed at least 10 change orders adding up to at least $11 million (Laughlin 2015). In addition to the change orders, delays had cost SEPTA at least 21.4 million by the end of 2015 (Saksa 2015), but due to liability caps included in the contract, SEPTA could claim $14.6 million at most.

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-26T03:45:20Z

Transrand18: Input remainder of sources, edited out glitch.

California transit agencies vary greatly in the technology and design of their fare payment systems. Currently, seven fare payment systems based on smart card ticketing operate in the state. Four of these systems are regional, covering numerous agencies across a county or regional planning area, and three are restricted to a single transit agency. All seven systems are closed payment systems that can only process agency-issued fare media. However, the implementation of card readers compatible with international standards by Porterville Transit, Monterey-Salinas Transit and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (the most recently-implemented systems), and the intention of agencies in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego areas to upgrade to account-based or (account- and standards-based) open architecture ticketing systems creates the potential for interoperability between smart card systems in the near future.

== Overview: California Smart Card Systems List ==
{| class="wikitable"
!
Fare Program

!
Implementing Agency

!Participating Agencies
!
Technology and Design
!Upgrade/Future Initiative

|-
|[https://www.taptogo.net/ TAP (Transit Access Pass)]
|[[Metro|Los Angeles County Metro]]
|All 26 transit agencies in LA County<ref>Kudler, Adrian Glick (September 17, 2015). “There's Now One Card to Pay For Every Transit Ride in Los Angeles County.” <nowiki>https://la.curbed.com/2015/9/17/9920332/tap-card-los-angeles-county</nowiki></ref>
|Cubic technologies proprietary NextFare Central Back office, Mifare contactless card<ref>Williams, Andy. “Cubic Receives transit contracts for central computer and clearinghouse integration for Los Angeles region.” 14 April, 2005. <nowiki>https://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/cubic-receives-transit-contracts-for-central-computer-and-clearinghouse-integration-for-los-angeles-region/</nowiki></ref><ref>EE Times (6/1/2009). “L.A. Metro Taps NXP's MIFARE Plus for Contactless TAP Ticketing”. <nowiki>http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1276540&page_number=2</nowiki></ref>
|Recently approved an upgrade to cloud-based back office<ref>Attachment B to Metro File No. 2017-0272. “Procurement Summary: Universal Fare System.” file:///C:/Users/Huff/Downloads/Attachment%20B%20-%20Procurement%20Summary.pdf</ref>
|-
|[https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/index.do ClipperCard]
|
Metropolitan Transportation Commission

|21 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area<ref>Goodwin, John (Monday, April 3 2017). Clipper Expands to Union City Transit. <nowiki>https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/clipperr-expands-union-city-transit</nowiki></ref>
|MIFARE Desfire Card, Cubic NextFare back office<ref name=":0">Lyne, Malcolm (2011). “Clipper: The History of a Successful Systems Integration Project.” <nowiki>http://www.apta.com/previousmc/rail/previous/2011/Papers/Clipper-Transition-Lyne.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|Upgrade to Next generation of clipper. RFP process begins this year<ref>Rudlick, Roger (February 2017). “Clipper Update and the Potential to Rationalize Fares.” <nowiki>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/02/14/clipper-update-and-the-potential-to-rationalize-fares/</nowiki></ref>
|-
|[https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card Compass Card]
|
San Diego MTS

|San Diego MTS bus and light rail, NTCD busses, Coaster and Sprinter<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2016). “Compass Card.” <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card</nowiki></ref>
|Mifare Classic Card<ref name=":1">De Kozan, David (June 4, 2014). NFC Payment Solutions for Transit: Easing Regional Mobility. Presentation. <nowiki>https://www.securetechalliance.org/secure/events/20140602/dekozand.pdf</nowiki></ref>, Cubic farebox<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors — Minutes. April 14, 2016. <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/2016-04-14_board_0.pdf</nowiki></ref>.
|Currently in processing of upgrading to new fare system (as old one near end of life. Considering Account-based processor, data warehouse back office, smart phone validators<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (July 13, 2017). “Fare Collection Update,” Attachment C1 to MTS Executive Committee Meeting-MINUTES. June 1, 2017. </ref>
|-
|[https://www.connecttransitcard.com/ Connect Card]
|
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

|
Sacramento Regional Transit (light rail and bus), El Dorado Transit, Etran, Folsom Stage Line, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, SCT/Link, Yolobus, Yuba-Sutter Transit<ref>Connect Transit Card (2017). Connect Card: It’s Here! <nowiki>https://www.connecttransitcard.com/Pages/HowItWorks</nowiki></ref>.

|INIT ProxMobil passenger terminal, with MOBILevario back office processing system and Mifare Desfire card. Farebox and card ISO 14443 compliant but data encrypted, stored on card<ref name=":2">C. Courtright personal communication (September 2017).</ref>.
|
|-
|Go Card
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Genfare Odyssey Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant but closed<ref name=":3">Monterey-Salinas Transit (2017). “Fares: Overview.” <nowiki>https://mst.org/fares/overview/</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|
Cruz Card

|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Genfare Odyssey farebox (unspecified, ISO 14443 compliant technology but closed<ref>Model based on 2012 joint procurement mentioned in: <nowiki>http://www.tamcmonterey.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FY2011_13-TDA-Performance-Audit-MST.pdf</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|GoCard
|
Porterville Transit

|
Porterville Transit

|Genfare Fast Fare Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant<ref name=":4">Genfare (2016). Fast Fare Revolutionary Farebox. <nowiki>https://www.genfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Genfare_Sell-Sheet_v9_farebox.pdf</nowiki></ref>)
|Installing Genfare Link system: Stores data in cloud (rather than farebox) and updates from back-office-server<ref>Tuckett, Richard (August/September 2016). “Genfare links with Porterville Transit.” BusRide. <nowiki>http://www.genfare.com/sites/default/files/BUSRide_Porterville_Field_Test.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|}

==Metropolitan Smart Card Systems==

Four of California’s major metropolitan areas have regional fare payment systems based on contactless smart cards. These are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Clipper Card (covering 21 transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area), the Los Angeles County Metro’s Transit Access Pass or TAP (covering all 26 transit agencies in Los Angeles County), the Metropolitan Transit System’s Compass Card (covering the two main transit agencies in San Diego County) and the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Connect Card (covering nine agencies in the Sacramento area). All four systems coexist with cash fares and transfer passes.

The first three of the four metropolitan systems use software from Cubic Corporation. These include specially-designed computerized back office systems (MASS for Clipper Card<ref name=":0" /> and NextFare Central for Los Angeles and San Diego<ref name=":1" />) for financial settlement and clearinghouse functions (e.g. validation) and MIFARE-based contactless cards<ref name=":1" /> as the fare medium or mechanism of payment: Clipper Card uses Mifare Desfire while Compass Card and TAP use MIFARE Classic. The MIFARE technology can be characterized as “card-based” (in that information is mainly stored on the card, with shadow data available from a back office<ref>However, Clipper Cards can be registered online. For more, see Birch, et. al. “Tomorrow’s Transactions The Transit Reader.” 2013. [http://www.chyp.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Transit-Reader.pdf]</ref>) and “proprietary” in that it does not completely cohere to the international standards on contactless smart cards ( Mifare classic cards used on TAP and compass seem to comply with certain components of ISO 14443 but are not fully compatible with ISO 14443-standard card readers<ref>See Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc, United States. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transit Development Corporation, & Booz Allen Hamilton. (2006). Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry (Vol. 115). Transportation Research Board.</ref>). This means that expansion of these smart card systems can only occur through the installation of specialized hardware. It should be noted, however, that both Clipper Card<ref>Clipper Executive Board Meeting Agenda. May 13, 2017. [http://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/meetings/meetings-archive/clipper-executive-board-13]</ref> and Compass Card<ref name=":5">“Fare Collection Update,” Attachment C1 to Metropolitan Transit System Executive Committee Meeting-MINUTES. June 1, 2017. [https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/2017-07-13_ec_-_ada_save_as.pdf]</ref> are currently in the process of reviewing and soliciting bids for fare system upgrades (respectively). The former system wishes to incorporate more agencies and create an enhanced customer experience, while the latter seeks to replace aging hardware. Both systems are interested in transitioning to an account-based, open architecture model, with media that can be used for non-transit applications<ref name=":5" /> or validators that can accept a variety of fare media. Moreover, in May 2017, the Los Angeles County Metro approved a contract modification with Cubic technologies, extending the company’s contract (for the TAP card system) through the year 2024 on the conditions that Cubic upgrade the system to the cloud-based “Nextlink” model<ref>Attachment B to Metro File No. 2017-0272. “Procurement Summary: Universal Fare System.” </ref>, which stores customer information in a computerized account (rather than in a specific card). The account-based system will allow customers to pay for non-transit modes (including freeway toll lanes and bikeshare) with their transit account/fare media<ref>Wattenhoffer, Jeff (May 26, 2017). “Metro’s TAP Card System is Getting Major Upgrade.” [https://la.curbed.com/2017/5/26/15701664/metro-tap-card-phone-pay-fare]</ref>.

The Sacramento region’s Connect Card system, on the other hand, uses hardware and software developed by INIT (Innovations in Transportation) Incorporated. These include ProxMobil passenger terminals (on light rail trains and busses), EVENDpc retail sales terminals, and a MOBILEvario sophisticated back-office fare management system<ref>MassTransit Mag. “Sacramento Partners with INIT for Electronic Fare Collection Solution.” MAR 18, 2014. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/10297095/sacramento-partners-with-init-for-electronic-fare-collection-solution] </ref>. The ProxMobil terminal is compatible with ISO 14443 A/B cards used on smart cards nationwide<ref>APTA Buyer’s Guide. “INIT-Innovations in Transport”. </ref>. However, the fareboxes used to validate Connect Cards contain an additional level of encryption that is only compatible with the Agency-issued Connect Card (a Mifare Desfire product)--which receives the additional encryption when activated<ref name=":2" />, making the system closed-loop<ref>“Seamless Fare Integration Study for Detroit Region.” January 2015. </ref>. The system is also card-based, with changes in data at the back office requiring a manual update of fareboxes<ref name=":2" />.

==Local/Municipal Smart Card Systems==
Outside of the main metropolises, the city of Porterville’s Porterville transit currently uses Genfare’s Fast Fare electronic farebox, that processes fare payments by both cash and the contactless “GoCard” smart card, an agency-issued fare media that can be registered and loaded online<ref name=":4" />. The farebox appears to be standards-based, with the capacity to read all ISO 14443-standard cards, NFC-enabled mobile phones, mobile barcodes and magnetic cards<ref name=":4" />. Currently, a “GoCard Mobile Ticketing” app allows customers to buy and store passes on a mobile platform and activate them prior to boarding (resembling a “flash pass” type of technology)<ref>Porterville Transit. “Fares and Passes”. [http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/PortervilleTransit/#section2]</ref>. However, the city is in the process of upgrading to the Genfare Link farebox, a cloud-based fare card reader that would accept smart cards and contactless bank cards. The farebox would be account-based (with data stored in the cloud) and open<ref>Tuckett, Richard (August/September 2016). “Genfare links with Porterville Transit.” BusRide. [http://www.genfare.com/sites/default/files/BUSRide_Porterville_Field_Test.pdf]</ref>, and the agency intends to allow for interoperability with fare systems employed by other agencies in the county (e.g. Tulare, Visalia)<ref>J. Bedolla, Personal Communication. November 2, 2017. </ref>. This makes Porterville Transit the most advanced system in California in terms of fare payment architecture.

Monterey-Salinas Transit also uses a Genfare Farebox. The agency issues its own contactless stored-value smart card, called the “Go Card,” which can be reloaded at several outlets in the area: the agency gives a 10% discount to passengers using the card each time they reload<ref>Monterey-Salinas Transit (2017). “GoCard.” </ref>. The agency’s farebox was jointly procured with the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District and Santa Clara VTA and at least at the time of purchase, the system’s Smart Cards were interoperable with the former agency’s fareboxes<ref>PMC Consultants (December 2014). FYs 2011-2013 Triennial Performance of Monterey-Salinas Transit. [http://www.tamcmonterey.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FY2011_13-TDA-Performance-Audit-MST.pdf]</ref>. However, both Monterey-Salinas Transit and Santa Cruz Metro Transit District currently operate closed fare payment systems: Monterey-Salinas Transit’s fareboxes only accept the agency’s own GoCards and (magnetic stripe) paper passes, in addition to cash<ref name=":3" />, and the Metro Transit District’s fareboxes only accept contactless “Cruz Cards”, disposable Magnetic Stripe Metro Passes, cash<ref>Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (2017). “Buy Passes Online.” [http://www.scmtd.com/en/fares/buy-passes-online]</ref> and Clipper Cards issued through the VTA’s Express EcoPass program<ref>Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (2017). “Fares.” [http://www.scmtd.com/en/fares/fares]</ref>.

==Magnetic Stripe Cards and Other==
In addition, a number of smaller transit agencies throughout the state have electronic fareboxes that accept with magnetic stripe fare cards. These are the most basic non-cash fare and media, and relatively easy to procure, but have limited data storage and insufficient security. For instance, Fresno Area Express and Merced County Transit sell magnetic stripe cards capable of storing either passes or single rides<ref>“FAX Fare Media--Information and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Reseller Outlets.” [https://www.fresno.gov/transportation/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/10/New-FAX-Passes-and-Ride-Cards.pdf]</ref> (in the case of the former) or solely passes<ref>Merced TheBus. "How to Operate the Farebox." [http://www.mercedthebus.com/135/How-to-Operate-the-Farebox]</ref> (for the latter).

It is unclear whether Visalia Transit’s farecards use magnetic stripe or smart card technology. The agency describes the cards as “plastic<ref name=":6">Visalia Transit. "How it Works." [https://www.visaliarewards.com/how-it-works]</ref>” and “reloadable<ref name=":7">Visalia Transit. "Reload My Card." [https://www.visaliarewards.com/reload-my-card/]</ref>,” attributes characteristic of contactless smart cards, and an appendx to a TCRP report lists the agency as amongm many respondents to a survey (of transit agencies) that used “contactless (or other) electronic payment system.” Regardless of their technology, the agencies’ farecards, which only be used to store transit passes, link to an online account, from which patrons can add value<ref name=":7" />. Visalia Transit’s riders can use their farecards qualify for discounts<ref name=":6" /> at businesses that range from restaurants to hoverboard stores<ref>Visalia Transit. "Participating Retailers." [https://www.visaliarewards.com/participating-retailers/]</ref>.
<references />

Ventra

2017-11-21T22:21:48Z

Transrand18: add in section on UFCard legislation and Pace, Metra.

The Chicago Transit Authority’s Ventra Card is the second open ticketing system to have been implemented in the United States, following that implemented by UTA Trax. Although the system has successfully incorporated non-agency specific fare media and has been adopted by the Chicago area’s three largest transit agencies, the system’s lack of user-friendliness, error-ridden implementation and cost overruns speak to the problems with an abrupt transition to new ticketing systems and with contracting all components of a ticketing system to a single provider.

==Overview==
Ventra is an account-based, open-loop electronic ticketing system that is used for bus and heavy rail transit services operated by the [http://www.transitchicago.com/ Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)], [http://www.pacebus.com/ Pace Suburban Bus] and on [https://metrarail.com/ Metra]'s commuter rail network. Card readers on Metra and Pace buses and trains accept contactless bank cards<ref>Ventra. "Featured Questions: Paying with Contactless Bankcards and Mobile Devices." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/featured-questions/#401]</ref>, Near Field Communication-based mobile wallet applications--like Android Pay and Apple Pay<ref>Ventra. "How-To: Paying with Apply Pay, Android Pay or Samsung Pay." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/apple-pay/] </ref>--, an agency-issued smart card<ref name=":0">Ventra. "Ventra: How it Works." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/howitworks/]</ref>, and contactless paper tickets<ref name=":0" />. The agency-issued smart card, known as "Ventra Card," can be purchased from vending machines, designated retail outlets or online, with a 5$ fee imposed for vending machine and retail purchases<ref name=":1">Ventra. "About Ventra Cards." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/ventra-cards/]</ref>. Riders can register cards online (or on the Ventra mobile application) so that they can load value, manage their balance and protect against theft<ref name=":1" />. Riders can also register their Ventra Cards with a "MoneyNetwork" service operated by MasterCard so that they can use their card as a prepaid debit card for non-transit purposes<ref>Ventra MoneyNetwork. " Your Prepaid Debit Account: Getting Started." [https://www.ventra.moneynetwork.com/prepaidgpr/cardNumberVentra.gft?reqType=init&token=812ae50146765311dc5f9a888f4e289aefeed72b]</ref>. Using the Ventra Card as a prepaid debit card entails additional fees for money withdrawal and loading cash at third-party retailers<ref>"Prepaid Debit Fee Schedule." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/assets/1/7/VentraPrepaidDebitFeeSchedule.pdf]</ref>. Payment of Metra tickets can be made through Ventra's mobile ticketing application<ref>Ventra. "Ventra App: The Basics." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/app-basics/]</ref>, which allows for the purchase and display of 2-dimensional barcode tickets for use on Metra and the loading of value (and management of account balances) on registered Ventra Cards.

==History==
In the late 2000s, the Chicago Transit Authority (which operates the Chicago “L” and buses within the urban core) began assessing options to replace its proprietary Chicago Card smart card system (whose computer chip hardware had gone out of production). The high capital costs of replacing the Chicago Card with a similar system and a desire to enhance user-friendliness led the CTA to examine transitioning to an open ticketing system. The agency issued Requests for Proposals in 2009. After two rounds of RFPs, the agency awarded the contract to San Diego-based Cubic Corporation , which offered a $454 million bid (that beat Samsung’s bid of $1.46 billion). Cubic has implemented ticketing systems for many California agencies (including the Los Angeles County Metro and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System). The contract, signed in December 2011, is structured on a design-build-operate-maintain model . The contract not only gives Cubic responsibility for implementing the system, including supply of all equipment and software, but for providing the website customer call center and retail network The contract has a 12-year term, and imposes cancellation charges if the agency terminates the contract prior to the end of the term. State legislation, passed in the same year, mandated that all agencies belonging to Chicago's Regional Transit Authority (namely, the CTA, Metra and Pace) have adopted a regional fare payment system by 2015<ref>Illinois General Assembly. "Public Act 097-0085." [http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=097-0085]</ref>. The legislation's specification of a system that would "allow consumers to use contactless credit cards, debit cards, and prepaid cards" corresponded to the attributes of the system proposed by the CTA's contract.

The new fare payment system, named Ventra, was launched on the Chicago Transit Authority in August 2013. In the months following implementation, many riders complained about difficulties with online activation and card reader glitches: between the beginning of October and middle of December, alone, the CTA had to give away $1.2 million worth in free rides due to card reader malfunctioning. Lengthy wait times for customer service calls (which ranged from 2 to 6 minutes, on average in the middle of November) were another cause for dissatisfaction . The 5$ fee for purchasing a new card impeded bulk transit pass purchases by social service agencies, for whom investment in fare media poses a liability (even the 50-cent cost of purchasing paper passes through Ventra has forced agencies to limit pass distribution). More generally, the $5 dollar card purchase fee, along with penalty fees for inactivity, and fees for requesting paper copies impact use by low-income, transit-dependent populations. An analysis cited in the Chicago Tribune showed that the card’s prepaid debit option cost the average customer $188 in annual fees.

At the same time, the fixed term of the contract has allowed Cubic to impose extensive change orders to the system. By March 2015, the CTA’s contract with Cubic had ballooned from $454 million to $519 million due to contract add-ons.

Pace Suburban Bus joined the Ventra Card system in September 2013, shortly after the system's launch on the CTA<ref>Pyke, Marni. "New CTA, Pace Fare System to begin Monday." [http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130905/news/709059567/]</ref>. Due to the need to develop the mobile application, riders could not use their Ventra account to pay for Metra rides until mid-November 2015, less than two months before the deadline mandated by state legislation<ref>"Metra Customers Use App for One-Millionth Ride." [https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-customers-use-ventra-app-one-millionth-ride]</ref>

==Analysis==
The card’s bumpy release underscores the need to test a system before release (and preferably phase in use of the card rather than instituting a sudden transition). Customer Service complaints point to the problem of delegating this responsibility to a third-party (in this case, the system manufacturer, Cubic). Indeed, Cubic’s power in the contract, structured as a public-private partnership, seems a bit inordinate: the agency not only has the authority to design, finance and operate the system but to provide the website and customer service center. As one blog notes, the CTA could have saved money and the hassle of an abrupt transition if it switched to cubic card reader technology while maintaining use of the system’s pre-existing smart card.
<references />

Ventra

2017-11-21T22:01:34Z

Transrand18: Added sources to Overview Section

The Chicago Transit Authority’s Ventra Card is the second open ticketing system to have been implemented in the United States, following that implemented by UTA Trax. Although the system has successfully incorporated non-agency specific fare media and has been adopted by the Chicago area’s three largest transit agencies, the system’s lack of user-friendliness (implementation snares), the system’s bumpy implementation and cost overruns indicate problems with an abrupt transition to new ticketing systems and contracting all components of a ticketing system to a single provider.

==Overview==
Ventra is an account-based, open-loop electronic ticketing system that is used for bus and heavy rail transit services operated by the [http://www.transitchicago.com/ Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)], [http://www.pacebus.com/ Pace Suburban Bus] and on [https://metrarail.com/ Metra]'s commuter rail network. Card readers on Metra and Pace buses and trains accept contactless bank cards<ref>Ventra. "Featured Questions: Paying with Contactless Bankcards and Mobile Devices." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/featured-questions/#401]</ref>, Near Field Communication-based mobile wallet applications--like Android Pay and Apple Pay<ref>Ventra. "How-To: Paying with Apply Pay, Android Pay or Samsung Pay." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/apple-pay/] </ref>--, an agency-issued smart card<ref name=":0">Ventra. "Ventra: How it Works." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/howitworks/]</ref>, and contactless paper tickets<ref name=":0" />. The agency-issued smart card, known as "Ventra Card," can be purchased from vending machines, designated retail outlets or online, with a 5$ fee imposed for vending machine and retail purchases<ref name=":1">Ventra. "About Ventra Cards." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/ventra-cards/]</ref>. Riders can register cards online (or on the Ventra mobile application) so that they can load value, manage their balance and protect against theft<ref name=":1" />. Riders can also register their Ventra Cards with a "MoneyNetwork" service operated by MasterCard so that they can use their card as a prepaid debit card for non-transit purposes<ref>Ventra MoneyNetwork. " Your Prepaid Debit Account: Getting Started." [https://www.ventra.moneynetwork.com/prepaidgpr/cardNumberVentra.gft?reqType=init&token=812ae50146765311dc5f9a888f4e289aefeed72b]</ref>. Using the Ventra Card as a prepaid debit card entails additional fees for money withdrawal and loading cash at third-party retailers<ref>"Prepaid Debit Fee Schedule." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/assets/1/7/VentraPrepaidDebitFeeSchedule.pdf]</ref>. Payment of Metra tickets can be made through Ventra's mobile ticketing application<ref>Ventra. "Ventra App: The Basics." [https://www.ventrachicago.com/how-to/app-basics/]</ref>, which allows for the purchase and display of 2-dimensional barcode tickets for use on Metra and the loading of value (and management of account balances) on registered Ventra Cards.

==History==
In the late 2000s, the Chicago Transit Authority (which operates the Chicago “L” and buses within the urban core) began assessing options to replace its proprietary Chicago Card smart card system (whose computer chip hardware had gone out of production). The high capital costs of replacing the Chicago Card with a similar system and a desire to enhance user-friendliness led the CTA to examine transitioning to an open ticketing system. The agency issued Requests for Proposals in 2009. After two rounds of RFPs, the agency awarded the contract to San Diego-based Cubic Corporation , which offered a $454 million bid (that beat Samsung’s bid of $1.46 billion). Cubic has implemented ticketing systems for many California agencies (including the Los Angeles County Metro and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System). The contract, signed in December 2011, is structured on a design-build-operate-maintain model . The contract not only gives Cubic responsibility for implementing the system, including supply of all equipment and software, but for providing the website customer call center and retail network The contract has a 12-year term, and imposes cancellation charges if the agency terminates the contract prior to the end of the term.

The new fare payment system, named Ventra, was launched on the Chicago Transit Authority in August 2013. In the months following implementation, many riders complained about difficulties with online activation and card reader glitches: between the beginning of October and middle of December, alone, the CTA had to give away $1.2 million worth in free rides due to card reader malfunctioning. Lengthy wait times for customer service calls (which ranged from 2 to 6 minutes, on average in the middle of November) were another cause for dissatisfaction . The 5$ fee for purchasing a new card impeded bulk transit pass purchases by social service agencies, for whom investment in fare media poses a liability (even the 50-cent cost of purchasing paper passes through Ventra has forced agencies to limit pass distribution). More generally, the $5 dollar card purchase fee, along with penalty fees for inactivity, and fees for requesting paper copies impact use by low-income, transit-dependent populations. An analysis cited in the Chicago Tribune showed that the card’s prepaid debit option cost the average customer $188 in annual fees.

At the same time, the fixed term of the contract has allowed Cubic to impose extensive change orders to the system. By March 2015, the CTA’s contract with Cubic had ballooned from $454 million to $519 million due to contract add-ons.

==Analysis==
The card’s bumpy release underscores the need to test a system before release (and preferably phase in use of the card rather than instituting a sudden transition). Customer Service complaints point to the problem of delegating this responsibility to a third-party (in this case, the system manufacturer, Cubic). Indeed, Cubic’s power in the contract, structured as a public-private partnership, seems a bit inordinate: the agency not only has the authority to design, finance and operate the system but to provide the website and customer service center. As one blog notes, the CTA could have saved money and the hassle of an abrupt transition if it switched to cubic card reader technology while maintaining use of the system’s pre-existing smart card.

Ventra

2017-11-21T21:49:51Z

Transrand18: Created page with "The Chicago Transit Authority’s Ventra Card is the second open ticketing system to have been implemented in the United States, following that implemented by UTA Trax. Althou..."

The Chicago Transit Authority’s Ventra Card is the second open ticketing system to have been implemented in the United States, following that implemented by UTA Trax. Although the system has successfully incorporated non-agency specific fare media and has been adopted by the Chicago area’s three largest transit agencies, the system’s lack of user-friendliness (implementation snares), the system’s bumpy implementation and cost overruns indicate problems with an abrupt transition to new ticketing systems and contracting all components of a ticketing system to a single provider.

==Overview==
Ventra is an account-based, open-loop electronic ticketing system that is used for bus and heavy rail transit operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), [http://www.pacebus.com/ Pace Suburban Bus] and on Metra commuter rail. Card readers on Metra and Pace buses and trains accept contactless bank cards, Near Field Communication-based mobile wallet applications--like Android Pay and Apple Pay--, an agency-issued smart card, and contactless paper tickets. The agency-issued smart card, known as "Ventra Card," can be purchased from vending machines, designated retail outlets or online, with a 5$ fee imposed for vending machine and retail purchases<Ventra>. Riders can register cards online (or on the Ventra mobile application) so that they can load value, manage their balance and protect against theft. Riders can also register their Ventra Cards with a "MoneyNetwork" service operated by MasterCard so that they can use their card as a prepaid debit card for non-transit purposes. Using the Ventra Card as a prepaid debit card entails additional fees for money withdrawal and loading cash at third-party retailers. Payment of Metra tickets can be made through Ventra's mobile ticketing application, which allows for the purchase and display of 2-dimensional barcode tickets for use on Metra and the loading of value (and management of account balances) on registered Ventra Cards.

==History==
In the late 2000s, the Chicago Transit Authority (which operates the Chicago “L” and buses within the urban core) began assessing options to replace its proprietary Chicago Card smart card system (whose computer chip hardware had gone out of production). The high capital costs of replacing the Chicago Card with a similar system and a desire to enhance user-friendliness led the CTA to examine transitioning to an open ticketing system. The agency issued Requests for Proposals in 2009. After two rounds of RFPs, the agency awarded the contract to San Diego-based Cubic Corporation , which offered a $454 million bid (that beat Samsung’s bid of $1.46 billion). Cubic has implemented ticketing systems for many California agencies (including the Los Angeles County Metro and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System). The contract, signed in December 2011, is structured on a design-build-operate-maintain model . The contract not only gives Cubic responsibility for implementing the system, including supply of all equipment and software, but for providing the website customer call center and retail network The contract has a 12-year term, and imposes cancellation charges if the agency terminates the contract prior to the end of the term.

The new fare payment system, named Ventra, was launched on the Chicago Transit Authority in August 2013. In the months following implementation, many riders complained about difficulties with online activation and card reader glitches: between the beginning of October and middle of December, alone, the CTA had to give away $1.2 million worth in free rides due to card reader malfunctioning. Lengthy wait times for customer service calls (which ranged from 2 to 6 minutes, on average in the middle of November) were another cause for dissatisfaction . The 5$ fee for purchasing a new card impeded bulk transit pass purchases by social service agencies, for whom investment in fare media poses a liability (even the 50-cent cost of purchasing paper passes through Ventra has forced agencies to limit pass distribution). More generally, the $5 dollar card purchase fee, along with penalty fees for inactivity, and fees for requesting paper copies impact use by low-income, transit-dependent populations. An analysis cited in the Chicago Tribune showed that the card’s prepaid debit option cost the average customer $188 in annual fees.

At the same time, the fixed term of the contract has allowed Cubic to impose extensive change orders to the system. By March 2015, the CTA’s contract with Cubic had ballooned from $454 million to $519 million due to contract add-ons.

==Analysis==
The card’s bumpy release underscores the need to test a system before release (and preferably phase in use of the card rather than instituting a sudden transition). Customer Service complaints point to the problem of delegating this responsibility to a third-party (in this case, the system manufacturer, Cubic). Indeed, Cubic’s power in the contract, structured as a public-private partnership, seems a bit inordinate: the agency not only has the authority to design, finance and operate the system but to provide the website and customer service center. As one blog notes, the CTA could have saved money and the hassle of an abrupt transition if it switched to cubic card reader technology while maintaining use of the system’s pre-existing smart card.

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-21T20:19:33Z

Transrand18:

California transit agencies vary greatly in the technology and design of their fare payment systems. Currently, seven fare payment systems based on smart card ticketing operate in the state. Four of these systems are regional, covering numerous agencies across a county or regional planning area, and three are restricted to a single transit agency. All seven systems are closed payment systems that can only process agency-issued fare media. However, the implementation of card readers compatible with international standards by Porterville Transit, Monterey-Salinas Transit and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (the most recently-implemented systems), and the intention of agencies in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego areas to upgrade to account-based or (account- and standards-based) open architecture ticketing systems creates the potential for interoperability between smart card systems in the near future.

== Overview: California Smart Card Systems List ==
{| class="wikitable"
!
Fare Program

!
Implementing Agency

!Participating Agencies
!
Technology and Design
!Upgrade/Future Initiative

|-
|[https://www.taptogo.net/ TAP (Transit Access Pass)]
|[[Metro|Los Angeles County Metro]]
|All 26 transit agencies in LA County<ref>Kudler, Adrian Glick (September 17, 2015). “There's Now One Card to Pay For Every Transit Ride in Los Angeles County.” <nowiki>https://la.curbed.com/2015/9/17/9920332/tap-card-los-angeles-county</nowiki></ref>
|Cubic technologies proprietary NextFare Central Back office, Mifare contactless card<ref>Williams, Andy. “Cubic Receives transit contracts for central computer and clearinghouse integration for Los Angeles region.” 14 April, 2005. <nowiki>https://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/cubic-receives-transit-contracts-for-central-computer-and-clearinghouse-integration-for-los-angeles-region/</nowiki></ref><ref>EE Times (6/1/2009). “L.A. Metro Taps NXP's MIFARE Plus for Contactless TAP Ticketing”. <nowiki>http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1276540&page_number=2</nowiki></ref>
|Recently approved an upgrade to cloud-based back office<ref>Attachment B to Metro File No. 2017-0272. “Procurement Summary: Universal Fare System.” file:///C:/Users/Huff/Downloads/Attachment%20B%20-%20Procurement%20Summary.pdf</ref>
|-
|[https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/index.do ClipperCard]
|
Metropolitan Transportation Commission

|21 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area<ref>Goodwin, John (Monday, April 3 2017). Clipper Expands to Union City Transit. <nowiki>https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/clipperr-expands-union-city-transit</nowiki></ref>
|MIFARE Desfire Card, Cubic NextFare back office<ref>Lyne, Malcolm (2011). “Clipper: The History of a Successful Systems Integration Project.” <nowiki>http://www.apta.com/previousmc/rail/previous/2011/Papers/Clipper-Transition-Lyne.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|Upgrade to Next generation of clipper. RFP process begins this year<ref>Rudlick, Roger (February 2017). “Clipper Update and the Potential to Rationalize Fares.” <nowiki>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/02/14/clipper-update-and-the-potential-to-rationalize-fares/</nowiki></ref>
|-
|[https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card Compass Card]
|
San Diego MTS

|San Diego MTS bus and light rail, NTCD busses, Coaster and Sprinter<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2016). “Compass Card.” <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card</nowiki></ref>
|Mifare Classic Card<ref>De Kozan, David (June 4, 2014). NFC Payment Solutions for Transit: Easing Regional Mobility. Presentation. <nowiki>https://www.securetechalliance.org/secure/events/20140602/dekozand.pdf</nowiki></ref>, Cubic farebox<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors — Minutes. April 14, 2016. <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/2016-04-14_board_0.pdf</nowiki></ref>.
|Currently in processing of upgrading to new fare system (as old one near end of life. Considering Account-based processor, data warehouse back office, smart phone validators<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (July 13, 2017). “Fare Collection Update,” Attachment C1 to MTS Executive Committee Meeting-MINUTES. June 1, 2017. </ref>
|-
|[https://www.connecttransitcard.com/ Connect Card]
|
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

|
Sacramento Regional Transit (light rail and bus), El Dorado Transit, Etran, Folsom Stage Line, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, SCT/Link, Yolobus, Yuba-Sutter Transit<ref>Connect Transit Card (2017). Connect Card: It’s Here! <nowiki>https://www.connecttransitcard.com/Pages/HowItWorks</nowiki></ref>.

|INIT ProxMobil passenger terminal, with MOBILevario back office processing system and Mifare Desfire card. Farebox and card ISO 14443 compliant but data encrypted, stored on card<ref>C. Courtright personal communication (September 2017).</ref>.
|
|-
|Go Card
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Genfare Odyssey Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant but closed<ref>Monterey-Salinas Transit (2017). “Fares: Overview.” <nowiki>https://mst.org/fares/overview/</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|
Cruz Card

|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Genfare Odyssey farebox (unspecified, ISO 14443 compliant technology but closed<ref>Model based on 2012 joint procurement mentioned in: <nowiki>http://www.tamcmonterey.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FY2011_13-TDA-Performance-Audit-MST.pdf</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|GoCard
|
Porterville Transit

|
Porterville Transit

|Genfare Fast Fare Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant<ref>Genfare (2016). Fast Fare Revolutionary Farebox. <nowiki>https://www.genfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Genfare_Sell-Sheet_v9_farebox.pdf</nowiki></ref>)
|Installing Genfare Link system: Stores data in cloud (rather than farebox) and updates from back-office-server<ref>Tuckett, Richard (August/September 2016). “Genfare links with Porterville Transit.” BusRide. <nowiki>http://www.genfare.com/sites/default/files/BUSRide_Porterville_Field_Test.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|}

==Metropolitan Smart Card Systems==

Four of California’s major metropolitan areas have regional fare payment systems based on contactless smart cards. These are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Clipper Card (covering 21 transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area), the Los Angeles County Metro’s Transit Access Pass or TAP (covering all 26 transit agencies in Los Angeles County), the Metropolitan Transit System’s Compass Card (covering the two main transit agencies in San Diego County) and the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Connect Card (covering nine agencies in the Sacramento area). All four systems coexist with cash fares and transfer passes.

The first three of the four metropolitan systems use software from Cubic Corporation. These include specially-designed computerized back office systems (MASS for Clipper Card and NextFare Central for Los Angeles and San Diego) for financial settlement and clearinghouse functions (e.g. validation) and MIFARE-based contactless cards as the fare medium or mechanism of payment: Clipper Card uses Mifare Desfire while Compass Card and TAP use MIFARE Classic. The MIFARE technology can be characterized as “card-based” (in that information is mainly stored on the card, with shadow data available from a back office) and “proprietary” in that it does not completely cohere to the international standards on contactless smart cards. This means that expansion of these smart card systems can only occur through the installation of specialized hardware. It should be noted, however, that both Clipper Card and Compass Card are currently in the process of reviewing and soliciting bids for fare system upgrades (respectively). The former system wishes to incorporate more agencies and create an enhanced customer experience, while the latter seeks to replace aging hardware. Both systems are interested in transitioning to an account-based, open architecture model, with media that can be used for non-transit applications or validators that can accept a variety of fare media. Moreover, in May 2017, the Los Angeles County Metro approved a contract modification with Cubic technologies, extending the company’s contract (for the TAP card system) through the year 2024 on the conditions that Cubic upgrade the system to the cloud-based “Nextlink” model, illustrated in Figure 1, which stores customer information in a computerized account (rather than in a specific card). The account-based system will allow customers to pay for non-transit modes (including freeway toll lanes and bikeshare) with their transit account/fare media.

The Sacramento region’s Connect Card system, on the other hand, uses hardware and software developed by INIT (Innovations in Transportation) Incorporated. These include ProxMobil passenger terminals (on light rail trains and busses), EVENDpc retail sales terminals, and a MOBILEvario sophisticated back-office fare management system. The ProxMobil terminal is compatible with ISO 14443 A/B cards used on smart cards nationwide. However, the fareboxes used to validate Connect Cards contain an additional level of encryption that is only compatible with the Agency-issued Connect Card (a Mifare Desfire product)--which receives the additional encryption when activated, making the system closed-loop. The system is also card-based, with changes in data at the back office requiring a manual update of fareboxes.

Figure 2. Illustration of Cloud-based “TAP 2.0” Ticketing System.

==Local/Municipal Smart Card Systems==
Outside of the main metropolises, the city of Porterville’s Porterville transit currently uses Genfare’s Fast Fare electronic farebox, that processes fare payments by both cash and the contactless “GoCard” smart card, an agency-issued fare media that can be registered and loaded online. The farebox appears to be standards-based, with the capacity to read all ISO 14443-standard cards, NFC-enabled mobile phones, mobile barcodes and magnetic cards. Currently, a “GoCard Mobile Ticketing” app allows customers to buy and store passes on a mobile platform and activate them prior to boarding (resembling a “flash pass” type of technology). However, the city is in the process of upgrading to the Genfare Link farebox, a cloud-based fare card reader that would accept smart cards and contactless bank cards. The farebox would be account-based (with data stored in the cloud) and, likely open. This makes Porterville Transit the most advanced system in California in terms of fare payment architecture.

Monterey-Salinas Transit also uses a Genfare Farebox. The agency issues its own contactless stored-value smart card, called the “Go Card,” which can be reloaded at several outlets in the area: the agency gives a 10% discount to passengers using the card each time they reload. The agency’s farebox was jointly procured with the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District and Santa Clara VTA and at least at the time of purchase, the system’s Smart Cards were interoperable with the former agency’s fareboxes. However, both Monterey-Salinas Transit and Santa Cruz Metro Transit District currently operate closed fare payment systems: Monterey-Salinas Transit’s fareboxes only accept the agency’s own GoCards and (magnetic stripe) paper passes, in addition to cash, and the Metro Transit District’s fareboxes only accept contactless “Cruz Cards”, disposable Magnetic Stripe Metro Passes, cash and Clipper Cards issued through the VTA’s Express EcoPass program.

==Magnetic Stripe Cards and Other==
In addition, a number of smaller transit agencies throughout the state have electronic fareboxes that accept with magnetic stripe fare cards. These are the most basic non-cash fare and media, and relatively easy to procure, but have limited data storage and insufficient security. For instance, Fresno Area Express and Merced County Transit sell magnetic stripe cards capable of storing either passes or single rides (in the case of the former) or solely passes (for the latter).

It is unclear whether Visalia Transit’s farecards use magnetic stripe or smart card technology. The agency describes the cards as “plastic” and “reloadable,” attributes characteristic of contactless smart cards, and an appendx to a TCRP report lists the agency as amongm many respondents to a survey (of transit agencies) that used “contactless (or other) electronic payment system.” Regardless of their technology, the agencies’ farecards, which only be used to store transit passes, link to an online account, from which patrons can add value. Visalia Transit’s riders can use their farecards qualify for discounts at businesses that range from restaurants to hoverboard stores
<references />

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T20:12:57Z

Transrand18: /* Table: California Smart Card Systems List */

California transit agencies vary greatly in the technology and design of their fare payment systems. Currently, seven fare payment systems based on smart card ticketing operate in the state. Four of these systems are regional, covering numerous agencies across a county or regional planning area, and three are restricted to a single transit agency. All seven systems are closed payment systems that can only process agency-issued fare media. However, the implementation of card readers compatible with international standards by Porterville Transit, Monterey-Salinas Transit and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (the most recently-implemented systems), and the intention of agencies in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego areas to upgrade to account-based or (account- and standards-based) open architecture ticketing systems creates the potential for interoperability between smart card systems in the near future.

== Table: California Smart Card Systems List ==
{| class="wikitable"
!
Fare Program

!
Implementing Agency

!Participating Agencies
!
Technology and Design
!Upgrade/Future Initiative

|-
|[https://www.taptogo.net/ TAP (Transit Access Pass)]
|[[Metro|Los Angeles County Metro]]
|All 26 transit agencies in LA County<ref>Kudler, Adrian Glick (September 17, 2015). “There's Now One Card to Pay For Every Transit Ride in Los Angeles County.” <nowiki>https://la.curbed.com/2015/9/17/9920332/tap-card-los-angeles-county</nowiki></ref>
|Cubic technologies proprietary NextFare Central Back office, Mifare contactless card<ref>Williams, Andy. “Cubic Receives transit contracts for central computer and clearinghouse integration for Los Angeles region.” 14 April, 2005. <nowiki>https://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/cubic-receives-transit-contracts-for-central-computer-and-clearinghouse-integration-for-los-angeles-region/</nowiki></ref><ref>EE Times (6/1/2009). “L.A. Metro Taps NXP's MIFARE Plus for Contactless TAP Ticketing”. <nowiki>http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1276540&page_number=2</nowiki></ref>
|Recently approved an upgrade to cloud-based back office<ref>Attachment B to Metro File No. 2017-0272. “Procurement Summary: Universal Fare System.” file:///C:/Users/Huff/Downloads/Attachment%20B%20-%20Procurement%20Summary.pdf</ref>
|-
|[https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/index.do ClipperCard]
|
Metropolitan Transportation Commission

|21 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area<ref>Goodwin, John (Monday, April 3 2017). Clipper Expands to Union City Transit. <nowiki>https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/clipperr-expands-union-city-transit</nowiki></ref>
|MIFARE Desfire Card, Cubic NextFare back office<ref>Lyne, Malcolm (2011). “Clipper: The History of a Successful Systems Integration Project.” <nowiki>http://www.apta.com/previousmc/rail/previous/2011/Papers/Clipper-Transition-Lyne.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|Upgrade to Next generation of clipper. RFP process begins this year<ref>Rudlick, Roger (February 2017). “Clipper Update and the Potential to Rationalize Fares.” <nowiki>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/02/14/clipper-update-and-the-potential-to-rationalize-fares/</nowiki></ref>
|-
|[https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card Compass Card]
|
San Diego MTS

|San Diego MTS bus and light rail, NTCD busses, Coaster and Sprinter<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2016). “Compass Card.” <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card</nowiki></ref>
|Mifare Classic Card<ref>De Kozan, David (June 4, 2014). NFC Payment Solutions for Transit: Easing Regional Mobility. Presentation. <nowiki>https://www.securetechalliance.org/secure/events/20140602/dekozand.pdf</nowiki></ref>, Cubic farebox<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors — Minutes. April 14, 2016. <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/2016-04-14_board_0.pdf</nowiki></ref>.
|Currently in processing of upgrading to new fare system (as old one near end of life. Considering Account-based processor, data warehouse back office, smart phone validators<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (July 13, 2017). “Fare Collection Update,” Attachment C1 to MTS Executive Committee Meeting-MINUTES. June 1, 2017. </ref>
|-
|[https://www.connecttransitcard.com/ Connect Card]
|
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

|
Sacramento Regional Transit (light rail and bus), El Dorado Transit, Etran, Folsom Stage Line, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, SCT/Link, Yolobus, Yuba-Sutter Transit<ref>Connect Transit Card (2017). Connect Card: It’s Here! <nowiki>https://www.connecttransitcard.com/Pages/HowItWorks</nowiki></ref>.

|INIT ProxMobil passenger terminal, with MOBILevario back office processing system and Mifare Desfire card. Farebox and card ISO 14443 compliant but data encrypted, stored on card<ref>C. Courtright personal communication (September 2017).</ref>.
|
|-
|Go Card
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Genfare Odyssey Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant but closed<ref>Monterey-Salinas Transit (2017). “Fares: Overview.” <nowiki>https://mst.org/fares/overview/</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|
Cruz Card

|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Genfare Odyssey farebox (unspecified, ISO 14443 compliant technology but closed<ref>Model based on 2012 joint procurement mentioned in: <nowiki>http://www.tamcmonterey.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FY2011_13-TDA-Performance-Audit-MST.pdf</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|GoCard
|
Porterville Transit

|
Porterville Transit

|Genfare Fast Fare Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant<ref>Genfare (2016). Fast Fare Revolutionary Farebox. <nowiki>https://www.genfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Genfare_Sell-Sheet_v9_farebox.pdf</nowiki></ref>)
|Installing Genfare Link system: Stores data in cloud (rather than farebox) and updates from back-office-server<ref>Tuckett, Richard (August/September 2016). “Genfare links with Porterville Transit.” BusRide. <nowiki>http://www.genfare.com/sites/default/files/BUSRide_Porterville_Field_Test.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|}

==Metropolitan Smart Card Systems==

Four of California’s major metropolitan areas have regional fare payment systems based on contactless smart cards. These are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Clipper Card (covering 21 transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area), the Los Angeles County Metro’s Transit Access Pass or TAP (covering all 26 transit agencies in Los Angeles County), the Metropolitan Transit System’s Compass Card (covering the two main transit agencies in San Diego County) and the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Connect Card (covering nine agencies in the Sacramento area). All four systems coexist with cash fares and transfer passes.

The first three of the four metropolitan systems use software from Cubic Corporation. These include specially-designed computerized back office systems (MASS for Clipper Card and NextFare Central for Los Angeles and San Diego) for financial settlement and clearinghouse functions (e.g. validation) and MIFARE-based contactless cards as the fare medium or mechanism of payment: Clipper Card uses Mifare Desfire while Compass Card and TAP use MIFARE Classic. The MIFARE technology can be characterized as “card-based” (in that information is mainly stored on the card, with shadow data available from a back office) and “proprietary” in that it does not completely cohere to the international standards on contactless smart cards. This means that expansion of these smart card systems can only occur through the installation of specialized hardware. It should be noted, however, that both Clipper Card and Compass Card are currently in the process of reviewing and soliciting bids for fare system upgrades (respectively). The former system wishes to incorporate more agencies and create an enhanced customer experience, while the latter seeks to replace aging hardware. Both systems are interested in transitioning to an account-based, open architecture model, with media that can be used for non-transit applications or validators that can accept a variety of fare media. Moreover, in May 2017, the Los Angeles County Metro approved a contract modification with Cubic technologies, extending the company’s contract (for the TAP card system) through the year 2024 on the conditions that Cubic upgrade the system to the cloud-based “Nextlink” model, illustrated in Figure 1, which stores customer information in a computerized account (rather than in a specific card). The account-based system will allow customers to pay for non-transit modes (including freeway toll lanes and bikeshare) with their transit account/fare media.

The Sacramento region’s Connect Card system, on the other hand, uses hardware and software developed by INIT (Innovations in Transportation) Incorporated. These include ProxMobil passenger terminals (on light rail trains and busses), EVENDpc retail sales terminals, and a MOBILEvario sophisticated back-office fare management system. The ProxMobil terminal is compatible with ISO 14443 A/B cards used on smart cards nationwide. However, the fareboxes used to validate Connect Cards contain an additional level of encryption that is only compatible with the Agency-issued Connect Card (a Mifare Desfire product)--which receives the additional encryption when activated, making the system closed-loop. The system is also card-based, with changes in data at the back office requiring a manual update of fareboxes.

Figure 2. Illustration of Cloud-based “TAP 2.0” Ticketing System.

==Local/Municipal Smart Card Systems==
Outside of the main metropolises, the city of Porterville’s Porterville transit currently uses Genfare’s Fast Fare electronic farebox, that processes fare payments by both cash and the contactless “GoCard” smart card, an agency-issued fare media that can be registered and loaded online. The farebox appears to be standards-based, with the capacity to read all ISO 14443-standard cards, NFC-enabled mobile phones, mobile barcodes and magnetic cards. Currently, a “GoCard Mobile Ticketing” app allows customers to buy and store passes on a mobile platform and activate them prior to boarding (resembling a “flash pass” type of technology). However, the city is in the process of upgrading to the Genfare Link farebox, a cloud-based fare card reader that would accept smart cards and contactless bank cards. The farebox would be account-based (with data stored in the cloud) and, likely open. This makes Porterville Transit the most advanced system in California in terms of fare payment architecture.

Monterey-Salinas Transit also uses a Genfare Farebox. The agency issues its own contactless stored-value smart card, called the “Go Card,” which can be reloaded at several outlets in the area: the agency gives a 10% discount to passengers using the card each time they reload. The agency’s farebox was jointly procured with the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District and Santa Clara VTA and at least at the time of purchase, the system’s Smart Cards were interoperable with the former agency’s fareboxes. However, both Monterey-Salinas Transit and Santa Cruz Metro Transit District currently operate closed fare payment systems: Monterey-Salinas Transit’s fareboxes only accept the agency’s own GoCards and (magnetic stripe) paper passes, in addition to cash, and the Metro Transit District’s fareboxes only accept contactless “Cruz Cards”, disposable Magnetic Stripe Metro Passes, cash and Clipper Cards issued through the VTA’s Express EcoPass program.

==Magnetic Stripe Cards and Other==
In addition, a number of smaller transit agencies throughout the state have electronic fareboxes that accept with magnetic stripe fare cards. These are the most basic non-cash fare and media, and relatively easy to procure, but have limited data storage and insufficient security. For instance, Fresno Area Express and Merced County Transit sell magnetic stripe cards capable of storing either passes or single rides (in the case of the former) or solely passes (for the latter).

It is unclear whether Visalia Transit’s farecards use magnetic stripe or smart card technology. The agency describes the cards as “plastic” and “reloadable,” attributes characteristic of contactless smart cards, and an appendx to a TCRP report lists the agency as amongm many respondents to a survey (of transit agencies) that used “contactless (or other) electronic payment system.” Regardless of their technology, the agencies’ farecards, which only be used to store transit passes, link to an online account, from which patrons can add value. Visalia Transit’s riders can use their farecards qualify for discounts at businesses that range from restaurants to hoverboard stores
<references />

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T20:02:04Z

Transrand18: Inserted Table section

California transit agencies vary greatly in the technology and design of their fare payment systems. Currently, seven fare payment systems based on smart card ticketing operate in the state. Four of these systems are regional, covering numerous agencies across a county or regional planning area, and three are restricted to a single transit agency. All seven systems are closed payment systems that can only process agency-issued fare media. However, the implementation of card readers compatible with international standards by Porterville Transit, Monterey-Salinas Transit and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (the most recently-implemented systems), and the intention of agencies in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego areas to upgrade to account-based or (account- and standards-based) open architecture ticketing systems creates the potential for interoperability between smart card systems in the near future.

== Table: California Smart Card Systems List ==
{| class="wikitable"
!

Fare Program

!

Implementing Agency

!Participating Agencies
!

Technology and Design
!Upgrade/Future Initiative

|-
|[https://www.taptogo.net/ TAP (Transit Access Pass)]
|[[Metro|Los Angeles County Metro]]
|All 26 transit agencies in LA County<ref>Kudler, Adrian Glick (September 17, 2015). “There's Now One Card to Pay For Every Transit Ride in Los Angeles County.” <nowiki>https://la.curbed.com/2015/9/17/9920332/tap-card-los-angeles-county</nowiki></ref>
|Cubic technologies proprietary NextFare Central Back office, Mifare contactless card<ref>Williams, Andy. “Cubic Receives transit contracts for central computer and clearinghouse integration for Los Angeles region.” 14 April, 2005. <nowiki>https://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/cubic-receives-transit-contracts-for-central-computer-and-clearinghouse-integration-for-los-angeles-region/</nowiki></ref><ref>EE Times (6/1/2009). “L.A. Metro Taps NXP's MIFARE Plus for Contactless TAP Ticketing”. <nowiki>http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1276540&page_number=2</nowiki></ref>
|Recently approved an upgrade to cloud-based back office<ref>Attachment B to Metro File No. 2017-0272. “Procurement Summary: Universal Fare System.” file:///C:/Users/Huff/Downloads/Attachment%20B%20-%20Procurement%20Summary.pdf</ref>
|-
|ClipperCard
|

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

|21 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area<ref>Goodwin, John (Monday, April 3 2017). Clipper Expands to Union City Transit. <nowiki>https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/clipperr-expands-union-city-transit</nowiki></ref>
|MIFARE Desfire Card, Cubic NextFare back office<ref>Lyne, Malcolm (2011). “Clipper: The History of a Successful Systems Integration Project.” <nowiki>http://www.apta.com/previousmc/rail/previous/2011/Papers/Clipper-Transition-Lyne.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|Upgrade to Next generation of clipper. RFP process begins this year<ref>Rudlick, Roger (February 2017). “Clipper Update and the Potential to Rationalize Fares.” <nowiki>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/02/14/clipper-update-and-the-potential-to-rationalize-fares/</nowiki></ref>
|-
|Compass Card
|

San Diego MTS

|San Diego MTS bus and light rail, NTCD busses, Coaster and Sprinter<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2016). “Compass Card.” <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-card</nowiki></ref>
|Mifare Classic Card<ref>De Kozan, David (June 4, 2014). NFC Payment Solutions for Transit: Easing Regional Mobility. Presentation. <nowiki>https://www.securetechalliance.org/secure/events/20140602/dekozand.pdf</nowiki></ref>, Cubic farebox<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors — Minutes. April 14, 2016. <nowiki>https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/2016-04-14_board_0.pdf</nowiki></ref>.
|Currently in processing of upgrading to new fare system (as old one near end of life. Considering Account-based processor, data warehouse back office, smart phone validators<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (July 13, 2017). “Fare Collection Update,” Attachment C1 to MTS Executive Committee Meeting-MINUTES. June 1, 2017. </ref>
|-
|Connect Card
|

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

|

Sacramento Regional Transit (light rail and bus), El Dorado Transit, Etran, Folsom Stage Line, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, SCT/Link, Yolobus, Yuba-Sutter Transit<ref>Connect Transit Card (2017). Connect Card: It’s Here! <nowiki>https://www.connecttransitcard.com/Pages/HowItWorks</nowiki></ref>.

|INIT ProxMobil passenger terminal, with MOBILevario back office processing system and Mifare Desfire card. Farebox and card ISO 14443 compliant but data encrypted, stored on card<ref>C. Courtright personal communication (September 2017).</ref>.
|
|-
|Go Card
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Monterey-Salinas Transit
|Genfare Odyssey Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant but closed<ref>Monterey-Salinas Transit (2017). “Fares: Overview.” <nowiki>https://mst.org/fares/overview/</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|

Cruz Card

|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Santa Cruz Metro Transit District
|Genfare Odyssey farebox (unspecified, ISO 14443 compliant technology but closed<ref>Model based on 2012 joint procurement mentioned in: <nowiki>http://www.tamcmonterey.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FY2011_13-TDA-Performance-Audit-MST.pdf</nowiki></ref>).
|
|-
|GoCard
|

Porterville Transit

|

Porterville Transit

|Genfare Fast Fare Farebox (ISO 14443 compliant<ref>Genfare (2016). Fast Fare Revolutionary Farebox. <nowiki>https://www.genfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Genfare_Sell-Sheet_v9_farebox.pdf</nowiki></ref>)
|Installing Genfare Link system: Stores data in cloud (rather than farebox) and updates from back-office-server<ref>Tuckett, Richard (August/September 2016). “Genfare links with Porterville Transit.” BusRide. <nowiki>http://www.genfare.com/sites/default/files/BUSRide_Porterville_Field_Test.pdf</nowiki></ref>
|}

==Metropolitan Smart Card Systems==

Four of California’s major metropolitan areas have regional fare payment systems based on contactless smart cards. These are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Clipper Card (covering 21 transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area), the Los Angeles County Metro’s Transit Access Pass or TAP (covering all 26 transit agencies in Los Angeles County), the Metropolitan Transit System’s Compass Card (covering the two main transit agencies in San Diego County) and the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Connect Card (covering nine agencies in the Sacramento area). All four systems coexist with cash fares and transfer passes.

The first three of the four metropolitan systems use software from Cubic Corporation. These include specially-designed computerized back office systems (MASS for Clipper Card and NextFare Central for Los Angeles and San Diego) for financial settlement and clearinghouse functions (e.g. validation) and MIFARE-based contactless cards as the fare medium or mechanism of payment: Clipper Card uses Mifare Desfire while Compass Card and TAP use MIFARE Classic. The MIFARE technology can be characterized as “card-based” (in that information is mainly stored on the card, with shadow data available from a back office) and “proprietary” in that it does not completely cohere to the international standards on contactless smart cards. This means that expansion of these smart card systems can only occur through the installation of specialized hardware. It should be noted, however, that both Clipper Card and Compass Card are currently in the process of reviewing and soliciting bids for fare system upgrades (respectively). The former system wishes to incorporate more agencies and create an enhanced customer experience, while the latter seeks to replace aging hardware. Both systems are interested in transitioning to an account-based, open architecture model, with media that can be used for non-transit applications or validators that can accept a variety of fare media. Moreover, in May 2017, the Los Angeles County Metro approved a contract modification with Cubic technologies, extending the company’s contract (for the TAP card system) through the year 2024 on the conditions that Cubic upgrade the system to the cloud-based “Nextlink” model, illustrated in Figure 1, which stores customer information in a computerized account (rather than in a specific card). The account-based system will allow customers to pay for non-transit modes (including freeway toll lanes and bikeshare) with their transit account/fare media.

The Sacramento region’s Connect Card system, on the other hand, uses hardware and software developed by INIT (Innovations in Transportation) Incorporated. These include ProxMobil passenger terminals (on light rail trains and busses), EVENDpc retail sales terminals, and a MOBILEvario sophisticated back-office fare management system. The ProxMobil terminal is compatible with ISO 14443 A/B cards used on smart cards nationwide. However, the fareboxes used to validate Connect Cards contain an additional level of encryption that is only compatible with the Agency-issued Connect Card (a Mifare Desfire product)--which receives the additional encryption when activated, making the system closed-loop. The system is also card-based, with changes in data at the back office requiring a manual update of fareboxes.

Figure 2. Illustration of Cloud-based “TAP 2.0” Ticketing System.

==Local/Municipal Smart Card Systems==
Outside of the main metropolises, the city of Porterville’s Porterville transit currently uses Genfare’s Fast Fare electronic farebox, that processes fare payments by both cash and the contactless “GoCard” smart card, an agency-issued fare media that can be registered and loaded online. The farebox appears to be standards-based, with the capacity to read all ISO 14443-standard cards, NFC-enabled mobile phones, mobile barcodes and magnetic cards. Currently, a “GoCard Mobile Ticketing” app allows customers to buy and store passes on a mobile platform and activate them prior to boarding (resembling a “flash pass” type of technology). However, the city is in the process of upgrading to the Genfare Link farebox, a cloud-based fare card reader that would accept smart cards and contactless bank cards. The farebox would be account-based (with data stored in the cloud) and, likely open. This makes Porterville Transit the most advanced system in California in terms of fare payment architecture.

Monterey-Salinas Transit also uses a Genfare Farebox. The agency issues its own contactless stored-value smart card, called the “Go Card,” which can be reloaded at several outlets in the area: the agency gives a 10% discount to passengers using the card each time they reload. The agency’s farebox was jointly procured with the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District and Santa Clara VTA and at least at the time of purchase, the system’s Smart Cards were interoperable with the former agency’s fareboxes. However, both Monterey-Salinas Transit and Santa Cruz Metro Transit District currently operate closed fare payment systems: Monterey-Salinas Transit’s fareboxes only accept the agency’s own GoCards and (magnetic stripe) paper passes, in addition to cash, and the Metro Transit District’s fareboxes only accept contactless “Cruz Cards”, disposable Magnetic Stripe Metro Passes, cash and Clipper Cards issued through the VTA’s Express EcoPass program.

==Magnetic Stripe Cards and Other==
In addition, a number of smaller transit agencies throughout the state have electronic fareboxes that accept with magnetic stripe fare cards. These are the most basic non-cash fare and media, and relatively easy to procure, but have limited data storage and insufficient security. For instance, Fresno Area Express and Merced County Transit sell magnetic stripe cards capable of storing either passes or single rides (in the case of the former) or solely passes (for the latter).

It is unclear whether Visalia Transit’s farecards use magnetic stripe or smart card technology. The agency describes the cards as “plastic” and “reloadable,” attributes characteristic of contactless smart cards, and an appendx to a TCRP report lists the agency as amongm many respondents to a survey (of transit agencies) that used “contactless (or other) electronic payment system.” Regardless of their technology, the agencies’ farecards, which only be used to store transit passes, link to an online account, from which patrons can add value. Visalia Transit’s riders can use their farecards qualify for discounts at businesses that range from restaurants to hoverboard stores

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T19:31:08Z

Transrand18:

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T19:02:59Z

Transrand18: add empty table

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T18:22:56Z

Transrand18: Created article and put in initial formatting

Automated Fare Media in California

2017-11-02T18:22:23Z

Transrand18: Created page with "California transit agencies vary greatly in the technology and design of their fare payment systems. Currently, seven fare payment systems based on smart card ticketing operat..."

Mobile ticketing

2017-10-26T20:12:21Z

Transrand18: Added footnotes to article and first sentence to Overview section.

Mobile ticketing can reduce passengers’ reliance on cash and allows for the integration of transit ticketing with trip planning and real-time scheduling platforms. In contrast to card-based ticketing technologies, mobile ticketing platforms do not necessarily require the installation of costly hardware. Mobile ticketing involves several distinct technologies, including Electronic Ticketing, 2-dimensional Barcodes, Near Field Communication, Bluetooth Low-energy Communication, and Short Message Service (SMS) Ticketing. Major companies in the Mobile Ticketing Technology market in North America include Bytemark, Token Transit, Masabi, moovel North America, Gemalto, Passport and Xerox.

== Overview of Mobile Ticketing Platforms ==
The following table lists some of the major companies involved in the mobile ticketing industry, with information on their platforms and the technologies and uses these platforms support.
{| class="wikitable"
!Company
!Product name
!Components
!Supported technologies
!Validation Technologies
!Auxiliary Functions
!Transit Systems
|-
|Bytemark<ref>Bytemark. Products.[https://www.bytemark.co/products]</ref>
|
|
* Mobile Ticket application
* Merchant Back Office
* Validators
|
* Visual Verification
* QR-code
* NFC
|
* Merchant Mobile app (Smartphone-based)
* Hardware validators (stand-alone)
|
* Trip planning<ref>For information on Auxiliary Features, see. Bytemark. "Transit Services." 2017. https://www.bytemark.co/industries</ref>
* Scheduling/Route Maps
* Advisory Alerts
|
* New York Waterway<ref>Gilkyson, Blair. NYC Ferry Launches New Midtown to Astoria Route. 2017. [https://www.bytemark.co/news/2017/08/29/nyc-ferry-launches-new-astoria-route]</ref>.
* Toronto Transit commission<ref>Mobile Payments Today. "Mobile Ticketing Comes to Toronto's Transit System. Jul 13, 2015. [https://www.mobilepaymentstoday.com/news/mobile-ticketing-comes-to-torontos-transit-system/]</ref>
|-
|Masabi
|JustRide<ref>Masabi. JustRide Platform. [http://www.masabi.com/justride-mobile-ticketing/]</ref>
|
* mTicketing app
* Hub (cloud-based back office)
* Inspect Validation Suite
|
* Visual Verification<ref name=":0">Masabi. "JustRide mTicketing App." [http://www.masabi.com/justride-app/]</ref>
* Barcode<ref name=":0" />
|
* Inspect app (Smartphone)<ref name=":1">Masabi. "JustRide Inspect Validation Suite." [http://www.masabi.com/inspect-validation-suite/]</ref>
* Inspect validator (stand-alone)<ref name=":1" />
* Inspect Gateline (attaches to existing fare gates)<ref name=":1" />
|
* Trip planning
* Service Alerts
|
* Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit<ref>Apple Store. Smart eTickets [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/smart-etickets/id1259298886?mt=8]</ref>
* Metrolink<ref name=":2">Masabi. "Customers." http://www.masabi.com/customer-deployments/</ref>
* Santa Clara VTA<ref name=":2" />
|-
|moovel
|
|
* RiderApp (Mobile)<ref name=":3">“North American Products.” Moovel.[https://www.moovel-transit.com/en/na]</ref>
* RiderWeb (website)<ref name=":3" />
* InspectorApp, Fare Connect. <ref name=":3" />
* TOMS (Back Office)<ref name=":3" />
|
* Barcode (QR-code and Aztec)<ref name=":4">Sandler, Emma. "moovel’s Latest Tech Brings Company Closer to Dominating Future Transit Payments." June 19, 2017. [http://mobilityfinance.net/moovels-latest-tech-brings-company-closer-to-dominating-future-transit-payments/]</ref>
* NFC<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
* Bluetooth<ref name=":4" />
|
* Inspect app (smartphone: validate barcodes and NFC)<ref name=":3" />.
* FareConnect (hardware agnostic: integrated into existing hardware)<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
|
* RideTap (ridesourcing, carshare and bikeshare)<ref name=":3" /><ref>[http://news.trimet.org/2016/05/trimet-tickets-app-now-helps-riders-connect-to-other-transportation-options/]</ref>
|
* Orange County Transportation Authority<ref>Bucher, Maile. "moovel Introduces Fare Connect a Contactless Fare System." July 24,2017. MassTransit Mag. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12353872/moovel-introduces-fare-connect-a-contactless-fare-system]</ref>
* Portland TriMet<ref>Globe Sherpa, predecessor. See. Tavila, Elisa. Transit Mobile Payments: Driving Consumer Experience and Adoption. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. February 2015.</ref>
|-
|Passport
|
|
* Integrated Mobile Travel app<ref name=":5">Passport Products: Transit. [https://passportinc.com/transit/]</ref>
|
* Visual Verification<ref>Charlotte Agenda. “Mobile Ticketing for the Light Rail is Finally Here.” [https://www.charlotteagenda.com/99363/mobile-ticketing-light-rail-finally/]</ref>
* QR-code<ref name=":5" />
|
* Visual Verification inspection<ref name=":5" />
|
* Trip planning<ref name=":5" />
* Real-time tracking<ref name=":5" />
|
* Sacramento RTC<ref name=":6">Passport. “Who We Serve.” [https://passportinc.com/transit-agencies/]</ref>
* UTA<ref name=":6" />
|-
|Token Transit
|
|
* Ticketing application<ref name=":7">"Token Transit." [https://www.tokentransit.com/]</ref>
|
* Visual Verification <ref name=":7" />
|
* Visual Verification inspection<ref name=":7" />
|
|
* Santa Monica Big Blue Bus<ref name=":9">Token Transit. "Send a Pass." [https://www.tokentransit.com/send]</ref>
|}

==Electronic and Barcode Ticketing==

Electronic ticketing and barcode technologies store a customer’s ticket in a software application. With barcode technology, the ticket can be stored as a 2-dimensional barcode, which fare inspectors electronically scan at the beginning of a journey. With electronic ticketing<ref name=":8">Florida Department of Transportation (2016). “Assessment of Mobile Fare Payment Technology for Future Deployment in Florida.” [http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/FinalReportMobileFarePayment20160331.pdf]</ref> (also known as “flash pass” or “visual verification” ticketing), the customer activates the ticket at the beginning of their journey, prompting a countdown or a change of color (for a limited time frame): A fare inspector can quickly determine a ticket’s validity from these markers by means of visual inspection. The former type of ticketing is used for the New Jersey Transit’s mobile ticketing application<ref name=":8" /> while the latter category is used for ticketing on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s bus services<ref>The App Store. “LA Mobile.” [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/la-mobile/id949255982?mt=8]</ref> and on the San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. “Compass Cloud.” [https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-cloud]</ref>. Mobile ticketing applications developed by Masabi for railway operators in Great Britain include both visual verification and barcode components<ref>E.g. for the Greater Anglia Railway. [https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/tickets-fares/daily-tickets/mobile-tickets]</ref>.

Both visual verification and barcode systems cost less to implement than traditional card-based fare validation systems,because they involve little to no hardware installation<ref name=":10">Bakker, David. NFC VERSUS 2D BARCODES FOR MOBILE TICKETING IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT. [https://blog.ul-ts.com/posts/nfc-versus-2d-barcodes-for-mobile-ticketing-in-public-transport/]</ref>. Although barcode validation traditionally required specialized machinery, mobile validation applications developed by Masabi<ref>“Inspect Validation Suite.” Masabi.com. [http://www.masabi.com/inspect-validation-suite/]</ref> and moovel<ref>North American Products.” Moovel. [https://www.moovel-transit.com/en/na]</ref> allow fare inspectors (on services that rely on proof-of-payment inspection) to validate barcodes with smart phones. Masabi’s “Inspect Validator” and “Inspect Gateline” products also allow for attachment of barcode validators to electronic bus fareboxes and transit station turnstiles<ref name=":1" />. Moreover, both systems can improve the rate of fare processing and collection over cash or paper ticket payment. However, limited wireless connectivity and poor lighting can impede processing of barcodes, delaying boarding on high volume transit routes<ref name=":8" />. Visual verification tickets also provides agencies with limited data on passenger boarding compared to other forms of mobile payment<ref name=":8" />.

==Near Field Communication (NFC)==

Near Field Communication (NFC) is a technology that stores financial data on a secure microprocessor chip (or “secure element”) embedded in certain smart phone models<ref name=":11">Smart Card Alliance Transportation Council. “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.” February 2012. [https://www.securetechalliance.org/resources/pdf/NFC_and_Transit_WP_20120201.pdf]</ref>. The chip can transmit the data through radio waves<ref>Gordon, Scott Adam. “What is NFC and how does it work on an Android?” AndroidPit.com. [https://www.androidpit.com/what-is-nfc]</ref> to communicate with any device that can read Contactless smart cards that meet ISO standard 14443<ref name=":11" />, as well as with other NFC-enabled mobile devices<ref name=":12">Leal, Joao Pedro Santos Reis. Ticket Validation in Public Transportation Using the Smartphone. June 2015. [https://sigarra.up.pt/feup/pt/pub_geral.show_file?pi_gdoc_id=396719]</ref>. Payment typically requires the download of a designated payment application like AndroidPay or ApplePay, and the processing of payments relies on an interchange of data between the mobile payment application, secure microprocessor, transaction processor (the fare validator) and application acceptor (the “merchant,” in this case, the transit agency)<ref name=":11" />. Riders can tap their phones to an NFC-enabled kiosk to download a fare product onto a particular payment application, then tap the phone directly to a ISO 14443-standard fare validator to “pay” the ticket from the application (as with a smart card)<ref name=":11" />. The phone-to-phone transfer of data permitted by NFC technology also allows for NFC-enabled phones to validate fares stored in the Secure Element of other NFC phones in situations (like on city busses) where no ISO 14443-standard validators are available<ref name=":12" />.

One drawback to Near Field Communication is its limited availability: As recently as January 2016, only 30% of android phones hosted the technology<ref name=":10" />. However, as the table in the first section of this article shows, mobile ticketing platforms can incorporate Near Field Communication (NFC) alongside other technologies.

==Bluetooth Low-Energy==

The third mobile payment method involves the use of low-energy Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth low-energy “beacons”, powered by USB or battery, emit low-power wireless signals<ref>Bluetooth. “How it works.” [https://www.bluetooth.com/what-is-bluetooth-technology/how-it-works]</ref> that can detect and communicate with any smartphone equipped with the technology that comes within a certain distance of the beacon. Bluetooth Low-energy utilizes less power than traditional bluetooth technology, allowing it to operate continuously<ref name=":8" />. Transit agencies could equip the entrances to their vehicles with Bluetooth Low-energy beacons programmed to “read” value on the mobile accounts of oncoming passengers, deducting a fare without requiring passengers to remove their phones<ref name=":8" />.

Bluetooth Low-energy technology appears to be more widespread than Near Field Communication, available on all apple operating systems of iOS 7 or higher and on Android operating systems more advanced than Android 4.3<ref>Bluetooth Low Energy: Introduction. [https://learn.adafruit.com/introduction-to-bluetooth-low-energy/introduction]</ref>. Although no large-scale deployments of the technology for transit payment have been conducted to date<ref name=":12" />, pilot programs have demonstrated the technology's feasibility. For instance, last June, Bytetoken (the UK division of Bytemark) tested a “KeyPass” system which utilized Bluetooth Low-Energy beacons, in conjunction with a 3-D camera monitor, to validate mobile tickets on the phones of boarding passengers: Once beacons detected a valid mobile ticket, and relayed the information to a back-office server, the server would instruct the transit fare gates to open<ref>Bytemark. “Bytetoken delivers KeyPass.” 2017. [https://www.bytemark.co/news/2017/02/07/bytetoken-delivers-keypass]</ref>. The KeyPass system used the 3-D camera to track passengers’ movement and detect their physical characteristics, allowing the system to associate mobile tickets with specific passengers and open the fare gates for these passengers for a length of time sufficient to enable their entry<ref>Railway Gazette UK. “Bluetooth-enabled ticket gates demonstrated.” [http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/bluetooth-enabled-ticket-gates-demonstrated.html]</ref>.

==SMS-Ticketing==

A final form of mobile ticketing makes use of the phone’s Short Message Service (SMS) function. Riders can send a pre-determined code or phrase (representing a certain transit fare type) as a text message to a designated number, prompting a response showing the ticket fare (or zone) and travel details, often including an identification code<ref name=":13">Helsingin Sendun Liikinne. “Tickets and Fares: SMS Ticket.” HSL/HRT. [https://www.hsl.fi/en/tickets-and-fares/sms-ticket]</ref>. Rather than billing the customer directly, the transit agency charges the customer’s mobile service provider, which then passes on the fare cost to the customer as part of their messaging fees<ref>E.g. Netsize. “Mobile Ticketing by SMS.” [http://www.netsize.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Netsize_ticketing_brochure.pdf]</ref>. Such a form of payment can be used for single ride tickets on several public transit systems in Europe, including in Stockholm<ref>“Fares and Tickets.” SL. [http://sl.se/en/fares--tickets/]</ref>, Helsinki<ref name=":13" /> and Milan<ref>GSM Association. "A Global Study in Transport." 2015. [https://www.gsma.com/digitalcommerce/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/GSMA_Transport_Case_Study_2015_LRF.pdf]</ref>. One of the primary products for this type of ticketing is Gemalto’s Netsize<ref name=":14">Netsize. “Mobile Ticketing by SMS.” [http://www.netsize.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Netsize_ticketing_brochure.pdf]</ref>. One variation on SMS technology uses Multi-media Messaging to send passengers a two dimensional barcode after they text their ticket request<ref>World Bank. "SMS or barcode on Smartphone." [https://www.ssatp.org/sites/ssatp/files/publications/Toolkits/ITS%20Toolkit%20content/its-technologies/electronic-fare-collection/sms-or-bar-code-on-smart-phone.html]</ref>. This form of ticketing is employed by the municipal transit agency in Malaga, Spain<ref>EMT-The Mobile Bus Ticket System in Spain. [http://www.neom.com/resources/case_studies/emt-%E2%80%93-mobile-bus-ticket-system-spain]</ref>. Token Transit, a North American company whose mobile platform is used by several California transit agencies (including Kern County Transit, Omnitrans and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus) has a ticketing window on their website that allows riders to pay for transit passes online and send the pass to their phone via SMS message<ref name=":9" />.

Basic SMS-based ticketing systems work with any mobile device (not just smartphones) and do not require possession of a credit card<ref name=":14" />. The simplicity and speed of the purchasing process (with no upfront billing required) may make this form of payment more amenable to customers than a mobile application for which one has to register<ref name=":15">Juntunen A., Luukkainen, S., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2010, June). Deploying NFC technology for mobile ticketing services–identification of critical business model issues. In Mobile Business and 2010 Ninth Global Mobility Roundtable (ICMB-GMR), 2010 Ninth International Conference on (pp. 82-90). IEEE. [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5494785/#full-text-section]</ref>. Unfortunately, current deployments of SMS ticketing in Stockholm, Helsinki and Denmark<ref>Fynbus. "Enkeltrejser" (Translation: Single Tickets). [https://www.fynbus.dk/enkeltrejser]</ref> can only be used for purchases of single fares (as opposed to passes), because of the messages’ limited functionality. The billing of mobile companies, rather than individuals, impedes employer-based fare payment and excludes riders who do not subscribe to an approved service provider<ref name=":15" />. The technology’s use of mobile billing also requires transit agencies to enter into partnerships with mobile providers<ref>Polite (Policy Learning in Information Technologies for Transportation Enhancement). “Analysis and Reporting of Best Practices.” [https://www.tsi.lv/sites/default/files/editor/science/Research_reports/polite_activity_3_2b_v0_23.pdf]</ref>. Finally, basic SMS tickets lack secure encryption<ref>Ferreira, Galvo Dias and Cunha. “Design and Evaluation of a Mobile Payment System for Public Transport: The MobiPag Prototype.” 2014.[https://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=mobility_2014_3_50_70071]</ref>. SMS ticketing that involves use of a barcode ticket is more secure, but requires possession of a smartphone.
<references />

Mobile ticketing

2017-10-26T19:36:28Z

Transrand18: Added Table showing mobile ticketing platform products, sources on barcode section.

Mobile ticketing can reduce passengers’ reliance on cash and allows for the integration of transit ticketing with trip planning and real-time scheduling platforms. In contrast to card-based ticketing technologies, mobile ticketing platforms do not necessarily require the installation of costly hardware. Mobile ticketing involves several distinct technologies, including Electronic Ticketing, 2-dimensional Barcodes, Near Field Communication, Bluetooth Low-energy Communication, and Short Message Service (SMS) Ticketing. Major companies in the Mobile Ticketing Technology market in North America include Bytemark, Token Transit, Masabi, moovel North America, Gemalto, Passport and Xerox.

== Overview of Mobile Ticketing Platforms ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Company
!Product name
!Components
!Supported technologies
!Validation Technologies
!Auxiliary Functions
!Transit Systems
|-
|Bytemark<ref>Bytemark. Products.[https://www.bytemark.co/products]</ref>
|
|
* Mobile Ticket application
* Merchant Back Office
* Validators
|
* Visual Verification
* QR-code
* NFC
|
* Merchant Mobile app (Smartphone-based)
* Hardware validators (stand-alone)
|
* Trip planning<ref>For information on Auxiliary Features, see. Bytemark. "Transit Services." 2017. https://www.bytemark.co/industries</ref>
* Scheduling/Route Maps
* Advisory Alerts
|
* New York Waterway<ref>Gilkyson, Blair. NYC Ferry Launches New Midtown to Astoria Route. 2017. [https://www.bytemark.co/news/2017/08/29/nyc-ferry-launches-new-astoria-route]</ref>.
* Toronto Transit commission<ref>Mobile Payments Today. "Mobile Ticketing Comes to Toronto's Transit System. Jul 13, 2015. [https://www.mobilepaymentstoday.com/news/mobile-ticketing-comes-to-torontos-transit-system/]</ref>
|-
|Masabi
|JustRide<ref>Masabi. JustRide Platform. [http://www.masabi.com/justride-mobile-ticketing/]</ref>
|
* mTicketing app
* Hub (cloud-based back office)
* Inspect Validation Suite
|
* Visual Verification<ref name=":0">Masabi. "JustRide mTicketing App." [http://www.masabi.com/justride-app/]</ref>
* Barcode<ref name=":0" />
|
* Inspect app (Smartphone)<ref name=":1">Masabi. "JustRide Inspect Validation Suite." [http://www.masabi.com/inspect-validation-suite/]</ref>
* Inspect validator (stand-alone)<ref name=":1" />
* Inspect Gateline (attaches to existing fare gates)<ref name=":1" />
|
* Trip planning
* Service Alerts
|
* Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit<ref>Apple Store. Smart eTickets [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/smart-etickets/id1259298886?mt=8]</ref>
* Metrolink<ref name=":2">Masabi. "Customers." http://www.masabi.com/customer-deployments/</ref>
* Santa Clara VTA<ref name=":2" />
|-
|moovel
|
|
* RiderApp (Mobile)<ref name=":3">“North American Products.” Moovel.[https://www.moovel-transit.com/en/na]</ref>
* RiderWeb (website)<ref name=":3" />
* InspectorApp, Fare Connect. <ref name=":3" />
* TOMS (Back Office)<ref name=":3" />
|
* Barcode (QR-code and Aztec)<ref name=":4">Sandler, Emma. "moovel’s Latest Tech Brings Company Closer to Dominating Future Transit Payments." June 19, 2017. [http://mobilityfinance.net/moovels-latest-tech-brings-company-closer-to-dominating-future-transit-payments/]</ref>
* NFC<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
* Bluetooth<ref name=":4" />
|
* Inspect app (smartphone: validate barcodes and NFC)<ref name=":3" />.
* FareConnect (hardware agnostic: integrated into existing hardware)<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
|
* RideTap (ridesourcing, carshare and bikeshare)<ref name=":3" /><ref>[http://news.trimet.org/2016/05/trimet-tickets-app-now-helps-riders-connect-to-other-transportation-options/]</ref>
|
* Orange County Transportation Authority<ref>Bucher, Maile. "moovel Introduces Fare Connect a Contactless Fare System." July 24,2017. MassTransit Mag. [http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12353872/moovel-introduces-fare-connect-a-contactless-fare-system]</ref>
* Portland TriMet<ref>Globe Sherpa, predecessor. See. Tavila, Elisa. Transit Mobile Payments: Driving Consumer Experience and Adoption. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. February 2015.</ref>
|-
|Passport
|
|
* Integrated Mobile Travel app<ref name=":5">Passport Products: Transit. [https://passportinc.com/transit/]</ref>
|
* Visual Verification<ref>Charlotte Agenda. “Mobile Ticketing for the Light Rail is Finally Here.” [https://www.charlotteagenda.com/99363/mobile-ticketing-light-rail-finally/]</ref>
* QR-code<ref name=":5" />
|
* Visual Verification inspection<ref name=":5" />
|
* Trip planning<ref name=":5" />
* Real-time tracking<ref name=":5" />
|
* Sacramento RTC<ref name=":6">Passport. “Who We Serve.” [https://passportinc.com/transit-agencies/]</ref>
* UTA<ref name=":6" />
|-
|Token Transit
|
|
* Ticketing application<ref name=":7">"Token Transit." [https://www.tokentransit.com/]</ref>
|
* Visual Verification <ref name=":7" />
|
* Visual Verification inspection<ref name=":7" />
|
|
* Santa Monica Big Blue Bus<ref>Token Transit. "Send a Pass." [https://www.tokentransit.com/send]</ref>
|}

==Electronic and Barcode Ticketing==

Electronic ticketing and barcode technologies store a customer’s ticket in a software application. With barcode technology, the ticket can be stored as a 2-dimensional barcode, which fare inspectors electronically scan at the beginning of a journey. With electronic ticketing<ref name=":8">Florida Department of Transportation (2016). “Assessment of Mobile Fare Payment Technology for Future Deployment in Florida.” [http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/FinalReportMobileFarePayment20160331.pdf]</ref> (also known as “flash pass” or “visual verification” ticketing), the customer activates the ticket at the beginning of their journey, prompting a countdown or a change of color (for a limited time frame): A fare inspector can quickly determine a ticket’s validity from these markers by means of visual inspection. The former type of ticketing is used for the New Jersey Transit’s mobile ticketing application<ref name=":8" /> while the latter category is used for ticketing on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s bus services<ref>The App Store. “LA Mobile.” [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/la-mobile/id949255982?mt=8]</ref> and on the San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System<ref>San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. “Compass Cloud.” [https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes/compass-cloud]</ref>. Mobile ticketing applications developed by Masabi for railway operators in Great Britain include both visual verification and barcode components<ref>E.g. for the Greater Anglia Railway. [https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/tickets-fares/daily-tickets/mobile-tickets]</ref>.

Both visual verification and barcode systems cost less to implement than traditional card-based fare validation systems,because they involve little to no hardware installation<ref>Bakker, David. NFC VERSUS 2D BARCODES FOR MOBILE TICKETING IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT. [https://blog.ul-ts.com/posts/nfc-versus-2d-barcodes-for-mobile-ticketing-in-public-transport/]</ref>. Although barcode validation traditionally required specialized machinery, mobile validation applications developed by Masabi<ref>“Inspect Validation Suite.” Masabi.com. [http://www.masabi.com/inspect-validation-suite/]</ref> and moovel<ref>North American Products.” Moovel. [https://www.moovel-transit.com/en/na]</ref> allow fare inspectors (on services that rely on proof-of-payment inspection) to validate barcodes with smart phones. Masabi’s “Inspect Validator” and “Inspect Gateline” products also allow for attachment of barcode validators to electronic bus fareboxes and transit station turnstiles<ref name=":1" />. Moreover, both systems can improve the rate of fare processing and collection over cash or paper ticket payment. However, limited wireless connectivity and poor lighting can impede processing of barcodes, delaying boarding on high volume transit routes<ref name=":8" />. Visual verification tickets also provides agencies with limited data on passenger boarding compared to other forms of mobile payment<ref name=":8" />.

==Near Field Communication (NFC)==

Near Field Communication (NFC) is a technology that stores financial data on a secure microprocessor chip (or “secure element”) embedded in certain smart phone models. The chip can transmit the data through radio waves to communicate with any device that can read Contactless smart cards that meet ISO standard 14443, as well as with other NFC-enabled mobile devices. Payment typically requires the download of a designated payment application like AndroidPay or ApplePay, and the processing of payments relies on an interchange of data between the mobile payment application, secure microprocessor, transaction processor (the fare validator) and application acceptor (the “merchant,” in this case, the transit agency). Riders can tap their phones to an NFC-enabled kiosk to download a fare product onto a particular payment application, then tap the phone directly to a ISO 14443-standard fare validator to “pay” the ticket from the application (as with a smart card). The phone-to-phone transfer of data permitted by NFC technology also allows for NFC-enabled phones to validate fares stored in the Secure Element of other NFC phones in situations (like on city busses) where no ISO 14443-standard validators are available. One drawback to Near Field Communication is its limited availability: As recently as January 2016, only 30% of android phones hosted the technology. However, mobile ticketing platforms can incorporate Near Field Communication (NFC) alongside other technologies . Bytemark’s mobile ticketing application can simultaneously support Barcode, Visual Verification (i.e. electronic) and Near Field Communication tickets. Bytemark’s onboard ticket validators can inspect both barcodes and contactless smart cards (presumably including NFC-enabled phones), as does Moovel’s mobile Inspector App. Masabi’s product description for the Inspect Validator and Inspect Gateline products (for barcode tickets) emphasizes their easy configurability with “EMV, NFC and Bluetooth Low-energy technologies.”

==Bluetooth Low-Energy==

The third mobile payment method involves the use of low-energy Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth low-energy “beacons”, powered by USB or battery, emit low-power wireless signals that can detect and communicate with any smartphone equipped with the technology that comes within a certain distance of the beacon. Bluetooth Low-energy utilizes less power than traditional bluetooth technology, allowing it to operate continuously. Transit agencies could equip the entrances to their vehicles with Bluetooth Low-energy beacons programmed to “read” value on the mobile accounts of oncoming passengers, deducting a fare without requiring passengers to remove their phones.

Bluetooth Low-energy technology appears to be more widespread than Near Field Communication, available on all apple operating systems of iOS 7 or higher and on Android operating systems more advanced than Android 4.3. However, no deployments of the technology for transit payment have been conducted to date. However, last June, Bytetoken (the UK division of Bytemark) tested a “KeyPass” system which utilized Bluetooth Low-Energy beacons, in conjunction with a 3-D camera monitor, to validate mobile tickets on the phones of boarding passengers: Once beacons detected a valid mobile ticket, and relayed the information to a back-office server, the server would instruct the transit fare gates to open. The KeyPass system used the 3-D camera to track passengers’ movement and detect their physical characteristics, allowing the system to associate mobile tickets with specific passengers and open the fare gates for these passengers for a length of time sufficient to enable their entry.

==SMS-Ticketing==

A final form of mobile ticketing makes use of the phone’s Short Message Service (SMS) function. Riders can send a pre-determined code or phrase (representing a certain transit fare type) as a text message to a designated number, prompting a response showing the ticket fare (or zone) and travel details, often including an identification code. Rather than billing the customer directly, the transit agency charges the customer’s mobile service provider, which then passes on the fare cost to the customer as part of their messaging fees. Such a form of payment can be used for single ride tickets on several public transit systems in northern Europe, including in Stockholm, Helsinki and Milan. One of the primary products for this type of ticketing is Gemalto’s Netsize. One variation on SMS technology, uses Multi-media Messaging to send passengers a two dimensional barcode after they text their ticket request. This form of ticketing is employed by the municipal transit agency in Malaga Spain. Token Transit, a North American company whose mobile platform is used by several California transit agencies (including Kern County Transit, Omnitrans and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus) has a ticketing window on their website that allows riders to pay for transit passes online and send the pass to their phone via SMS message.

Basic SMS-based ticketing systems work with any mobile device (not just smartphones) and do not require possession of a credit card. The simplicity and speed of the purchasing process (with no upfront billing required) may make this form of payment more amenable to customers than a mobile application for which one has to register. Unfortunately, current deployments of SMS ticketing in Stockholm, Helsinki and Denmark can only be used for purchases of single fares (as opposed to passes), because of the messages’ limited functionality. The billing of mobile companies, rather than individuals, impedes employer-based fare payment and excludes riders who do not subscribe to an approved service provider. The technology’s use of mobile billing also requires transit agencies to enter into partnerships with mobile providers. Finally, basic SMS tickets lack secure encryption. SMS ticketing that involves use of a barcode ticket is more secure, but requires possession of a smartphone.

Mobile ticketing

2017-10-24T18:36:28Z

Transrand18:

Mobile ticketing

2017-10-24T18:31:25Z

Transrand18: Created page with "Electronic and Barcode Ticketing Electronic ticketing and barcode technologies store a customer’s ticket in a software application. With barcode technology, the ticket can b..."

Electronic and Barcode Ticketing
Electronic ticketing and barcode technologies store a customer’s ticket in a software application. With barcode technology, the ticket can be stored as a 2-dimensional barcode, which fare inspectors electronically scan at the beginning of a journey. With electronic ticketing (also known as “flash pass” or “visual verification” ticketing), the customer activates the ticket at the beginning of their journey, prompting a countdown or a change of color (for a limited time frame): A fare inspector can quickly determine a ticket’s validity from these markers by means of visual inspection. The former type of ticketing is used for the New Jersey Transit’s mobile ticketing application while the latter category is used for ticketing on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s bus services and on the San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System. Mobile ticketing applications developed by Masabi for railway operators in Great Britain include both visual verification and barcode components.

Both visual verification and barcode systems cost less to implement than traditional card-based fare validation systems,because they involve little to no hardware installation. Although barcode validation traditionally required specialized machinery, mobile validation applications developed by Masabi and Moovel allow fare inspectors (on services that rely on proof-of-payment inspection) to validate barcodes with smart phones. Masabi’s “Inspect Validator” and “Inspect Gateline” products also allow for attachment of barcode validators to electronic bus fareboxes and transit station turnstiles, with the latter product in use at certain railway stations in Great Britain. Moreover, both systems can improve the rate of fare processing and collection over cash or paper ticket payment. However, limited wireless connectivity and poor lighting can impede processing of barcodes, delaying boarding on high volume transit routes. Visual verification tickets also provide agencies with limited data on passenger boarding compared to other forms of mobile payment.

Near Field Communication (NFC)
Near Field Communication (NFC) is a technology that stores financial data on a secure microprocessor chip (or “secure element”) embedded in certain smart phone models. The chip can transmit the data through radio waves to communicate with any device that can read Contactless smart cards that meet ISO standard 14443, as well as with other NFC-enabled mobile devices. Payment typically requires the download of a designated payment application like AndroidPay or ApplePay, and the processing of payments relies on an interchange of data between the mobile payment application, secure microprocessor, transaction processor (the fare validator) and application acceptor (the “merchant,” in this case, the transit agency). Riders can tap their phones to an NFC-enabled kiosk to download a fare product onto a particular payment application, then tap the phone directly to a ISO 14443-standard fare validator to “pay” the ticket from the application (as with a smart card). The phone-to-phone transfer of data permitted by NFC technology also allows for NFC-enabled phones to validate fares stored in the Secure Element of other NFC phones in situations (like on city busses) where no ISO 14443-standard validators are available. One drawback to Near Field Communication is its limited availability: As recently as January 2016, only 30% of android phones hosted the technology. However, mobile ticketing platforms can incorporate Near Field Communication (NFC) alongside other technologies . Bytemark’s mobile ticketing application can simultaneously support Barcode, Visual Verification (i.e. electronic) and Near Field Communication tickets. Bytemark’s onboard ticket validators can inspect both barcodes and contactless smart cards (presumably including NFC-enabled phones), as does Moovel’s mobile Inspector App. Masabi’s product description for the Inspect Validator and Inspect Gateline products (for barcode tickets) emphasizes their easy configurability with “EMV, NFC and Bluetooth Low-energy technologies.”

Bluetooth Low-Energy
The third mobile payment method involves the use of low-energy Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth low-energy “beacons”, powered by USB or battery, emit low-power wireless signals that can detect and communicate with any smartphone equipped with the technology that comes within a certain distance of the beacon. Bluetooth Low-energy utilizes less power than traditional bluetooth technology, allowing it to operate continuously. Transit agencies could equip the entrances to their vehicles with Bluetooth Low-energy beacons programmed to “read” value on the mobile accounts of oncoming passengers, deducting a fare without requiring passengers to remove their phones.

Bluetooth Low-energy technology appears to be more widespread than Near Field Communication, available on all apple operating systems of iOS 7 or higher and on Android operating systems more advanced than Android 4.3. However, no deployments of the technology for transit payment have been conducted to date. However, last June, Bytetoken (the UK division of Bytemark) tested a “KeyPass” system which utilized Bluetooth Low-Energy beacons, in conjunction with a 3-D camera monitor, to validate mobile tickets on the phones of boarding passengers: Once beacons detected a valid mobile ticket, and relayed the information to a back-office server, the server would instruct the transit fare gates to open. The KeyPass system used the 3-D camera to track passengers’ movement and detect their physical characteristics, allowing the system to associate mobile tickets with specific passengers and open the fare gates for these passengers for a length of time sufficient to enable their entry.

SMS-Ticketing
A final form of mobile ticketing makes use of the phone’s Short Message Service (SMS) function. Riders can send a pre-determined code or phrase (representing a certain transit fare type) as a text message to a designated number, prompting a response showing the ticket fare (or zone) and travel details, often including an identification code. Rather than billing the customer directly, the transit agency charges the customer’s mobile service provider, which then passes on the fare cost to the customer as part of their messaging fees. Such a form of payment can be used for single ride tickets on several public transit systems in northern Europe, including in Stockholm, Helsinki and Milan. One of the primary products for this type of ticketing is Gemalto’s Netsize. One variation on SMS technology, uses Multi-media Messaging to send passengers a two dimensional barcode after they text their ticket request. This form of ticketing is employed by the municipal transit agency in Malaga Spain. Token Transit, a North American company whose mobile platform is used by several California transit agencies (including Kern County Transit, Omnitrans and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus) has a ticketing window on their website that allows riders to pay for transit passes online and send the pass to their phone via SMS message.

Basic SMS-based ticketing systems work with any mobile device (not just smartphones) and do not require possession of a credit card. The simplicity and speed of the purchasing process (with no upfront billing required) may make this form of payment more amenable to customers than a mobile application for which one has to register. Unfortunately, current deployments of SMS ticketing in Stockholm, Helsinki and Denmark can only be used for purchases of single fares (as opposed to passes), because of the messages’ limited functionality. The billing of mobile companies, rather than individuals, impedes employer-based fare payment and excludes riders who do not subscribe to an approved service provider. The technology’s use of mobile billing also requires transit agencies to enter into partnerships with mobile providers. Finally, basic SMS tickets lack secure encryption. SMS ticketing that involves use of a barcode ticket is more secure, but requires possession of a smartphone.

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-09-14T19:13:59Z

Transrand18: Revised footnotes 1-10, 11-12 and 17.

[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]

== Introduction ==
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated right-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). It is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time.

Currently, bus on shoulder programs have been implemented in 13 metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as in metropolitan areas in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, J., Kaba, F., McElduff, K., Ho, L. S., & Machemehl, R. PEAK PERIOD BUS USE OF FREEWAY SHOULDERS. 2015]</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Minnesota Department of Transportation. Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]</ref>.

In the United States, bus on shoulder programs typically restrict bus use of the shoulder to periods when the speed drops below a particular threshold (e.g. 35 miles per hour in the Twin Cities and Columbus, 25 miles per hour in Miami), and prevent busses from traveling more than 10 mph (San Diego) to 15 mph (Twin Cities) faster than the general-purpose lanes--up to the threshold speed of 35 mph<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, P. C. Bus Use of Shoulders (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board. 2006]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida. 2016]</ref>--, for safety purposes. The speed-based restrictions do not seem to apply in Ottawa, Canada where busses can use the lanes 24 hours a day<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems. 2012]</ref>. 10 feet seems to be the minimum width of shoulder accepted by agencies for use in bus on shoulder programs, with a 12-foot width recommended in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. In San Diego, shoulders were widened to 11 feet by narrowing the inside shoulder
<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. The desired pavement thickness for a shoulder in the Twin Cities is 7 inches (capable of withstanding the bus’s weight)<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>. The design of catch basins and rumble strips in the shoulders have been altered in the Twin Cities to accommodate a smoother bus ride<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. 2007]</ref>.

== Benefits ==
Despite the modest speed improvements they enable, bus on shoulder programs have improved on-time performance in the Twin Cities, San Diego and Miami<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus on shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 per lane mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million per lane mile<ref>[https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf Texas A and M Mobility Institute. Adding New Lanes or Roads.]</ref>) or implementing a mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million per mile on average<ref>[https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. 2007]</ref>), with arguably greater effects on performance. In addition, bus-on-shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities might have improved the performance for bus services that don’t use the freeway by permitting the out-of-service busses to deadhead quickly<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos, P., & Thakuriah, P. Planning for Bus-on-Shoulders Operations in Northeastern Illinois: A Survey of Stakeholders. 2009]</ref>.

Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.

If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are little to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.

== Concerns ==
===Access Control===
A successful bus-on-shoulder operation requires control of bus access to the shoulder when the flow of traffic falls below the speed threshold<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. Control of entry is needed both to signal to busses that it is okay to use the lane and to prevent cars from following busses into the lane <ref>[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/volvocenter/blipeichlerthesis.pdf Eichler, M. D. Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design . 2005]</ref>. Moreover, access should be limited, as in the Twin Cities, to licensed transit (or intercity bus) operators, to maximize the benefits to public transport<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Dynamic, electronic road signs, that change their display to indicate when busses are allowed in the lanes, may help solve the problem<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

===Safety===
Operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape. The bus on shoulder program in Atlanta has addressed this conflict by creating additional pull-outs on the right side of the shoulder for emergency or enforcement vehicles<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.

However, the bus-on-shoulder program in the Twin Cities, the longest-running program, has had a good safety record, with only 20 accidents--none involving fatalities--occurring in the first decade of the lanes’ implementation<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Conflicts with merging traffic on the right shoulder can be averted through ramp metering technology (as done in Vancouver<ref>[https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403640670226 BC Transit. Infrastructure Design Guidelines. January 2010.]</ref>) or by permitting use of the right shoulder only where the bus makes frequent exits and/or on- or off-ramps occur infrequently<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. The only bus-on-shoulder program in the US to encounter a major accident, along a segment of Route 9 in Middlesex County, New Jersey, lacked special speed restrictions (busses could travel at the normal maximum speed), suggesting the importance of the 15 mile per hour limit on the speed differential (and a lower maximum speed limit) for safe operation<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.

===Intergovernmental Cooperation===
More generally, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for systems’ implementation in the United States given the separation of responsibility for road planning and transit operation<ref>[http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol16/iss4/2/ Agrawal, A. W., Goldman, T., & Hannaford, N. Shared-use bus priority lanes on city streets: approaches to access and enforcement. Journal of Public Transportation. 2013]</ref>. In previous instances, implementation required collaboration, at a minimum, between a metropolitan transit agency, the agency in charge of the road (often a State DOT) and an enforcement agency (e.g. in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>, Virginia<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, Peter C. "Bus Use of Shoulders." Transportation Research Board. 2006. ]</ref>, Atlanta<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>). In San Diego, the collaboration has occurred between SANDAG (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Caltrans<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>. In Minnesota, a collaborative partnership titled “Team Transit,” spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the regional transit authority, Metro Transit, and including city governments and the state highway patrol, has led the regional bus on shoulder project. The Florida Department of Transportation’s Statewide Guidance for Bus on Shoulder Implementation recommends that transit agencies (who are knowledgeable about local service patterns) initiate bus on shoulder proposals and that the State Department of Transportation review (and approve) these proposals<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. However, the document assumes a piecemeal implementation process, by which each proposal results in the formation of a separate task force. A statewide bus-on-shoulder program should involve input from both local transit agencies and the State Department of Transportation, which may be best informed to determine alignments’ safety and feasibility, and requires a large-scale planning framework spearheaded the state agency, but that draws on input from all stakeholders.

== Applications in California ==
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.

Outside of urban areas, California has several freeway corridors with at least 6 long-distance bus services a day that are subject to regular congestion. These include Interstate 15 from the Cajon Pass to the Nevada State Boundary and Interstate 5 from Irvine to San Diego. Designating shoulder use for bus services on these routes can help reduce travel time and increase ridership on intercity bus service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/Las%20Vegas%2C%20NV%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref> and from Los Angeles to San Diego<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/San%20Diego%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref>. A precedent for intercity bus use of highway shoulders can be found in Ireland, where the long-haul bus operator, Bus Eireann, can use shoulders on highways approaching Dublin<ref>[http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/buses-can-use-hard-shoulder-to-beat-20m-delays-25890429.html Hogan, Tracey. "Buses can use hard shoulder to beat 20 m delays." Independent.Ie. December 29, 2004.]</ref>. Given the needed for unimpeded travel over a long-distance, use of the left shoulders would be preferable on these routes.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-09-14T19:07:59Z

Transrand18:

[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]

== Introduction ==
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated right-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). It is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time.

Currently, bus on shoulder programs have been implemented in 13 metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as in metropolitan areas in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, J., Kaba, F., McElduff, K., Ho, L. S., & Machemehl, R. PEAK PERIOD BUS USE OF FREEWAY SHOULDERS. 2015]</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Minnesota Department of Transportation. Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]</ref>.

In the United States, bus on shoulder programs typically restrict bus use of the shoulder to periods when the speed drops below a particular threshold (e.g. 35 miles per hour in the Twin Cities and Columbus, 25 miles per hour in Miami), and prevent busses from traveling more than 10 mph (San Diego) to 15 mph (Twin Cities) faster than the general-purpose lanes--up to the threshold speed of 35 mph<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, P. C. Bus Use of Shoulders (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board. 2006]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida. 2016]</ref>--, for safety purposes. The speed-based restrictions do not seem to apply in Ottawa, Canada where busses can use the lanes 24 hours a day<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems. 2012]</ref>. 10 feet seems to be the minimum width of shoulder accepted by agencies for use in bus on shoulder programs, with a 12-foot width recommended in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. In San Diego, shoulders were widened to 11 feet by narrowing the inside shoulder<ref>[ https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. The desired pavement thickness for a shoulder in the Twin Cities is 7 inches (capable of withstanding the bus’s weight)<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>. The design of catch basins and rumble strips in the shoulders have been altered in the Twin Cities to accommodate a smoother bus ride<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. 2007]</ref>.

== Benefits ==
Despite the modest speed improvements they enable, bus on shoulder programs have improved on-time performance in the Twin Cities, San Diego and Miami<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus on shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 per lane mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million per lane mile<ref>[https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf Texas A and M Mobility Institute. Adding New Lanes or Roads.]</ref>) or implementing a mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million per mile on average<ref>[https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. 2007]</ref>), with arguably greater effects on performance. In addition, bus-on-shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities might have improved the performance for bus services that don’t use the freeway by permitting the out-of-service busses to deadhead quickly<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos, P., & Thakuriah, P. Planning for Bus-on-Shoulders Operations in Northeastern Illinois: A Survey of Stakeholders. 2009]</ref>.

Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.

If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are little to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.

== Concerns ==
===Access Control===
A successful bus-on-shoulder operation requires control of bus access to the shoulder when the flow of traffic falls below the speed threshold<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. Control of entry is needed both to signal to busses that it is okay to use the lane and to prevent cars from following busses into the lane<ref>[
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/volvocenter/blipeichlerthesis.pdf Eichler, M. D. Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). 2005]</ref>. Moreover, access should be limited, as in the Twin Cities, to licensed transit (or intercity bus) operators, to maximize the benefits to public transport<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Dynamic, electronic road signs, that change their display to indicate when busses are allowed in the lanes, may help solve the problem<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

===Safety===
Operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape. The bus on shoulder program in Atlanta has addressed this conflict by creating additional pull-outs on the right side of the shoulder for emergency or enforcement vehicles<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.

However, the bus-on-shoulder program in the Twin Cities, the longest-running program, has had a good safety record, with only 20 accidents--none involving fatalities--occurring in the first decade of the lanes’ implementation<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Conflicts with merging traffic on the right shoulder can be averted through ramp metering technology (as done in Vancouver<ref>[https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403640670226 BC Transit. Infrastructure Design Guidelines. January 2010.]</ref>) or by permitting use of the right shoulder only where the bus makes frequent exits and/or on- or off-ramps occur infrequently<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. The only bus-on-shoulder program in the US to encounter a major accident, along a segment of Route 9 in Middlesex County, New Jersey, lacked special speed restrictions (busses could travel at the normal maximum speed), suggesting the importance of the 15 mile per hour limit on the speed differential (and a lower maximum speed limit) for safe operation<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.

===Intergovernmental Cooperation===
More generally, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for systems’ implementation in the United States given the separation of responsibility for road planning and transit operation<ref>[http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol16/iss4/2/ Agrawal, A. W., Goldman, T., & Hannaford, N. Shared-use bus priority lanes on city streets: approaches to access and enforcement. Journal of Public Transportation. 2013]</ref>. In previous instances, implementation required collaboration, at a minimum, between a metropolitan transit agency, the agency in charge of the road (often a State DOT) and an enforcement agency (e.g. in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>, Virginia<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, Peter C. "Bus Use of Shoulders." Transportation Research Board. 2006. ]</ref>, Atlanta<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>). In San Diego, the collaboration has occurred between SANDAG (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Caltrans<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>. In Minnesota, a collaborative partnership titled “Team Transit,” spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the regional transit authority, Metro Transit, and including city governments and the state highway patrol, has led the regional bus on shoulder project. The Florida Department of Transportation’s Statewide Guidance for Bus on Shoulder Implementation recommends that transit agencies (who are knowledgeable about local service patterns) initiate bus on shoulder proposals and that the State Department of Transportation review (and approve) these proposals<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. However, the document assumes a piecemeal implementation process, by which each proposal results in the formation of a separate task force. A statewide bus-on-shoulder program should involve input from both local transit agencies and the State Department of Transportation, which may be best informed to determine alignments’ safety and feasibility, and requires a large-scale planning framework spearheaded the state agency, but that draws on input from all stakeholders.

== Applications in California ==
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.

Outside of urban areas, California has several freeway corridors with at least 6 long-distance bus services a day that are subject to regular congestion. These include Interstate 15 from the Cajon Pass to the Nevada State Boundary and Interstate 5 from Irvine to San Diego. Designating shoulder use for bus services on these routes can help reduce travel time and increase ridership on intercity bus service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/Las%20Vegas%2C%20NV%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref> and from Los Angeles to San Diego<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/San%20Diego%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref>. A precedent for intercity bus use of highway shoulders can be found in Ireland, where the long-haul bus operator, Bus Eireann, can use shoulders on highways approaching Dublin<ref>[http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/buses-can-use-hard-shoulder-to-beat-20m-delays-25890429.html Hogan, Tracey. "Buses can use hard shoulder to beat 20 m delays." Independent.Ie. December 29, 2004.]</ref>. Given the needed for unimpeded travel over a long-distance, use of the left shoulders would be preferable on these routes.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-09-06T19:57:35Z

Transrand18:

[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]

== Introduction ==
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated right-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). It is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time.

Currently, bus on shoulder programs have been implemented in 13 metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as in metropolitan areas in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland. <ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>Minnesota Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]. </ref>.

In the United States, bus on shoulder programs typically restrict bus use of the shoulder to periods when the speed drops below a particular threshold (e.g. 35 miles per hour in the Twin Cities and Columbus, 25 miles per hour in Miami), and prevent busses from traveling more than 10 mph (San Diego) to 15 mph (Twin Cities) faster than the general-purpose lanes--up to the threshold speed of 35 mph <ref>Martin, P. C. Bus Use of Shoulders (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board. [https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false] 2006</ref>, <ref>Florida Department of Transportation. Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida.[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf] 2016</ref>--, for safety purposes. The speed-based restrictions do not seem to apply in Ottawa, Canada where busses can use the lanes 24 hours a day<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2012]</ref>. 10 feet seems to be the minimum width of shoulder accepted by agencies for use in bus on shoulder programs, with a 12-foot width recommended in Minnesota<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>, <ref>Florida Department of Transportation 2016</ref>. In San Diego, shoulders were widened to 11 feet by narrowing the inside shoulder<ref>Zuehlke, et. al. [https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf]. 2015</ref>. The desired pavement thickness for a shoulder in the Twin Cities is 7 inches (capable of withstanding the bus’s weight)<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>. The design of catch basins and rumble strips in the shoulders have been altered in the Twin Cities to accommodate a smoother bus ride<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>.

== Benefits ==
Despite the modest speed improvements they enable, bus on shoulder programs have improved on-time performance in the Twin Cities, San Diego and Miami<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus on shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 per lane mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million per lane mile<ref>[https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf Texas A and M Mobility Institute. Adding New Lanes or Roads.]</ref>) or implementing a mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million per mile on average<ref>[https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. 2007]</ref>), with arguably greater effects on performance. In addition, bus-on-shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities might have improved the performance for bus services that don’t use the freeway by permitting the out-of-service busses to deadhead quickly<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos, P., & Thakuriah, P. Planning for Bus-on-Shoulders Operations in Northeastern Illinois: A Survey of Stakeholders. 2009]</ref>.

Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.

If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are little to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.

== Concerns ==
===Access Control===
A successful bus-on-shoulder operation requires control of bus access to the shoulder when the flow of traffic falls below the speed threshold<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. Control of entry is needed both to signal to busses that it is okay to use the lane and to prevent cars from following busses into the lane<ref>[
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/volvocenter/blipeichlerthesis.pdf Eichler, M. D. Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). 2005]</ref>. Moreover, access should be limited, as in the Twin Cities, to licensed transit (or intercity bus) operators, to maximize the benefits to public transport<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Dynamic, electronic road signs, that change their display to indicate when busses are allowed in the lanes, may help solve the problem<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

===Safety===
Operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape. The bus on shoulder program in Atlanta has addressed this conflict by creating additional pull-outs on the right side of the shoulder for emergency or enforcement vehicles<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.

However, the bus-on-shoulder program in the Twin Cities, the longest-running program, has had a good safety record, with only 20 accidents--none involving fatalities--occurring in the first decade of the lanes’ implementation<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Conflicts with merging traffic on the right shoulder can be averted through ramp metering technology (as done in Vancouver<ref>[https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403640670226 BC Transit. Infrastructure Design Guidelines. January 2010.]</ref>) or by permitting use of the right shoulder only where the bus makes frequent exits and/or on- or off-ramps occur infrequently<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. The only bus-on-shoulder program in the US to encounter a major accident, along a segment of Route 9 in Middlesex County, New Jersey, lacked special speed restrictions (busses could travel at the normal maximum speed), suggesting the importance of the 15 mile per hour limit on the speed differential (and a lower maximum speed limit) for safe operation<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.

===Intergovernmental Cooperation===
More generally, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for systems’ implementation in the United States given the separation of responsibility for road planning and transit operation<ref>[http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol16/iss4/2/ Agrawal, A. W., Goldman, T., & Hannaford, N. Shared-use bus priority lanes on city streets: approaches to access and enforcement. Journal of Public Transportation. 2013]</ref>. In previous instances, implementation required collaboration, at a minimum, between a metropolitan transit agency, the agency in charge of the road (often a State DOT) and an enforcement agency (e.g. in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>, Virginia<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, Peter C. "Bus Use of Shoulders." Transportation Research Board. 2006. ]</ref>, Atlanta<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>). In San Diego, the collaboration has occurred between SANDAG (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Caltrans<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>. In Minnesota, a collaborative partnership titled “Team Transit,” spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the regional transit authority, Metro Transit, and including city governments and the state highway patrol, has led the regional bus on shoulder project. The Florida Department of Transportation’s Statewide Guidance for Bus on Shoulder Implementation recommends that transit agencies (who are knowledgeable about local service patterns) initiate bus on shoulder proposals and that the State Department of Transportation review (and approve) these proposals<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. However, the document assumes a piecemeal implementation process, by which each proposal results in the formation of a separate task force. A statewide bus-on-shoulder program should involve input from both local transit agencies and the State Department of Transportation, which may be best informed to determine alignments’ safety and feasibility, and requires a large-scale planning framework spearheaded the state agency, but that draws on input from all stakeholders.

== Applications in California ==
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.

Outside of urban areas, California has several freeway corridors with at least 6 long-distance bus services a day that are subject to regular congestion. These include Interstate 15 from the Cajon Pass to the Nevada State Boundary and Interstate 5 from Irvine to San Diego. Designating shoulder use for bus services on these routes can help reduce travel time and increase ridership on intercity bus service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/Las%20Vegas%2C%20NV%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref> and from Los Angeles to San Diego<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/San%20Diego%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref>. A precedent for intercity bus use of highway shoulders can be found in Ireland, where the long-haul bus operator, Bus Eireann, can use shoulders on highways approaching Dublin<ref>[http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/buses-can-use-hard-shoulder-to-beat-20m-delays-25890429.html Hogan, Tracey. "Buses can use hard shoulder to beat 20 m delays." Independent.Ie. December 29, 2004.]</ref>. Given the needed for unimpeded travel over a long-distance, use of the left shoulders would be preferable on these routes.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-08-31T01:44:18Z

Transrand18: Added to safety section (and changed title), and added sections on access control and intergovernmental cooperation and CA implementation. Cite sources in latter sections nect time.

[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]

== Introduction ==
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated right-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). It is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time.

Currently, bus on shoulder programs have been implemented in 13 metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as in metropolitan areas in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland. <ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>Minnesota Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]. </ref>.

In the United States, bus on shoulder programs typically restrict bus use of the shoulder to periods when the speed drops below a particular threshold (e.g. 35 miles per hour in the Twin Cities and Columbus, 25 miles per hour in Miami), and prevent busses from traveling more than 10 mph (San Diego) to 15 mph (Twin Cities) faster than the general-purpose lanes--up to the threshold speed of 35 mph <ref> Martin, P. C. Bus Use of Shoulders (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board. [https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false] 2006</ref>, <ref>Florida Department of Transportation. Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida.[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf] 2016</ref>--, for safety purposes. The speed-based restrictions do not seem to apply in Ottawa, Canada where busses can use the lanes 24 hours a day <ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2012]</ref>. 10 feet seems to be the minimum width of shoulder accepted by agencies for use in bus on shoulder programs, with a 12-foot width recommended in Minnesota<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>, <ref>Florida Department of Transportation 2016</ref>. In San Diego, shoulders were widened to 11 feet by narrowing the inside shoulder<ref>Zuehlke, et. al. [https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf]. 2015</ref>. The desired pavement thickness for a shoulder in the Twin Cities is 7 inches (capable of withstanding the bus’s weight)<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>. The design of catch basins and rumble strips in the shoulders have been altered in the Twin Cities to accommodate a smoother bus ride<ref>Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf] 2007</ref>.

== Benefits ==
Despite the modest speed improvements they enable, bus on shoulder programs have improved on-time performance in the Twin Cities, San Diego and Miami<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes<ref>[Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus on shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 per lane mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million per lane mile<ref>[https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf Texas A and M Mobility Institute. Adding New Lanes or Roads.]</ref>) or implementing a mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million per mile on average<ref>[https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. 2007]</ref>), with arguably greater effects on performance. In addition, bus-on-shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities might have improved the performance for bus services that don’t use the freeway by permitting the out-of-service busses to deadhead quickly<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos, P., & Thakuriah, P. Planning for Bus-on-Shoulders Operations in Northeastern Illinois: A Survey of Stakeholders. 2009]</ref>.

Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.

If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are little to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.

== Concerns ==
===Access Control===
A successful bus-on-shoulder operation requires control of bus access to the shoulder when the flow of traffic falls below the speed threshold<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. Control of entry is needed both to signal to busses that it is okay to use the lane and to prevent cars from following busses into the lane<ref>[
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/volvocenter/blipeichlerthesis.pdf Eichler, M. D. Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). 2005]</ref>. Moreover, access should be limited, as in the Twin Cities, to licensed transit (or intercity bus) operators, to maximize the benefits to public transport<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Dynamic, electronic road signs, that change their display to indicate when busses are allowed in the lanes, may help solve the problem<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

===Safety===
Operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape. The bus on shoulder program in Atlanta has addressed this conflict by creating additional pull-outs on the right side of the shoulder for emergency or enforcement vehicles<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.

However, the bus-on-shoulder program in the Twin Cities, the longest-running program, has had a good safety record, with only 20 accidents--none involving fatalities--occurring in the first decade of the lanes’ implementation<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Conflicts with merging traffic on the right shoulder can be averted through ramp metering technology (as done in Vancouver<ref>[https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403640670226 BC Transit. Infrastructure Design Guidelines. January 2010.]</ref>) or by permitting use of the right shoulder only where the bus makes frequent exits and/or on- or off-ramps occur infrequently<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. The only bus-on-shoulder program in the US to encounter a major accident, along a segment of Route 9 in Middlesex County, New Jersey, lacked special speed restrictions (busses could travel at the normal maximum speed), suggesting the importance of the 15 mile per hour limit on the speed differential (and a lower maximum speed limit) for safe operation<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.

===Intergovernmental Cooperation===
More generally, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for systems’ implementation in the United States given the separation of responsibility for road planning and transit operation (Weinstein Agrawal 2013). In previous instances, implementation required collaboration, at a minimum, between a metropolitan transit agency, the agency in charge of the road (often a State DOT) and an enforcement agency (e.g. in Minnesota (Douma 2007), Virginia (Martin 2006), Atlanta (National Academies 2012)). In San Diego, the collaboration has occurred between SANDAG (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Caltrans (National Academies 2012). In Minnesota, a collaborative partnership titled “Team Transit,” spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the regional transit authority, Metro Transit, and including city governments and the state highway patrol, has led the regional bus on shoulder project (Douma 2007). The Florida Department of Transportation’s Statewide Guidance for Bus on Shoulder Implementation recommends that transit agencies (who are knowledgeable about local service patterns) initiate bus on shoulder proposals and that the State Department of Transportation review (and approve) these proposals (FDOT 2016). However, the document assumes a piecemeal implementation process, by which each proposal results in the formation of a separate task force. A statewide bus-on-shoulder program should involve input from both local transit agencies and the State Department of Transportation, which may be best informed to determine alignments’ safety and feasibility, and requires a large-scale planning framework spearheaded the state agency, but that draws on input from all stakeholders.

== Applications in California ==
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.

Outside of urban areas, California has several freeway corridors with at least 6 long-distance bus services a day that are subject to regular congestion. These include I-15 from the Cajon Pass to the Nevada State Boundary and I-5 from Irvine to San Diego. Designating shoulder use for bus services on these routes can help reduce travel time and increase ridership on intercity bus service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Los Angeles to San Diego, and San Francisco and Sacramento. A precedent for intercity bus use of highway shoulders can be found in Ireland, where the long-haul bus operator, Bus Eireann, can use shoulders on highways approaching Dublin (Independent 2004). Given the needed for unimpeded travel over a long-distance, use of the left shoulders would be preferable on these routes. With these considerations in mind, we make the following recommendations.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-08-31T00:53:34Z

Transrand18: Added in section to Introduction

Bus-on-shoulder

2017-08-31T00:23:22Z

Transrand18: