Preliminary Strategic Analysis of Next Generation Fare Payment Systems for Public Transportation (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 Chapter Overview This chapter identifies the typologies found in modern transit fare payment systems, and compares them with one another based upon the four attributes (transit system scope, design and technology, system architecture, and payment architecture) discussed in Chapter 3. It will identify instances where certain systems are more capable of adapting in the future, such as development of new technology or an expansion of the transit system framework from a single agency to a multiagency. Typology Framework The four transit fare payment system design attributes can be presented schematically as shown in Figure 4-1. Descriptions of Fare Payment System Typologies The selection and configuration of each of these four attributes plays a role in determining the operation, capabilities and limitations of the transit fare payment system. While selecting from each pair of attributes is generally an “either-or” choice, some possible combinations of design attributes are not compatible with one another (e.g., card-based systems cannot be open payment systems, while standards-based systems cannot be card-based), which limits the total number of system configurations. In addition, some combinations of design attributes are capable of future development (e.g., for single agencies to join together under a multiagency fare payment system), without requiring significant change or expense to an existing system or infrastructure. Single Agency, Proprietary, Card-Based, Closed Payments System Multiagency, Proprietary, Card-Based, Closed Payments System The single transit agency, proprietary, card-based, closed payment system (Figure 4-2) is the architecture first developed to support magnetic stripe payment fare cards in the 1970s, and is the approach used by the Whatcom Transportation Authority (see Chapter 7, Case Study 3). This same architecture was adopted in the late 1990s as fare collection systems began to accept contactless smart cards. In a multiagency transit fare payment system, the same proprietary technology (fare medium, card readers, TVMs) is used by multiple transit agencies, allowing seamless travel throughout a region and improving customer convenience. C H A P T E R 4 Transit Fare Payment System Typologies

Transit Fare Payment System Typologies 21 The proprietary, card-based closed payment typology is the prevalent fare payment sys- tem in use today in large transit systems. Fully fielded systems are in operation in single and multiagency environments serving urban, regional, and rural transit markets. Some examples include: • CharlieCard, serving the Boston, Massachusetts, metropolitan area, operating across heavy rail, bus, and express bus systems; • Clipper, serving the San Francisco, California, metropolitan area, operating across multiple bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, and ferry systems; • ORCA card, serving the Seattle, Washington, and Puget Sound area, operating across multiple bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, water taxi, and ferry systems; • Tap card, serving Los Angeles County, California, operating across multiple bus, express bus, bus rapid transit, light rail, and heavy rail systems. However, since this typology uses proprietary, card-based technology, these systems cannot support an open payments architecture that accepts contactless payment media issued by other organizations (e.g., contactless bank cards). Single Agency, Proprietary, Account-Based, Closed Payments System Multiagency, Proprietary, Account-Based, Closed Payments System These fare payment systems (Figure 4-3) use account-based architecture, which can increase customer convenience and improve business operations. The multiagency fare payment system also allows regional travel. The use of proprietary technology, however, does not allow future Design & Technology System Scope Fare System Architecture Payment Architecture Standards Based Proprietary Single Agency Account Based Card-Based Multiagency Open Payments Closed Payments System Design Attributes Figure 4-1. Typology framework for transit fare payment system design attributes. Proprietary Single Agency Card-Based Multiagency Closed Payments Standards Based Account Based Open Payments Design Aributes for Single Transit Agency or Mul agency Applica on Figure 4-2. Single or multiagency, proprietary, card-based, closed payment system design.

22 Preliminary Strategic Analysis of Next Generation Fare Payment Systems for Public Transportation development into an open payments system, and prevents the use of other fare or payment media. This is an uncommon typology, and was used in the Chicago Card Plus system. Single Agency, Standards-Based, Account-Based, Closed Payments System Multiagency, Standards-Based, Account-Based, Closed Payments System This transit fare payment option (Figure 4-4) builds on the proprietary design approach of the earlier example by combining both standards and account-based attributes. The combination of both standards- and account-based architectures provides for a number of future system development opportunities. • Flexibility in replacing or upgrading transit fare payment system hardware and devices. Because the transit fare payment system is standards-based, hardware is more commoditized, allowing the transit agency to purchase new devices (e.g., card readers, fare boxes, validators, and ticket vending machines) from any vendor that sells devices based upon that standard. • Potential for a single transit agency system to expand to a multiagency system at low cost. Since the transit fare payment system is standards-based, it would be able to accept fare media from other transit agencies using the same standards-based elements. Changes would be made at the back end of each transit agency’s central system computer, to permit adjustments to fare rules or transfer policies or accommodate changes to business rules which account for distribution of fare revenue from multiple transit agencies. • Future ability to evolve to an open payments system. Since the system is account based, it is capable of accepting open payments, by making adjustments to business rules at the back- end of the transit agency’s central system computer, without any requirement to change front-end hardware. Standards Based Proprietary Single Agency Account Based Card-Based Multiagency OpenPayments Closed Payments Design Aributes for Single Transit Agency or Mul agency Applica on Figure 4-3. Single or multiagency, proprietary, card-based, closed payment system design. Design Aributes for Single Transit Agency or Mul agency Applica on Standards Based Proprietary Single Agency Card-Based Multiagency Open Payments Closed Payments Account Based Future capability Figure 4-4. Single or multiagency, standards-based, account-based, closed payment system design.

Transit Fare Payment System Typologies 23 Single Agency, Standards-Based, Account-Based, Open Payments System Multiagency, Standards-Based, Account-Based, Open Payments System These transit fare payment systems (Figure 4-5) offer the greatest potential flexibility for transit agencies and riders. Since the system is standards- and account-based, it would allow transit agencies to issue their own system-compatible fare medium (the “hybrid solution”), which would allow the transit agency to meet its accessibility goals. This is the approach adopted by the Utah Transit Authority (Chapter 7, Case Study 1) and by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Chapter 7, Case Study 2). This is also the approach used by the Chicago Transit Authority and Pace (the suburban bus line serving the greater Chicago metro- politan area) in developing the Ventra transit fare payments card, as well as by the Washington Metro system (WMATA). Chapter 4 Review • The four principal attributes of transit fare payment system design (transit system scope, design and technology approach, fare system architecture and payment system architecture) can be combined in a number of different typologies. • Proprietary fare payment systems can accommodate both card-based and account-based architectures. However, proprietary fare payment systems cannot support open payments architecture. • Standards-based, account-based transit fare payment systems are capable of expansion from closed payments to open payments. • An account-based approach must be used in any open payments system. • A transit fare payment system that accepts open payments appears to be the most versatile since it provides its riders and transit agency the greatest choice, flexibility, and adaptability. Figure 4-5. Single or multiagency, standards-based, account-based, open payment system design. Design Aributes for Single Transit Agency or Mul agency Applica on Standards Based Proprietary Single Agency Account Based Potential for hybrid solution Card-Based Multiagency Open Payments Closed Payments