Calgary Public Transit II

[J-D]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If there was an easy way to do this, someone would sell an off the shelf solution. To get all the necessary features in a card you have to have reliable ultrafast databases accessible to each reader, or a backup capacity for when the database has issues. Or a tolerance for loss. When you're building a system where one requirement directly reduces your ability to implement another requirement, there is going to be problems.

Calgary's existing fare system has pretty low admin costs compared to many around the world if i recall correctly, which makes it harder to justify either permenantly paying a fee to a provider or causing outright loss of revenue. (credit card companies offered a system for free to City of Toronto, but wanted forever a 3% cut of revenue, and to ban alternate providers by being a mastercard or visa only system, not both)

Guarding against theft I would imagine is the hardest thing, making sure no one is spoofing U-Passes.

Hong Kong has had a system in place for this since 1997. The technical hurdles really aren't that difficult to overcome - it's been 4 years since it was announced and it's really inexcusable. If you read the article it's going to first launch ONLY for monthly passes. Simply laughable.

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

You're aware of the issues here, right?

What do you mean by "issues"

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by J-D

Hong Kong has had a system in place for this since 1997. The technical hurdles really aren't that difficult to overcome - it's been 4 years since it was announced and it's really inexcusable. If you read the article it's going to first launch ONLY for monthly passes. Simply laughable.

Agreed. Been to Hong Kong 6 times and the Octopus card is flawless. I can even buy snacks from 7-11 or lunch from McDonald's with it. But if Connect launches with monthly passes first, that's alright since I use monthly passes now anyway. At least I get to be one of the first people to use it when it launches in 2018 (sarcasm if you don't get it for whatever reason)!

[MalcolmTucker]

And yeah, Hong Kong uses store and forward as an evolution from the old stored value cards. Creating complex interactions like monthly passes, single ride transactions that eventually turn into monthly passes, and such are more complicated, and to implement with store and forward requires extending credit. Adding money online is another complex interaction.

In Hong Kong you can set up your account to add money when your balance reaches zero, but the balance actually goes negative until the account is cleared at the end of the day. If your credit card details changed, or your limit is max'd out, your account stays negative. To backhaul the information back out to cards you would need either each reader to store the entire database, or, what is actually done, continue to extend credit then update when the user eventually uses a reader with backhaul.

To avoid the extending credit problem, you have to build a much more robust system. Which is one reason why Presto has turned into a billion dollar project, Edmonton's is reaching towards $50 million and Calgary is delayed.

It would be pretty easy to implement a contactless stored value card with none of the fancy features (or just one like Hong Kong's autoreload), and just have add fare terminals at stations. But they wouldn't be any more useful, or just marginally more useful in the case of autoreload for ticket passengers, than the current system.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And yeah, Hong Kong uses store and forward as an evolution from the old stored value cards. Creating complex interactions like monthly passes, single ride transactions that eventually turn into monthly passes, and such are more complicated, and to implement with store and forward requires extending credit. Adding money online is another complex interaction.

In Hong Kong you can set up your account to add money when your balance reaches zero, but the balance actually goes negative until the account is cleared at the end of the day. If your credit card details changed, or your limit is max'd out, your account stays negative. To backhaul the information back out to cards you would need either each reader to store the entire database, or, what is actually done, continue to extend credit then update when the user eventually uses a reader with backhaul.

To avoid the extending credit problem, you have to build a much more robust system. Which is one reason why Presto has turned into a billion dollar project, Edmonton's is reaching towards $50 million and Calgary is delayed.

It would be pretty easy to implement a contactless stored value card with none of the fancy features (or just one like Hong Kong's autoreload), and just have add fare terminals at stations. But they wouldn't be any more useful, or just marginally more useful in the case of autoreload for ticket passengers, than the current system.

I'm new to this topic so apologize for asking a question that no doubt has already been answered, but is rather central to the discussion: What is wrong with using money? That's what I generally use, and it really hasn't failed me. You can even by a snack at 7-11 with it, or a burger at McDonald's. It is amazing!

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

To get all the necessary features in a card you have to have reliable ultrafast databases accessible to each reader

You make good points in general, but I don't think the above statement is necessarily true.

My understanding is that one of the advantages of using an NFC-type system is that there is intelligence to the cards themselves, not just the reader. The card's value is actually stored on the card, not in a database. This is useful in situations where network connectivity is not reliable. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_card#Technology

Effectively, the "reader" actually updates the card to decrement its balance and add a log entry recording the transaction.

I believe Seattle's card uses a similar approach. On a recent visit there I was able to scan my card with my Android phone to check my balance and travel history *without* a data connection. Very cool.

I'm not trying to suggest that this is a trivial problem to solve, only that I don't see a need for any new *development* to take place. I'm not aware of any requirement that Calgary has that hasn't already been addressed by a system somewhere else in the world. I believe it should be a matter of deploying an already-developed solution here.

You suggest in your post that nobody sells an off-the-shelf solution. Do you know this for sure? A bit of googling found me this place:
http://www.parkeon.co.uk/transport-the-transfolio-solution.html

I recall that there was another such organization that was essentially re-selling the system that Paris uses to a bunch of other cities, but I can't find the name of it at the moment.

I'd be very surprised if more don't exist.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but the increasingly strong impression I get is that CT didn't like the price they were quoted by these sort of systems and they found someone (Telvent) who claimed they could build something from scratch for significantly less. They are now struggling to live up to that claim. This is conjecture on my part based on what I've been able to read about this project. If someone knows better, feel free to correct my understanding.

Anyway, this was the basis of my "sometimes you get what you pay for" comment. If someone can find some better information, I'd be very interested to see it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yes, if you don't want complex features, you can store everything on the card. The point of the card however is to create complex features, as those features are what provides value to the system and to the users.

A stored value card isn't an improvement over today's system in anything but aesthetics. Upgrading stored value from punched paper to contactless feels like going into the future, but it isn't really. Same thing with Metrocards in New York where the main purpose was to reduce theft from token sucking and cost from processing coins and tokens.

Without advanced features a payment system isn't an improvement for Calgary. Other places are willing to pay more for their systems because they have challenges in fare collection that Calgary doesn't have. So Calgary needs a full featured system at a low price to make sense. Which is why it has taken so long. And will continue to take longer.

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary needs a full featured system at a low price to make sense.

Apologies if I came across as being obtuse -- I somehow missed your 5:31 post before I posted my last. It seems I *was* missing something here

You clearly know much more about the particulars of the Connect program than I do. About the only official information I've come across is here:
https://www.calgarytransit.com/fares-passes/connect

The (limited) information on that page doesn't really suggest anything beyond a stored value card. I get the impression from your last few posts that you know otherwise. Do you know of some place where I can read more detail about the plans for Connect? In particular I'm interested some of the "complex features" that you mention.

[MalcolmTucker]

I can't find the report right now, but this line in a Metro article describes complex features:
'The tap-and-go, account-based system would allow users to transfer credits from a lost or damaged card.' and '“New monthly and new single ride fare options will be introduced with the Connect Card – July 2015,” reads the report due up at the transportation and transit committee this week.'
- http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1095037...re-payment-system-now-set-for-july-2015/

The different types of fares could be done on a stored value card, but the other features requires a central database where one can manipulate an account without access to the physical card.

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I'm new to this topic so apologize for asking a question that no doubt has already been answered, but is rather central to the discussion: What is wrong with using money? That's what I generally use, and it really hasn't failed me. You can even by a snack at 7-11 with it, or a burger at McDonald's. It is amazing!

Well since you have your Octopus card anyway, why not pay with it? then you also don't need to carry around cash too. There is also an Octopus Sim Card available so you can just use your phone that has NFC as a wallet too! And I forgot, you can also use it at the supermarket! But there are still the places that aren't multinational corporations that you have to use cash in. But it's completely fine!

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And yeah, Hong Kong uses store and forward as an evolution from the old stored value cards. Creating complex interactions like monthly passes, single ride transactions that eventually turn into monthly passes, and such are more complicated, and to implement with store and forward requires extending credit. Adding money online is another complex interaction.

In Hong Kong you can set up your account to add money when your balance reaches zero, but the balance actually goes negative until the account is cleared at the end of the day. If your credit card details changed, or your limit is max'd out, your account stays negative. To backhaul the information back out to cards you would need either each reader to store the entire database, or, what is actually done, continue to extend credit then update when the user eventually uses a reader with backhaul.

To avoid the extending credit problem, you have to build a much more robust system. Which is one reason why Presto has turned into a billion dollar project, Edmonton's is reaching towards $50 million and Calgary is delayed.

It would be pretty easy to implement a contactless stored value card with none of the fancy features (or just one like Hong Kong's autoreload), and just have add fare terminals at stations. But they wouldn't be any more useful, or just marginally more useful in the case of autoreload for ticket passengers, than the current system.

That's what's great about the Octopus card. You don't have to go through all the complex online reloading. You can just do it at the convenience store or the MTR(metro) station where you can refill at the customer service station or at a refill machine which is extremely handy!

[joe498]

Originally Posted by J-D

I suggested this a while back but basically what I figured could be a legitimate revenue generator for CT that other cities have done is:

Long term leases to developers to build high density mixed use/residential developments on some of the more inner city park and rides. I don't see park and rides having any long term future and given the small proportion of people that can even make use of a park and ride, I don't see this negatively affecting average riders. Assuming increased revenue could be used properly it allows for needed expansions.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by joe498

I suggested this a while back but basically what I figured could be a legitimate revenue generator for CT that other cities have done is:

Long term leases to developers to build high density mixed use/residential developments on some of the more inner city park and rides. I don't see park and rides having any long term future and given the small proportion of people that can even make use of a park and ride, I don't see this negatively affecting average riders. Assuming increased revenue could be used properly it allows for needed expansions.

I guarantee that a lot of park and riders would start driving instead of taking a feeder bus if you remove the park and ride lots. Calgary transit is already planning on scaling back some - I know Anderson is slated to get cut significantly for TOD.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by J-D

I guarantee that a lot of park and riders would start driving instead of taking a feeder bus if you remove the park and ride lots. Calgary transit is already planning on scaling back some - I know Anderson is slated to get cut significantly for TOD.

If you get more riders from development that replaces the park-n-ride, then it is totally worth it.

[Aegis]

Any reason we can't have a system like NYC? With disposable metrocards?

[MalcolmTucker]

We could, but their system paid for itself by eliminating token handing costs. We would be replacing one type of paper, with another type, while making enforcement harder.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We could, but their system paid for itself by eliminating token handing costs. We would be replacing one type of paper, with another type, while making enforcement harder.

Follow up question.. why don't we have turnstiles and gates like NYC? That seems to be the foundation of the metrocard system, specifically, using the metrocard to enter the gate. I'm not clear on why we don't do that..

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Follow up question.. why don't we have turnstiles and gates like NYC? That seems to be the foundation of the metrocard system, specifically, using the metrocard to enter the gate. I'm not clear on why we don't do that..

Cost vs benefit, rare evasion rates in Calgary are dramatically low

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Cost vs benefit, rare evasion rates in Calgary are dramatically low

It just seems like the "Metrocard System" accomplishes what Calgary wants to do, in a system with significantly higher capacity than Calgary in which the fare per rider is lower (although that is likely for other reasons).

I'm not clear on so unique about our situation that we can't use existing technology to meet the need?

The fixed cost of installing turnstiles can't seriously be cited as a barrier in comparison to low rates of fare evasion, when the fine for fare evasion is regularly increased in response to increased fare evasion..

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Aegis

It just seems like the "Metrocard System" accomplishes what Calgary wants to do, in a system with significantly higher capacity than Calgary in which the fare per rider is lower (although that is likely for other reasons).

I'm not clear on so unique about our situation that we can't use existing technology to meet the need?

The fixed cost of installing turnstiles can't seriously be cited as a barrier in comparison to low rates of fare evasion, when the fine for fare evasion is regularly increased in response to increased fare evasion..

There are other challenges with the free fare zone too.

As to the metrocard, what advantage would this have over the paper system in place right now? The ability to reload a card at a store? At least right now I can order my tickets & passes online and have them delivered with the metrocard I'd have to find some place to reload it (no remote reloading AFAIK).