Calgary Public Transit II

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by MasterG

One of my pet peeves with Transit - likely not unique to Calgary's agency - is they seem incapable, unwilling or oblivious to make changes quickly. I understand they are funding constrained, and have mandated coverage rates and specific requirements that hand-tie them, but surely all agencies have the same problem? It's not like they don't know what to do, they have excellent planning and wish-lists compiled of all sorts of useful projects.

An example is the 4th Street SW transit-only lane. Received approval over a year ago, after a few years of internal discussion, but no direction on timelines to implement. I had to follow up with my Councillor directly to find out what the delay was. Turns out decided to wait a bit longer and see how the 5th Avenue lane-reversal pilot works out (never mind it is a completely different orientation and traffic pattern and includes all cars not just buses). So another year until they think about it again, + design and build time. We might not see the southbound lane for 4 or 5 years.

It's relatively such an easy win for transit for such a little cost, it boggles my mind that it and other simple win projects (i.e. all door boarding, stop spacing optimization etc.) don't get looked at closer.

I can understand why mega-corridors like the WLRT and SELRT take a few decades to implement, but how can an approved lane take this long?

They are also afraid to take chances on certain things that may result in adoption pains. From each train station, there are multiple buses that leave the station and travel the exact same route for kilometers to a particular point where they diverge into routes which snake through a particular section of a neighbourhood. Why have so many buses wasting their time going between the train station and the diverging point?

This is purely because (I believe) Calgary Transit believes that transit users will not accept a transfer between buses on their way to a train station. An articulated bus going back and forth along a main corridor towards a train station, supported by community routes using the same number of buses on a far shorter route would be far more efficient. I bet people would get used to such a bus map in short order, but I feel like CT views a change such as this as too drastic.

[holhm22]

They should get the guys who made HK's Octopus card! Then it would be flawless!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Because the easy features aren't really better than paper tickets, and the complex features either require constant connections to a database, or accepting compromises that really reduce the utility.

Would you accept a mandatory overnight wait before value you added to a card over the internet showed up? Because that would solve a lot of the problems. In exchange the city would have to accept that from time to time cards would go negative in value before an automatic top up happened.

Could just make the deposit for the card the same as a day pass and allow people to go overdrawn up to that amount.

[MalcolmTucker]

Five years and $5M later, Calgary Transit is scrapping its electronic fare system and vows legal action

Seriously. Calgary Transit says it couldn’t bear to launch an unreliable fare system.


Calgary Transit said in a release they’ll try to make up the lost millions through “all legal means necessary.”

We’ll have more info shortly. A press conference is underway. Meantime, here’s a timeline of horrors.

Source and the timeline: Calgary Herald

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Source and the timeline: Calgary Herald

Does anyone know what the sourcing requirements are for this? I'm not very well versed in these things.

Would it be possible to open up the bidding worldwide to include European and Asian companies which have proven track records in implementing these systems?

[artvandelay]

I imagine it would be easier to buy or licence and out of the box solution?

I mean, Octopus has been in place in HK for almost 20 years - why is it this difficult?

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Would you accept a mandatory overnight wait before value you added to a card over the internet showed up? Because that would solve a lot of the problems. In exchange the city would have to accept that from time to time cards would go negative in value before an automatic top up happened.

I would personally have no concern with that kind of restriction, especially if it would mean the system works reliably.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Could just make the deposit for the card the same as a day pass and allow people to go overdrawn up to that amount.

This is a fantastic solution to the above. It eliminates the risk for CT to allow overdraft since this amount is paid up-front, and it allows users uninterrupted service even without a data connection on some terminals.

I expect, based on some of MalcolmTucker's previous responses, that this won't solve every problem but I could certainly see this being part of a solution.

Setting aside the somewhat embarrassing contractual situation, I *am* glad that CT had the good sense to *not* roll out a half-baked system. I have no doubt there was at times a strong temptation to "just ship it" anyway, but I'm glad this was resisted. I think we'll ultimately be better off for it.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I imagine it would be easier to buy or licence and out of the box solution?

I mean, Octopus has been in place in HK for almost 20 years - why is it this difficult?

I was thinking the same thing. Why are we reinventing the wheel here?

[MalcolmTucker]

Because we want to do things that many other systems do not have. The one that does similar things is PRESTO.

Washington D.C.'s legacy cards, a magnetic strip stored value card does everything our smart cards will do except reloading somewhere other than a point of sale terminal, or automatically.

I guess people care more about the idea of a contactless plastic card, even if it has no extra useful features, than the utility of a contactless plastic card.

[flipstah]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

What is CT trying to do with the cards that other systems are not offering?

Make a double-double while reloading your fare.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

What is CT trying to do with the cards that other systems are not offering?

Automatic renewals/reloading and cash loading online. You can't do that with a stored value card, whether it is contactless and plastic or paper with a magnetic strip. You need to have interaction with a central database to do these things. Making the system work without constant data connections on the terminals would require the readers to store two way communication (requests for top ups, verified top ups) for accounts both until the card is updated (for user online requests travelling to the card from the database), or card requests traveling to the database from the card. You would also need to allow cards with expired renewals or low cash balances to still authorize.

As you can see, adding a feature that sounds easy is anything but. It is pretty easy to design a system to work in an unrobust way. But building one that will still work if data service is down or has long latency is harder.

[flipstah]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Automatic renewals and cash loading online. You can't do that with a stored value card, whether it is contactless and plastic or paper with a magnetic strip. You need to have interaction with a central database to do these things. Making the system work without constant data connections on the terminals would require the readers to store two way communication (requests for top ups, verified top ups) for accounts until the card is updated, and the terminal is able to sync, while allowing cards with expired renewals or low cash balances to still authorize.

As you can see, adding a feature that sounds easy is anything but.

When you need to 'top-up' at a station if the card is now insufficient in funds... Is that an 'automatic renewal'?

If not, I'd scrap those two features to get it to work.

[DizzyEdge]

Isn't the solution to all of these technical issues is to basically let the system assume all taps are valid during any brief communication outages, catching up once communication is restored?

[Riise]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I imagine it would be easier to buy or licence and out of the box solution?

I mean, Octopus has been in place in HK for almost 20 years - why is it this difficult?

Even if you were to pick up a carbon copy of another system it would still have to be customized to operate with the different systems and programs used by Calgary Transit and the City of Calgary. Basically, EFC systems are not Plug & Play.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone know where Telvent currently has installed systems which work well?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by flipstah

When you need to 'top-up' at a station if the card is now insufficient in funds... Is that an 'automatic renewal'?

If not, I'd scrap those two features to get it to work.

Not if you are using a point of sale terminal.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Isn't the solution to all of these technical issues is to basically let the system assume all taps are valid during any brief communication outages, catching up once communication is restored?

Yeah, you could do that. If that is the problem with the system.

My point more is that just because it is a proximity card does not mean it is the same. You can design pretty basic systems and implement it in a fancy way.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Riise

Even if you were to pick up a carbon copy of another system it would still have to be customized to operate with the different systems and programs used by Calgary Transit and the City of Calgary. Basically, EFC systems are not Plug & Play.

Integration with existing City systems shouldn't be that difficult as it's just data going back and forth. Any well designed system should have the ability to export and import data. Even a simple comma delimited file should do the trick.

I'm guessing that CT suffers from a severe case of the Peter Principle, where upper management has risen from the ranks and know a lot about how to drive a bus but very little on how to manage a project or evaluate a vendor/system

[flipstah]

They should use convenience stores as point of sale terminals. Easier to make it secure and stable.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Isn't the solution to all of these technical issues is to basically let the system assume all taps are valid during any brief communication outages, catching up once communication is restored?

That's certainly one solution, and one that I'd accept as taxpayer (i.e., the potential for small losses).

But even that comes with its own complications. How many transactions can a terminal store? How does the system correctly process two delayed taps as a transfer, rather than separate trips? Or worse, the first tap is delayed, but the second tap succeeds before the central system gets the first tap?

These are generally not philosophical problems, but there's lots of room to get it wrong.