10. • Incorporates an
“iButton” memory
chip for stored value
transactions
• Quick, Innovative, but
costly to maintain
• Unique keychain
design, good UX
Unusualsolutions
11. Cash
• Forgery prevention
globally managed by
central government
• Handling costs
(counting, anti-theft)
raise costs considerably
• Speed usually suffers
due time needed to
prepare fare/use of
multiple tokens
12. Paper tickets/Coupons
• Offers system specific
solutions/fare values
• Printed card stock
difficult to duplicate
• Low unit cost, but
disposable and ongoing
• Not suitable for longer
duration fare products
• Speed impact varies
13. • Higher initial cost, but
reusable by system
• Resistant, but not
immune to forgeries
– Toronto, 2006-Present
• Reasonable speed, but
blends with coins
• Not flexible/adaptable
to need system needs
Tokens
15. Contact/ChipCards
• Slow and awkward for
transit uses (Helsinki)
• Very secure
• Technology
established in
Europe, but not in the
United States
16. MobilePayment
• Utilizes premium SMS
rates on mobile phones
to collect fare
• Convenient for users,
offers advantages of
off-board payments
without capital costs
• Moderate cost to
agency due to SMS
fees, higher risk of
forgery/fare evasion
Image: planka.nu
18. Current general consensus
• NFC is the emerging standard
– Quick to use, Good UX
– Increasingly cost competitive with other
options
– NFC Standards now in effect
• Mag-stripe cards and paper tickets will
remain significant in foreseeable future
– Low cost, familiar technology: Safe
20. Rule 1: Start with what
you have …but if you were to design
it from the ground up, what
would you take into
consideration?
21. Why not free?
• Free transit, whether on a limited or
system scale, is a policy decision
– Seattle Ride-free Area used to increase
throughput before the ORCA card
– 2014-03-16: Public transit in Paris is free in
order to combat pollution
• Revenue must come from elsewhere to
compensate for lost fare box revenue
22. On-BoardPayment Options
• Pay-as-you-board
– Traditional fare box or NFC reader
– Assumes pay per ride or time limited pass
• Tap on, Tap off
– User taps when entering and when exiting
– Generate trip data for planning
– Enables distance based fares (Amsterdam)
• Personnel
– Doubles as fare enforcement
23. Off-BoardPayment Options
• Tap on, Tap off
– Appropriate for high volume lines and rail
systems, speeds boarding
– Distance/zone based fares possible
• Automatic Fare Collection Systems
– Fare validation combined with barriers.
Usually used in combination with AFC in
place of manned kiosk
• Ticket Machines
– Speeds boarding, automated.
• Kiosk with personnel
24. BarrierDesign
• Bar barriers are ineffective at stopping fare
evasion
– Glass barriers becoming more popular
• Card readers/fare validators should allow
the rider to move through the barrier
without stopping
• Barriers should be reversible: A rider
should be able to enter or exit as needed
through the same barrier
25. BarrierDesign:Flawed
• MBTA, Boston
• Card inserted and
ejected at start of
barrier
– Result: Rider must
stop to validate fare,
increasing delay
• Screen difficult to see
• Non-descript NFC
reader
27. Pointsof Sale
• Current trend is to attach price to fare media
– Range: Free (Boston) to $11/card (Amsterdam)
• Ticket Machines
– Balance between access for riders and costs for
agency
– Credit card fees can impact revenue
• Stores/Retailers
– Increases access for riders, agency usually offers
commission on sales
• Online Ordering
– Increasingly popular
– Great for transit pass collectors ;)
28. FareEnforcement
• Fare enforcement decreases fare evasion
• The more open the system, the more
enforcement necessary
• Fees for non-payment often in excess of the
price of a monthly card
• Mobile devices can now check NFC cards on
the go for valid fares
30. Open Payment systems
• Transit agency as card
issuer – Earns profit
from interchange fee
• Possibility to start
loyalty/incentive
program to encourage
use
• NFC based. Adjustable
via software, not capital
investment (readers)
Image: Ventra Chicago
31. …however
• Equity issue: Debit cards carry hefty fees
for mundane transactions
– Risk of being seen as profiteering off of
vulnerable populations with limited access to
traditional banking services
• Major card companies not the only option
– SUICA in Tokyo offers a proprietary payment
system that is accepted for transit and goods
32. BYONFC – TransferableTransitProducts
• NFC becoming
common
• Multiple NFC cards
can hurt performance
• Idea: Allow fare
products to be
transferred onto other
NFC enabled devices
User Purchases product
Transit
Card
Bank
Card
Mobile
Phone
NFC
Jewelry
Fare machine or
app used to
securely transfer
product
33. There’san app for that
• Smartphones are nearly
omnipresent
– In all market segments
including low income
• Payment apps
increasing in popularity
– LevelUp, Square,
Google Wallet
• Idea: Pay your fare with
an app on your phone
(fare + service fee)
34. PersonalAreaNetwork Monitoring
• Already possible to monitor “acquisition”
and “loss” of mobile devices on Wi-Fi
• If location of access point (AP) is known,
then possible to infer movement within
network/travel patterns
• Idea: Use Wi-Fi device or low-power
Bluetooth beacons to infer user trips and
charge fare based on that information
35. PlausibleMethod
User signal
acquired by
operator AP
(at Station or
on Vehicle)
(User is possible
rider)
User acquired
by vehicle AP
and remains
connected for
a duration
(User is using
transit service)
User signal is
lost as certain
point from
Vehicle AP,
linked to vehicle
position
(User has exited
vehicle, account
charged
fare/trip
counted)
36. Prosand Cons
• Seamless UX: User enters and exits transit without
barriers, while paying fare
• Privacy Concerns: Despite mobile device location
already widely used in private sector, “Big
Brother” concerns when done by public sector
• Fare evasion: When the fare is invisible, difficult to
enforce.
• What happens when a battery dies?
