nevine labib georggi - american public transportation ... · nevine labib georggi ... transit...

An Assessment of Mobile Fare Payment Technology Deployments

Nevine Labib Georggi

Center for Urban Transportation Research

Senior Research Associate

Tampa, FL.

• Planning phase, important to engage all staff

• Learn form other agencies’ experiences

• Budget for marketing, training, and beta testing process

• Build redundancy in back office functions

• Factor reporting requirements into procurement

Key Presentation Take-Aways

Acknowledgement

PM: Diane Quigley, FDOT Transit

Planning Administrator

CUTR’s Research Team:

PI: Nevine Labib Georggi,

Co-PI: Dr. Sean Barbeau,

Researcher: Ann Joslin, and

Consultant: Dr. Candace Brakewood,

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, City College of New York

• Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology

• Summary of Features by Different Vendors

• Case Examples: Lessons Learned (Interviews)

• Types of Information Needed to Make a Decision on Mobile Fare Payment Option

• Concept of Operations to Deploy a Pilot

Overview

• Visually verified electronic “ticket” on phone

• Machine-readable two-dimensional Quick Response (QR) Code

• Both # 1 and #2

Transit Mobile Fare Payments‘a brief overview’

• Near Field Communication (NFC) –contactless, tap and go

Transit Mobile Fare Payments‘a brief overview’

• Bytemark, New York, NY 2011

– New York Waterway (NYPP app);

– Capital Metro in Austin, Texas (CapMetro app);

– Massachusetts DOT (BusPLus+)

• CooCoo, New York, NY, 2009

– CDTA in Albany (iRide);

– NCTD in San Diego (mTicket)

Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology(1 of 5)

Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology(2 of 5)

• Masabi, London, UK (US HQ in NY, NY), 2001

– Boston’s MBTA (mTicket);

– San Diego's MTS and CrossCountry Trains (mTicket);

– NICE Bus on Long Island (go Mobile);

– Under contract with New York’s MTA for Metro-North and Long Island Railroad

Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology (3 of 5)

• Passport , Charlotte, NC, 2010

– Columbia, SC Comet Bus (Catch the Comet)

– Jacksonville Transportation Authority (MyJTA), FL

• Unwire, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999

– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART);

– Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T);

– Denton County Transportation Authority (GoPass)

Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology (4 of 5)

• GlobeSherpa, Portland, OR, 2010

– TriMet in Portland (TriMet Tickets);

– Virginia Railway Express (VRE Mobile);

– Pilot program with Los Angeles DOT (LA Mobile);

– Planned with SFMTA;

– Partnering with Cubic for CTA Ventra App in Chicago

• Xerox, Norwalk, CT (Parent Company), 1906

– NJ TRANSIT (MyTix)

– SunRail in Central Florida

Industry Scan of Mobile Fare Technology (4 of 5)

Agency NJ TRANSIT MBTA

Name of App

NJ TRANSIT App (MyTix)

mTicket (JustRide)

Validation Process

Visual; barcodes scanned at a small number of fare gates

Visual; barcode scanned by inspector

Modes with app

Bus, rail, light rail Commuter rail and ferry

Forms of Payment

Credit and debit cards; PayPal

Credit and debit cards

Summary of Features by Different Vendors (1 of 3)

Agency TriMetNY Waterway (EDC)

Name of App TriMet Tickets NY Waterway

Validation Process

Visual and barcode scanned by inspector

Visual

Modes with app

Commuter rail, light rail, bus

Ferry, bus

Forms of Payment

Credit and debit cards Credit and debit cards

Summary of Features by Different Vendors (2 of 3)

Agency NCTD The COMET DART

Name of App

COASTER Catch the COMET App

GoPass

Validation Process

Visual and barcode

Visual Visual

Modes with app

Commuter rail

Bus Bus, light rail

Forms of Payment

Credit and debit cards

Credit and debit cards

Credit and debit cards

Summary of Features by Different Vendors (3 of 3)

• DART (Unwire) : Lawrence Sutton, PMP (previously DART’s Mobile Fare PM),PM –Technology Services, Transit and Rail, CH2M

• NICE (Masabi): Omar Alvarado, Senior Planning Analyst

Case Examples: Interviews (1 of 2)

• COMET (Passport): Samuel Scheib, Transit planner and manager

• CTA (GlobeSherpa): Michael Gwinn, Director, Revenue and Fare Systems

• NJ Transit (Xerox): Frank Gorman, Manager, Point of Sale & Fare Collection Systems

Case Examples: Interviews (2 of 2)

• Significant planning and technical expertise is necessary

– learn from the experiences of other agencies.

• Build redundancy in back office functions /servers is recommended in case of any interruptions in communications.

Lessons Learned from Case Examples(1 of 5)

• Carefully evaluate the desired data (e.g. utilization by route and stop) and reporting needs when defining technology

– should be factored into procurement decisions

– have a good dashboard system to track sales trends and system performance.

Lessons Learned from Case Examples(2 of 5)

• Beta Test:

– represent a good cross section of transit service area demographics and should be

– users of the specific modes where mobile payments can be used

– solicit input during and after pilot

Lessons Learned from Case Examples(3 of 5)

• Engage all levels of transit agency employees in the planning process in preparation for deployment.

– Employees involved in beta testing of mobile payment systems have valuable insight to offer.

Lessons Learned from Case Examples(4 of 5)

• Mobile ticketing requires extensive marketing activities to be successful

• Agencies should build customer outreach activities into their planning activities and deployment budgets

Lessons Learned from Case Examples(5 of 5)

• Agencies see visual validation / QR Code scanning as a low barrier to entry for mobile ticketing where the integration needs are not as intense, and therefore cheaper/quicker to implement. Examples:

– The Comet and NICE, 6 months from concept to deployment

A Point to Ponder . . .

• A pilot requires almost as much work as a full deployment – you still need staff and public training time, marketing, etc. So, don’t underestimate the effort for a “pilot” if you want it to be successful.

A Point of View

• Information needed for deciding on mobile fare payment option

– 70% need to know costs

– 60% need to see cases studies documented

– 60% need specifications

– 30% need to see RFP examples

Extra . . . Survey Says (1 of 2)

• “Technologies in fare systems have far exceeded our current system. We want to make sure we are entering into a system that will allow us the maximum flexibility in fare collection and providing convenience to our patrons.”

Survey Says. . . (2 of 2)

• Contact info:

– Nevine Labib Georggi

• georggi@cutr.usf.edu

– Dr. Sean Barbeau

• barbeau@cutr.usf.edu

Questions?