Integrated Smart-Card Fare System: Results from Field Operational Test

Abstract

Evaluation results of the Ventura County smart card Phase III field demonstration are presented to show the feasibility of using smart cards and other technology to provide an integrated fare medium across several transit operators. The evaluation addressed technical performance, user response, and institutional issues. Technical performance was affected by installation problems, equipment failures, and communications problems. Technical problems often were the outcome of institutional issues. Smart-card users were very satisfied with the new fare medium; however, transit patrons in Ventura County have very low incomes, many are not English speaking, and few transit users bought and used the cards. Overall, the demonstration suffered from the absence of clear roles and responsibilities as well as a lack of understanding of the complexity and demands of the technology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fleishman

, Schweiger

, Lott

, and Pierlott

. TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media. TRB, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Higgs

M. J.

Smart Cards—The Key to Unlocking Revenue Growth. Proc., IEE International Conference on Public Transport Electronic Systems, London, U.K., May 1996.

Giuliano

, and Moore

J. E.

II . Functional Evaluation of the Los Angeles Smart Card Field Operational Test. California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-96-20, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.

Moore

, and Giuliano

. Functional Evaluation of the Los Angeles Smart Card Field Operational Test. Transportation Research C, Vol. 6, 1998, pp. 247–270.

Uniform Fare Technology Test Program Report (Feb. 1995–Feb. 1996). Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1996.

Chira-Chavala

, and Coifman

. Impacts of Smart Cards on Transit Operators: Evaluation of the I-110 Corridor Smart Card Demonstration Project. California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-96-17, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.

Advanced Fare Payment Program Phase III—Progress Report 1. Echelon Industries, Inc., Diamond Bar, Calif., 1995.

Giuliano

, Moore

J. E.

II , and Golob

. Volume One: Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis. In Ventura–Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation, Final Report, California PATH Research Report D89-071, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.

Giuliano

, Golob

, and Hall

. Los Angeles Smart Traveler Field Operational Test Evaluation. Final Report, University of California at Berkeley, 1995.

10.

Golob

J. M.

, and Giuliano

. Smart Traveler Automated Ridematching Service: Lessons Learned for Future ATIS Initiatives. In Transportation Research Record 1537, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 23–29.

11.

Pucher

, Evans

, and Wenger

. Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1998, pp. 15–33.

12.

Casey

, Labell

, LoVecchio

, Ow

, Royal

, Schwenk

, Moniz

, Carpenter

, Schweiger

, and Marks

. Advanced Public Transportation Systems: The State of the Art Update ’98. Report No. DOT-VNTSC-FTA-97-9, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.