Are Smart Cards the Smart Way to Go?

Abstract

Smart card technologies offer public transit agencies unprecedented opportunity to price services flexibly by time, distance, and mode and in conjunction with neighboring transit operators. They also can simplify boarding, streamline accounting, and provide better passenger data. Some transit systems have moved quickly to adopt smart card fare media, others are moving more cautiously, and still others eschew smart cards—at least for now. Why such differences? U.S. transit agencies were surveyed to gauge current levels of interest in smart card technologies as next-generation fare media; examine knowledge and perceptions of costs, benefits, and risks of smart card adoption; and determine the status of system implementation, the degree of planning toward implementation, and the levels of participation in interagency collaboration to realize interoperability. Factors common to agencies that have and have not adopted smart card technology also were examined. Results indicate that the consideration and adoption of smart card technologies and interoperable systems vary by funding availability and partnerships with other operators in joint projects for intelligent transportation systems. Perceptions of benefits, costs, and risks of such technologies also vary by status of smart card system planning and implementation. Managers often are uncertain about the costs in general and the benefits in particular of such a move, especially regarding interoperable systems. History predicts the future: technologically sophisticated operators tend to embrace smart cards, whereas those working collaboratively with other transit agencies are most likely to adopt interoperable systems.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chira-Chavala

and Coifman

Impacts of Smart Cards on Transit Operators: Evaluation of I-110 Corridor Smart Card Demonstration Project. California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH), Berkeley, 1996.

Maxey

C. L.

and Benjamin

Seamless Fare Collection: Using Smart Cards for Multiple-Mode Transit Trips. In APTA 2001 Rail Transit Conference Proceedings. APTA, Boston, Mass., 2001. www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/maxey.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2005.

Fleishman

Schweiger

Lott

and Pierlott

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

McDonald

Multipurpose Smart Cards in Transportation: Benefits and Barriers to Use. University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) Research Paper, Berkeley, 2000, p.27. Available from www.uctc.net/mainstream/.

Foote

and Stuart

D. G.

Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under an Automated Fare System. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2000, pp. 15.

Transit and Retail Payment: Opportunities for Collaboration and Convergence. Smart Card Alliance, Princeton Junction, N.J., 2003.

Plouffe

Vandenbosch

and Holland

Intermediating Technologies and Multi-group Adoption: A Comparison of Consumer and Merchant Adoption Intentions Toward a New Electronic Payment System. Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, 2001, pp. 65–81.

Lovering

M. W.

and Ashmore

D. P.

When Do Smartcards Make Commercial Sense? Presented at European Transport Conference 2000, Homerton College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.

Johnson

C. M.

and Thomas

E. L.

Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study. U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, Washington, D.C., 2001.

10.

Balducci

P. J.

Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination Project. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2003.

11.

Yoh

A. C.

Iseki

Taylor

B. D.

and King

D. A.

Interoperable Transit Smart Card Systems: Are We Moving Too Slowly or Too Quickly? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1986, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 69–77.

12.

Deakin

Mainstreaming Intelligent Transportation Systems: I. Findings from a Survey of California Leaders. Transportation Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2002.

13.

Deakin

Mainstreaming Intelligent Transportation Systems: III. Interviews with National Experts. Transportation Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2002.

14.

Survey and Focus Group Report: Local Governments and the National ITS Architecture. Public Technology, Inc., Washington D.C., 1998.

15.

Multisystems, Inc.; Mundle and Associates, Inc.; and Simon and Simon Research and Associates, Inc. TCRP Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.