Today is the final part of a four-part series on the Future of the MetroCard and smart card technologies. Part 1 outlined the benefits of smart card technology; Part 2 outlined the deficiencies of the MetroCard; Part 3 summarized the current plans for a smart card in NYC; and Part 4, below, proposes a new smart card for NYC.

The NY Times this morning had additional coverage on Bloomberg’s free cross-town bus proposal, as well as his push for a NYC smart card. According to the article, Mr. Soffin, an MTA spokesman, insisted that the MTA’s pay-pass pilot (on the Lexington Avenue Line) would be expanded to some buses by the end of the year.  No word on a potential link with the Port Authority or New Jersey Transit, as the Philadelphia Daily News reported in July.

Part 4 – Get Smart
Although the specifics remain unclear, there are enough whispers from Elliot Sander, Jay Walder, Bloomberg, and the Port Authority to glean that an inter-agency smart card (in some form) is on its way. Outlined below is a proposal for what I believe such a smart card should look like in NYC.

A fantasy smart-card for NYC. Could this be our future?

1. Contactless RFID-Chips
I admit that I do not understand all of the technology behind fare cards, but I can say with certainty that the magnetic strip technology of the current MetroCard is not capable of performing all of the functions of a full-fledged smart card. Smart cards use an RFID chip, which enables a greater amount of information to be stored on a card than on a magnetic strip. Many credit card companies have supplemented magnetic strips with RFID chips on their own credit cards, because the capacity of  RFID offers space for security features that permit users to use the card without a PIN. These same security features enable transit agencies to create smart card management systems for riders online. Additionally, the capacity of RFID allows one card to carry multiple pieces of transit information: an unlimited pass, a user’s transit status (student, handicapped, senior, etc.), transit balance, etc..

In addition to holding a greater capacity, RFID chips are also incredibly durable and adaptable.  Even if a magnetic strip could implement all of the technological benefits of an RFID chip, it would have to be replaced at least as often as the average, well-used debit card. And unlike magnetic strips, an RFID chip can be embedded into virtually anything: cell phones, key chains, and even bizarre, carbon-tracking gloves.  In Hong Kong and Britain, transit RFID chips are embedded into bank debit cards, streamlining wallets with one fewer card and enabling users to re-fill their transit accounts at bank ATMs.

Yet let’s take this a step further. Imagine a day when you can buy your transit tickets and passes on your smart phone. When you arrive at a fair gate or enter a train, instead of waving your smart card over a sensor – you’ll wave your RFID-embedded phone. In other words, your phone has become both the ticket vending machine AND the ticket. No MetroCard will ever be able to do that.

Finally and most importantly, RFID chips enable Contact-Less payment. While the MetroCard seems relatively fast, anyone who has used a contact-less smart card will tell you that it’s slow and prone to error.  Currently the NYC subway system is bursting at the seams with over 5M riders on a weekday, and that number will continue to grow.  A fast fare payment system will reduce congestion at subway turnstiles and dramatically speed payment on buses.

2.  Inter-modal Compatibility
Like the Oyster and the Octopus, NYC’s smart card must be inter-modal.  As outlined on Monday, the smart card has the power to remove psychological and logistical barriers between transit systems and modes. Once those barriers are removed, transit systems see greater flow between complementary, connecting modes.

As readers mentioned in their comments, implementation on each respective mode will require coordination and planning. While subways have logical entry and exit points, commuter rail lines do not. International systems, however, offer many examples of successful implementation on different modes of transportation. On the National Railway in London, conductors carry digital readers that scan the smart cards. Each rider’s card has a monthly pass, a digital one-way ticket purchased on the platform, or a fund to debit the ticket purchase.  The flexibility of the technology ensures successful, inter-modal implementation.

3. MTA, Lead the Way! Sort of. . .
The politics of creating a regional smart card for NYC will undoubtedly be complicated. On the one hand, the Port Authority has traditionally played the role of inter-state transit leader. In order for the smart card to be a success, however, the MTA will play the most important role.

As outlined yesterday, the Port Authority has already implemented SmartLink, a smart card that has many of the features of modern smart card technology. Not only is it contact-less, like the Oyster or the Octopus, but its value can be controlled through the SmartLink website.  The PA’s pilot for an expanded smart card system presumably will utilize the SmartLink.

A smart card in NYC, however, must be implemented first on the NYC Subway and NYC buses, because it the most efficient way to achieve a critical mass of smart card users.  Unlike on commuter rail systems, smart card implementation on the subways/buses will be straightforward both for the MTA and most riders.  Furthermore, since subway and bus ridership are so large relative to all other systems, smart card success on these modes would encourage its success on other modes/systems. Riders will gravitate to the fare card they use most frequently or is most popular.

As a result, implementation of a NYC smart card should follow a pattern that first establishes mass acceptance and then builds upon that foundation to link other systems that do not traditionally share the same fare collection system:

A. Start with systems where implementation is straightforward, ridership is greatest, and services are already linked: NYC Subway & Buses.
B. Extend implementation to popular connecting services that are intuitive extensions of the existing implementation: PATH, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, Newark Light Rail, NJT Local Buses, AirTrain, etc
C. Extend to connecting systems that require more complex implementation and potentially contradict users’ traditional payment methods: LIRR, Metro North, NJT, Regional Buses, etc.
D. Extend to systems with lower ridership: Ferries, private jitneys, etc.

Although this project must rely on the MTA’s participation in order to achieve success, it should not be, nor can be, the sole agency leading its design. In my opinion, the Port Authority is unique in NYC for its role in bridging different governments and transit systems.  Furthermore, the SmartLink card has already been successfully developed and piloted on the PATH. As a result, the MTA should not build their own smart card. Instead, they should take advantage of the Port Authority’s already completed R&D work by adopting the SmartLink and then working with the Port Authority to spread it to other systems.

4. Super-Regional Compatibility
Several readers expressed concerns about the boundaries of a NYC smart card. Reader Avi remarks:

“But once you add NJ Transit you open up a whole new can of worms. NJ Transit shares a station (Trenton) with Septa. Do you add Septa to the system? What about the NJ Riverlines? PATCO? It’s easy to keep saying yes, yes, yes, but before you know it you’re trying to coordinate an agreement between 10+ different agencies in 5+ states. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.”

First, thank you, Avi, for your comment – it’s a very important point.  Before I address it, I would like to remind everyone that we shouldn’t limit our plans simply because they seem complicated or overly ambitious. If planners had felt the same way 100 years ago, we never would have built NY’s current subway system.

Second, don’t underestimate the power of the smart card. If the Philadelphia area issued its own smart card for SEPTA, PATCO, and NJT services in the Philly area, there is no reason why this system could not be compatible with New York’s system. On Massachusetts highways, for example, the toll collection system is Fast Lane, but is fully compatible with EZ-Pass. The technology of RFID chips and their linkage to credit cards and bank accounts could easily allow for cross-system compatibility. In fact, planners in Philly are already planning to ensure potential cross-compatibility, by creating an “open-loop system” that will allow any RFID-enabled device to pay for the services.

Even if we presume that cities – DC, Philly, New York, Boston – remain the epicenters of respective smart card systems, we can presume that each card can be designed or adapted to ensure cross-compatibility. As a result, services that exist on the border of two transit eco-systems, like the RiverLine (NY and Philly), can accept more than one smart card. Regardless of which card you use, the appropriate agency will still receive the fare.

Today I offer part three of a series on the Future of the Metro Card and smart card technologies.  In case you missed them: Part 1 and Part 2.   In order to incorporate a lot of the comments we have received, I have decided to split part three into two parts. Expect an additional Part 4 tomorrow — a proposed Smart Card for NYC.

Part 3 – Smart Card Progress in NYC

As we reported on Monday, Elliot Sander has passed the baton to Jay Walder, Head Wizard of the OysterCard, to lead the MTA into smart-card future.  Walder may not be alone — just this morning, Bloomberg called for an MTA technology czar, to keep NYC on the cutting edge in transit technology (which it most certainly is not).  Based on the record of his 2001 promises, we should be skeptical this time around — still it’s exciting to see Bloomberg linking his own political success to the future of transit. And in my opinion, a  dedicated technology czar could be great news for incredibly delayed projects like Computer-Based Train Control, GPS for buses,  and under-ground cellphone service.

As many of you commented on Monday and Tuesday, both the MTA and the Port Authority are no strangers to smart cards.  The developments in smart card technology among all agencies, however,  have been fragmented, slow, and confusing. Below, I attempt to summarize what each agency has done and synthesize where I believe they are actually headed.

Past Progress

The MTA first launched a contact-less payment system in a pilot on the Lexington Avenue Line in 2006. The project was in partnership with MasterCard, utilizing their PayPass technology — a fancy credit card version of an RFID-enabled smart card, usually in the form of a fob. Early reports were successful, leading to an extension in 2007. Participating credit cards even allowed pay-pass users to use their cellphone as the pass. Although the pilot remains active, the MTA has been fairly mum about the project.

The PortAuthority launched their own smart card, the SmartLink, in 2006. Although riders initally preferred the MetroCard, according to recent reports the SmartLink is now the most popular way to pay on PATH. The SmartLink has many of the benefits of a modern smart card. It is a contact-less system, ensuring speed, and its money value can be controlled online. Its usefulness is limited, of course, by its scope — it has no interoperability with any other system, not even the PA’s own AirTrain systems.

Recent Progress

Perhaps because the PortAuthority recognized the  SmartLink’s un-tapped potential (yes, that’s a pun), leaders decided in 2008 to pilot (what I think is) a SmartLink expansion. In February 2008, the Port Authority announced a pilot with NJT “to develop and test a ‘tap’ payment card  at all 13 PATH train stations and on two connecting NJ TRANSIT bus routes”.  Like the MTA, NJ Transit and the Port Authority chose MasterCard to design and build the system. Although the pilot was expected to “lauch in early 2009“, I have heard nothing about it, and  its relationship to the existing SmartLink program remains unclear.  Unless one of you can share new information, I can only presume that this pilot is being held up in some long-term development process (aka transit purgatory).

Miraculously, however, the MTA may be able to shed some light. As recently as July 2009, Steve Frazzini, chief fare-payment officer at New York City Transit, told the Philadelphia Daily News (thanks to reader, Scott E for the the correction) that the MTA “will demonstrate a second phase [of the Lexigton Avenue pilot] at year’s end .” According to the same Philly article, Frazzine said that the expanded MTA pilot “will include 275 buses and will link to a pilot with the Port Authority of NY/NJ, PATH and New Jersey Transit.” In other words, the MTA is in fact working with the Port Authority and NJT on a smart card pilot.

Conclusion
The respective agencies are lacking transparency and the media has failed to properly investigate their plans. There has been no press release. There has been no coverage by a NYC-based media outlet. Yet right under our noses, the MTA, NJT, and the Port Authority are (supposedly) in the process of piloting a multi-agency smart card. (Finding out about it in the Philadelphia Daily News is but salt in the wound.)

But since this blog was inspired by the Second Avenue Subway, let’s just say, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

Stay tuned tomorrow for Part 4 – Smart Card Proposal for NYC. If anyone has any additional sources of information about anything above, please pass it along. Once again, thank you for all of your excellent comments!

Today, I continue the four-part series on the Future of the MetroCard. Yesterday, in Part 1, I outlined the benefits of smart cards. Today in Part 2, we focus on the deficiencies of the current MetroCard. Part 3, available here, summarizes the current plans for a smart card in NYC; and Part 4 proposes a new smart card for NYC.

Thank you all for yesterday’s excellent comments — please, keep them coming!

Part 2 – MetroCard FAIL

As reported yesterday, the MetroCard is at the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a very long, drawn out death.  If the MTA follows its usual schedule, we’ll see a MetroCard replacement probably sometime around 2050. But the MetroCard is young; subway tokens had been around for 50 years before the MetroCard killed them for good in 2003.

Despite its youth, the MetroCard is now obsolete.  If our goal is to expand our transit systems and increase ridership, then the MetroCard must be replaced. Here’s why:

1. The MetroCard is Slow.
A flimsy plastic card with a magnetic strip that gets damaged in one’s own packet is not efficient, reliable technology.  Even the best of us get slipped up: “Please swipe again.” “Swipe card again at this turnstile.” “Too fast. Swipe again.” “Insufficient Fare.” Or, the dreaded, “See agent.”  Then throw in a few thousand tourists (who are either used to smart-cards [thanks, Europe & Asia] or have never seen a subway before [thanks, middle-America]) and suddenly the turnstile is a nightmare.

Unlike the MetroCard, smart cards stay right in your wallet or handbag. In London, a whole business has been formed around OysterCard covers called OysterShells. And in Boston it’s not unusual to see a man lift his right hip up just far enough at the gate so the reader can scan the card in his pocket. Once you experience this magic, it’s hard to go back to the cumbersome swipe.

2. No MetroCards Allowed.
Although the New York Metropolitan region has the greatest transit use in the country, we suffer from an incredibly inefficient, decentralized transportation network.  Instead of one public agency, we have at least three (MTA, NJT, Port Authority), in addition to numerous private bus, ferry, and jitney companies.  The residents of NJ and CT  experience this most acutely, crossing state lines every day from one transit eco-system to another.

Right now, the MetroCard has the potential to bridge these separate systems, but instead continues to divide them. Besides MTA’s city sevices (and LI Bus), the MetroCard is only valid for the PATH and the Bee-Line Bus System in Westchester. Yet the PATH proves that riders would prefer one fare system; the majority of PATH riders use the MetroCard.

Despite what commuters would prefer, the MetroCard’s footprint remains small:

A system-wide smart card would dramatically transform New Yorkers’ perceptions of inter-modal transportation. Right now, MetroNorth stations in the Bronx and LIRR stations in Brooklyn and Queens are woefully under-utilized by MTA and its riders. Even Michael Bloomberg hopes to expand commuter rail service at these stations (thanks to reader, Kai, for the link).  If the MetroCard were introduced for these services, they would be immediately considered on par with the subway and the bus,  encouraging residents to use these stations within the urban core.

Of course, this is but one example — the implications for regional transportation are vast. Stamford to Newark; Jersey City to Brooklyn; Staten Island to Manhattan –  multiple modes, multiple agencies, one fare card.

3. MetroCard… more like StupidCard!
Sure, magnetic strips can store information, but the beauty of a SmartCard is its flexible, ever-expanding functionality. In Hong Kong, the Octopus smart card is used everywhere from the subway to parking meters, from 7-11 to Starbucks.  The technology of an RFID-chip embedded into the smart card allows for lots of information in one card.

Right now, Unlimited MetroCards don’t work on the PATH system.  Instead, you need a separate Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard.  This is redundant and wasteful — one smart card could do both. Similarly, the MTA creates separate MetroCards for each type of rider: student, senior citizen, disabled, etc.. Instead, one kind of smart card can be issued to everyone and customized, via programming, to reflect their status and meet their commuting needs.

Conclusion
In short, the MetroCard fails to provide the benefits of modern smart card technology. Not only is it (relatively) ancient and slow, the MetroCard fails to encourage inter-modal, inter-agency transportation use.  My analysis above is quick-and-dirty and largely anecdotal.  Please share your own thoughts on the MetroCard — where it fails, where it succeeds, and whether or not you think it should be replaced.

Spotted on 54th Street: A better use of the MetroCard?

This morning, I am starting a three-part series on the Future of the  MetroCard and smart card technology. Part 1 will outline the benefits of modern smart card technology; Part 2 will highlight the deficiencies of the current MetroCard system; ; and Part 3 will summarize the MTA’s current and future smart-card plans.

Part 1 – Why Smart Card?

During his final days as MTA Chief (and sacrificial-lamb of the NY State Senate), Elliot Sander announced informal plans for the MTA’s future replacement of the Metro Card. Described by the Post, rather ironically, as “Ez-Pass for the subway”, the future fare system would use tap-and-go Smart Card technology, increasingly the de-facto fare collection system for modern cities. The announcement was bittersweet for Sander, trumpeting a project he has prepped himself but will certainly outlive him at the MTA.

Indeed, in-coming MTA Chairman, Jay Walder, is famous for his own smart-card project, the wildly popular OysterCard in London. In 2006, as a consultant for McKinsey&Co., Walder helped prepare a report for the MTA that concluded that SmartCard technology could be successfully for the NYC market.  If SmartCard technology is going to happen in NYC — and I think it should — Walder is definitely the man for the job.

To see what the future might have in store for NYC, highlighted below are three smart card systems from around the world,  London, Hong Kong, and Boston:

It’s clear from the chart that Hong Kong’s OctopusCard is the winner in sheer functionality. On a recent vacation, I witnessed the Octopus Card first hand. In addition to the city’s countless private and quasi-public transit systems, the Octopus Card is accepted at convenience stores, Starbucks, McDonalds, and vending machines, just to name a few. In 2003, the city even converted all of its Parking Meters to accept Octopus and taxis are apparently on the way.

As I see it, there are 4 Key Benefits to smart card technology:

1. Speed. Smart cards dramatically reduce the time required for passengers to enter and exit the system.  This can be felt acutely in Boston, where buses still accept change in addition to the CharlieCard.  The collective groan when Grandmother Pebbles pulls out her change purse is palpable.

2. Regional Integration. If our goal is to increase the use of public transportation, it is imperative to remove any barriers that might impede a potential transit rider. In Hong Kong, the transporation system was developed (and is currently run) by various public and private companies, many of which have distinct geographic emphases. The SmartCard links the regional components of the system, removing any barriers for the rider between each agency. In fact, in Hong Kong, most riders fail to notice the different transit operators, since they all accept the same fare system.

3. Inter-modal Integration. In a similar way, a smart card removes barriers between different modes of transportation.  A transit rider in London can use the OysterCard for the National Railway, the Tube, double-decker buses, and more. The result is a wider conception of transportation opportunities. Riders switch modes without regard to payment method.

4. Flexible pricing strategies. Unlike a token, which holds a pre-determined value, or a paper ticket, which has a value that must be set in advance, smart cards are fully dynamic. For example, a subway ride in London can start at $2.60, but rises to as high as $20 depending upon the length of the trip and time of the day.  Dynamic payment, however, does NOT have to mean Pay-as-you-go only. As Boston and London demonstrate, unlimited-ride passes are perfectly compatible with smart card technology.  In one smart card you can store your monthly pass — good for the subway you take everyday — in addition to a stored value — which you use for the ferry/train/tram/taxi you use occasionally.  The key point is that smart cards provide a transit operator with multiple options, rather than boxing them into one pricing strategy. As a result, more than one transit operator can implement the card without forgoing their individual fare structure.

Conclusion:
Now, you could argue that the Metro Card has the potential to provide all four of the benefits described above. (Part 2, tomorrow, will provide an analysis of the Metro Card and its deficiencies.)  What is important to understand is that what makes a smart card successful is the scope of its implementation. A Smart Card allows for fare integration across all modes and systems, thereby encouraging greater use of the system.  However, if the smart card is not implemented across the majority of systems and modes — which the Metro Card most certainly is not — then it will fail to provide the benefits above.