When the MTA raised fares earlier this year and continued the 15 percent pay-per-ride bonuses, the agency inadvertently created a crisis of mathematics among New York City’s straphangers. With a base fare of $2.25 and a volume discount, a rider has to buy 20 rides for $45 to earn a bonus of $6.75 that results in 23 rides for the price of the original 20. Yikes.

For the less mathematically inclined among us, this discount and the new fare brings the discounted pay-per-ride cost to $1.96. That’s an ugly uneven number, and apparently, many New Yorkers cannot be bothered to do this math. As the Daily News reported earlier this week, many subways are frustrated by the uneven amouns left on their MetroCards.

In a sense, the real problem is ignorance. Riders simply do not know that token booth clerks will combine leftover amounts on old cards. “I have a whole pile of them sitting in a jewelry box on top of my dresser,” Megan Hunt, 36, of Chelsea, said to the News. “There are at least 40 cards and some only have a nickel. I don’t know what to do with them, but I can’t throw them out.”

Although I’m usually critical of anecdotal news coverage, this frustration is part of a larger trend. As the News reported earlier this week, the MTA will recover $53.3 million in what they term fare media liability this year. That figure shatters last year’s record take of $40 million in unused fares.

As spokespeople at the MTA have told me, that figure counts only unused pay-per-ride money, and it is a significant figure at a time when the MTA is struggling for dollars. As straphangers toss out cards with small change, the nickels and dimes start to add up.

But on the other side of the equation are the unlimited ride cards. Recent numbers show that these cards are more than fully utilized by consumers. According to numbers supplied to me by Transit, the average number of swipes per MetroCard for the third quarter of 2009 is as follows:

As we see, unlimited riders clearly get the most of their subway cards. The average user reduces the fare to nearly a dollar below the $2.25 mark and well clear of the $1.96 pay-per-ride discount. Because a large percent of straphangers are using some unlimited ride card, the average subway fare (for September) was $1.48 per ride. That’s downright cheap.

So why then is there such a discrepancy between the Unlimited Ride usage figures and the pay-per-ride leftover that has led to a $53 million recovery on behalf of the MTA? The MTA speculated that the fare media liability total was a result of the higher fares rather than the math involved in MetroCard transactions. More people are spending more money and are discarding a higher volume of cards.

But even with a base fare increase of 12.5 percent, the fare media liability is up over 30 percent over last year’s total. It’s my belief that New Yorkers in a hurry simply do not want to face the math involved in MetroCard calculations and do not know about the opportunity to have token booth clerks combine used cards. In the end, the MTA recovers some of the money they lose to the unlimited ride cards, and those people who don’t want to make the effort to solve a simple problem lose out. It is economic efficiency at its finest.

A collage of MetroCards with messages for everyone. (Click the image to enlarge.)

Since its introduction in 1993, the MetroCard has become a ubiquitous symbol of New York City. On the front, the familiar yellow-on-blue gave way to its current blue-on-yellow design. On the back, well, that’s a different story and one featured in the news today.

Recently, the MTA has begun to circulate MetroCards that say, simply, “optimism” on the back. The word is printed in the familiar Akzidenz-Grotesk font, the Helvetica precursor that permeates the Massimo Vignelli-designed MTA signage. It is a simple but complicated statement, and in today’s Times, Michael Grybaum delves into the philosophy behind MetroCard optimism. I’ll excerpt, but read the piece. It’s a prime example of excellent news-features writing.

On the back of seven million MetroCards distributed this fall is a single printed word: “optimism.” Composed in clean, bold, sans-serif letters, it floats in a sea of white just beneath the boilerplate fine print. Another seven million are on the way early next year.

At first glance, the word appears simple and unassuming, a non sequitur easily overlooked amid the blur of travel in the city. Even its creators acknowledge that many subway and bus riders may never see it.

But as unemployment in the city reaches a 16-year high, as corporations close and deficits mount, optimism has become a scarce commodity, aboveground and below. New York, it seems, could use a chance to restock…

Not all that the “optimism” project suggests is, well, optimistic. The word on the card can be read as an encouragement, a command, a taunt, an aspiration. “I like that people can digest it in any way they choose,” [artist Reed] Seifer, 36, said. “I accept all praise and criticism. I love artwork in which people perceive things beyond the intention of the artist.”

And so Grynbaum’s words got me thinking about the MetroCard. The Internet is a haven for old cards. Collector’s item MetroCards pop up on eBay on a daily basis, and there is even a site dedicated to collecting every MetroCard back the MTA has issued since 1994. The Winter Garden at the World Trade Center was among the first of the cards issued.

Over the years, numerous images have filled the cards. I have one from 2004 when the MTA celebrated 100 years of the subway system. This card has a picture of the first ride snapped on Oct. 27, 1904 at the now-abandoned City Hall Stop. I also have a few Green MetroCards from 2008. Otherwise, though, my collection of expired MetroCards feature mostly mundane warnings about subway safety. I remember the Subway Series cards from 1997 but no longer have any.

Of course, the oft-overlooked backs of the MetroCards aren’t used only for pithy statements and iconic images. As Grynbaum relates, the MTA sells the backs of these cards. (Spin City, anyone?) So far this year, the MTA has earned $165,000 from MetroCard ad sales, double the total from 2008. Yet, ads appear on just three percent of the 120 million MetroCards printed so far this year. Mostly, the backs of these cards remain firmly hidden, pressed up against credit cards and business cards buried in a wallet somewhere. Optimism, it seems, won’t always see the light of day.

Still, if just a few riders notice, it will be worth it to Christopher Boylan, the MTA official in charge of the “optimism” project. “God knows people want to feel good, they want to feel up, they want to feel positive,” he said to Grynbaum. “If I can make a couple of customers smile a day, that’s nice.”

As Jay Walder gets more comfortable in his role as the new CEO and Chairman of the MTA and as he realizes what kind of power he might wield while relying on his Golden Parachute, he has spent much of this week discussing his future plans for the MTA. He knows that the agency needs to improve its construction efforts and wants to speed up the bus system as well.

Today, he spoke with Michael Grynbaum of The Times about a departure from the single-fare scheme New Yorkers have enjoyed for the last 105 years. While he has no plans to raise the fares (beyond the biennial adjustments for inflation), he is considering a new fare payment system that would allow for lower off-peak and weekend fares. This time-of-day pricing would be a big break from New York City subway past where a ride from the Rockaways to Inwood costs the same as one 42nd St. to 14th St. no matter the time of day.

This is, yet again, another transit innovation that Walder would bring with him from across the pond, and it is one in place already in Washington, DC, where the Metro is far more commuter-based than New York City Transit’s system is. Still, Walder sees off-peak discounts as a way to spread the commute for those who enjoy job flexibility and, thus, ease system congestion. “We have an infrastructure that is set for the capacity of the peak,” Walder said to The Times. “What we really want to do is use that infrastructure all the time.”

Grynbaum had more on this proposal:

The chairman ruled out charging higher prices for longer trips, a system used in cities like Washington and London, saying such a move in New York “would be a mistake.” But he said a frank discussion of changes to the pricing structure “will be an important part of what we’re doing.” A transit spokesman said later that Mr. Walder was not considering higher peak fares.

In a wide-ranging interview with reporters at The New York Times, Mr. Walder — who wore a pair of subway token cufflinks — shared his plans to overhaul the technology of the nation’s biggest transit system. He plans to introduce so-called smart cards equipped with computer chips, digital arrival-time clocks at subway stations and GPS devices that would let passengers know exactly when the next bus was arriving…

Mr. Walder was emphatic when discussing the prospect of a revised fare structure, noting with a hint of excitement that “you can see creative and innovative things that would happen with this.” He said an off-peak pricing plan could “generate the revenue we need and get more people to be using the transit system at different times of day.”

Interestingly enough, in the past, Walder has called off-peak pricing a “revenue neutral policy.” As Grynbaum reports, as a speech at City College forever preserved on video, Walder spoke about using pricing to “improve the efficiency of the transport system we have, to allow people to make their choices about what they want to do.” Now, it’s about revenue.

Already, though, the MTA’s old guard is showing some resistance to the idea. Andrew Albert of the New York City Transit Riders Council practically dismissed it off-hand. “You really already have some crushed loads at off-peak periods,” he said. “London is not necessarily the same as New York.”

Despite the inherent pessimism in his statement, Albert might have a point. Would daytime discounts make as much sense for Times Square as they would for, say, the Brighton Line in Brooklyn or a 4 train at Woodlawn? How would the MTA avoid discriminating against more popular stations? Or should the agency be charging less based on station use depending up on the time of day?

I appreciate Walder’s outside-the-box thinking. Variable fares would be a major break from the norm for New Yorkers, and it could help spread out the pain of a congested commute. As long as he keeps thinking outside the box, the MTA will be in good hands.

When they MTA Board approved the 2010-2014 capital plan last week, they killed the MetroCard. With little fan fare or much attention beyond a short article in the Daily News, the MTA Board has sentenced the MetroCard to death. If all goes according to plan, Jay Walder will oversee the debut of a contact-less fare system sans the MetroCard by 2014.

The story of the MetroCard begins in June 1993 when the MTA handed out 3000 sample MetroCards for use in the system. At the time, the agency had plans to introduce the technology in 1994 and roll it out system-wide by 1997. Transit officials had hoped to integrate the card to enable users to pay for “telephone calls, snacks or other purchases at subway kiosks” with their MetroCards. That plan has clearly not come to fruition.

By 1997, when the MetroCards turned from blue to gold, the technology was already obsolete. That year, Hong Kong launched the Octopus Card and became the first municipality to use a contactless smart card for its public transit fare payment system. While the MTA’s MetroCard has become ubiquitous in New York, cities around the globe from London to Washington, DC, have all embraced a smart card-type payment program.

Now, though, the smart card movement is on the way out, and as the MetroCard nears its two-decade mark — antiquity in technological years — the MTA will spend nearly a total of $220 million over the next five years to assess potential replacements. The end product will, according to MTA documents, allow for unified fare payments across New York City Transit, Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North. “This system will speed payment, improve access to the system and provide opportunities for more seamless fare policy throughout the MTA region,” an MTA memo on the capital plan said.

Right now, the agency does not know exactly what its next fare payment plan will resemble. For the last few years, Transit had been testing a MasterCard-based trial along Lexington Ave. called “Tap & Go.” Riders with credit cards equipped with an RFID chip could just tap into the system and speed through the turnstile. That system will soon be expanded to buses and could provide a model for the future.

While I have long assumed that smart cards similar to the WMATA’s SmartCard or London’s Oyster Card would be our future, the MTA documents and a few recent studies now have me convinced otherwise. Late last week, Michael Frumin passed along a 2008 article portending the end of the Oyster Card by 2010. The MTA itself says it will explore “standard bank and credit cards, pre-paid transit payment cards, key-tags and smart phones” as next-generation payment modes. If the MTA develops and integrates this technology properly, it will not resemble either the MetroCard or familiar smart card currently in use across the globe.

In the end, the smart chip technology and next-gen fare modalities will allow the MTA more flexibility and will improve access to the system. Bus boarding speeds will stand to benefit greatly from a touch-and-go system while a credit- or debit-card based system would reduce the need for in-system cash handling. The new system will be designed to allow for what the MTA terms “inter-model fare payment options,” and the agency hopes to offer simplified and expanded fare payment options.

The MTA is not known for its technological innovation. It lags behind in website development and cannot get a train-arrival board program off the ground. But by devoting serious attention to its fare payment system and bringing a technologically-minded expert to head up the system, the agency could be turning a corner. If the MetroCard is the price we pay for it, I will mourn but not miss that gold and blue piece of plastic.

Earlier this week, a reporter from CBS2 e-mailed me with a question. Had I heard, she wanted to know, of straphangers being charged for MetroCard swipes even after the message on the turnstile machine said “Please swipe again”?

My response was no, and I elaborated. When the machine urges a straphanger to “Please swipe again,” the person swiping has to do so at the same machine. Maybe, I speculated, these riders did not know this rule and had moved to a different machine. The reporter informed me that this wasn’t the case, and I wondered if the MTA’s 15-year-old MetroCard technology was beginning to break down.

Today, CBS2’s Kirstin Cole published her story on the MetroCard problems. A few travelers have complained that, in the words of Cole, “they’ve been ripped off, after swiping MetroCards and having fares deducted – yet have been blocked from going through the turnstile.”

There is, however, a minor problem. When CBS2 and the MTA looked into the usage patterns of one of the allegedly ripped off MetroCards, they found no problems. “The MTA investigated Ostow’s card and did find she had been double charged on a cross-town bus,” Cole reports, “but said they couldn’t find any evidence of fare snatching in the subway.” The MetroCard’s owner claims there were no extra charges because the station clerk checked the card and allowed her to enter through the gate after verifying the fault swipe.

So is there a real story here? The turnstiles suffer through around 7 million swipes per weekday. Some are bound to malfunction, and generally, an MTA station staffer can fix the problem in a matter of minutes. It seems to me that the bigger issue concern rider knowledge. If straphangers do not know they can get refunds, if they don’t know to swipe at the same turnstile, they will feel ripped off. But this is not some nefarious MTA plot to secure more revenue. For that, we have fare hikes.

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.