VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:39:07 02/14/03 Fri
Author: May 30, 2001, 10:00 a.m
Subject: MetroCard technology is not compatible with the TRiM technology.
In reply to: Cubic New York 's message, "MetroCard Information" on 01:35:55 02/14/03 Fri

http://www.swrpa.org/pdf_files/TransitCardAdvCommitteeMinutes05302001.pdf

Regional Transit Card Advisory Committee

Report of Meeting

May 30, 2001, 10:00 a.m.

Location: SWRPA, 888 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT.

Report Prepared By: Melissa M. Leigh , Special Projects Manager, SWRPA

Meeting Summary.

Melissa Leigh requested that all persons in attendance introduce themselves, In addition to Ms. Leigh,

persons present included: Dick Carpenter, SWRPA; Dick Eigen, Valley Regional Planning Agency; Dan

Fleishman, Multisystems, Inc.; Phil Fry, CT Transit; Melissa Leigh, SWRPA; Daphne McKinney,

Connecticut Department of Transportation; Phil Plotch, NYMTA; Louis Schulman, Norwalk Transit

District; and Tom White, The WorkPlace.

Dan Fleishman distributed a summary of his presentation that focused on the content of the Task 2

Memorandum: Description/Evaluation of Regional Transit Card Alternatives dated May 3, 2001. A copy

of this summary is attached.

Upon completion of his presentation, Mr. Fleishman entertained questions from Advisory Committee

members. Discussion focused on the following questions and topics:

· What transit card systems are in use within the study area and in neighboring areas?

Currently, the GFI TRiM technology is in place in buses operated by CT Transit, Greater Bridgeport

Transit District, and Housatonic Area Regional Transit. The Norwalk Transit District plans to purchase

TRiM units and Milford Transit District would consider purchasing TRiM units. Not all TRiM systems are

compatible, however, due to varying age, encoding methods and software configuration.

The NYMTA uses Cubic’s MetroCard technology. Although both are magnetic stripe systems, the

MetroCard technology is not compatible with the TRiM technology.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is pursuing development of a regional smart card system

allowing for multiple transit system participation. PANYNJ is also in discussions with the MTA regarding

the use of MetroCard on the PATH rail system.

New Jersey Transit has also had discussions with the MTA regarding the use of MetroCard with its

commuter train and bus services.

Mr. Plotch suggested that the study examine transit card technology being considered in Westchester

County. He said that Westchester County is looking at fare media options..

Mr. Schulman suggested that the study also examine transit card technology being considered by Pioneer

Valley Transit in Springfield, Massachusetts.

· What criteria should guide decision-making with regard to the recommendation of a regional

transit card system for the study area?

Advisory Committee members present did not reach consensus as to whether implementation decisions

should be guided by what is "best" for the region as a whole versus what is most easily obtainable in the

near term.

A memo submitted by Robert Despres of the Department of Social Services was shared with the Advisory

Committee. Mr. Despres’s memo indicated that the multi-functional nature of the smart card would best

serve the study area. (A copy of Mr. Despres’s memo is appended to the minutes.)

Mr. Fry suggested that, given institutional constraints, it may be better to minimize capital cost and

investment and upgrade the TRiM system already in use by many of the state’s transit operators. Mr. Fry

noted that most transit use is local and that ease of implementation on an intra-state basis should be

prioritized over the development of an inter-state system.

Mr. Plotch noted that adopting the MetroCard system could make sense because a card distribution network

is already in place. It could be possible to come to an agreement with the MTA to tap into this distribution

system. Mr. Plotch suggested the possibility of replacing all of the TRiM units with MetroCard readers.

However, Mr. Fry noted that it would be necessary to replace all TRiM units throughout the state (i.e.,

including Hartford), given the fact that CT Transit operates throughout the state.

Mr. Schulman cautioned against making decisions based on what out-of-state operators are expected to

implement instead of concentrating on intrastate priorities. Mr. Schulman suggested that the first priority

for a regional card would be to link the bus services within the region, and the next priority would be to

link bus and Metro North. He felt that including parking in the regional card was not particularly important

at this time.

The issue of integration with Metro North was also discussed. Mr. Fry asked about the other Metro North

lines (i.e., other than in Connecticut); would ConnDOT subsidize a regional card implementation for these

lines? Ms. McKinney said that ConnDot should not be expected to purchase hand-held card readers for

even the Connecticut service. Mr. Plotch noted that it could be difficult to get the conductors to use handheld

readers even if they were provided.

The Advisory Committee agreed that Connecticut Department of Transportation ("ConnDOT") support is

critical to the successful implementation of any new or upgraded fare media system.

· What transit card options is the Connecticut Department of Transportation willing to support?

Ms. McKinney stated that ConnDOT is not prepared to commit to support any particular transit card option

at this time. From a budgetary standpoint, ConnDOT does not anticipate having capital funds available to

install new or upgrade existing card readers for a couple of years. Prior to expending any funds for such

upgrade, ConnDOT would have to bring in a consultant to establish statewide standards for equipment and

software associated with any upgrade. Ms. McKinney noted that ConnDOT does plan to hire a consultant

in the near future to develop a plan for implementing a GPS/AVL system for the state’s bus systems.

Ms. McKinney also noted that ConnDOT would not endorse any regional farecard system without a

revenue allocation plan. She noted that essential to any regional system is a method of estimating or

accounting for the revenue earned by each transit operator. Mr. Schulman agreed that a revenue allocation

plan that is acceptable to all transit operators is a key element of a regional farecard program.

Mr. Plotch noted that interstate clearinghouse agreements are in place for the EZ-Pass system that support

allocation of highway/bridge toll revenues among a number of systems.

Mr. Fleishman stated that revenue allocation is a key element of clearinghouse design,

althoughclearinghouse design is outside the scope of this study.

Mr. White suggested that ConnDOT consider implementation of a pilot program on the Coastal Link to test

a possible revenue allocation strategy. He also suggested that a smart card demonstration program could

be used to test acceptance of a smart card along certain transit routes. He also expressed interest in being

able to use a card to track access-to-jobs program transit usage. Mr. White also wondered if a tie-in

between transit and electronic benefits would be feasible.

Next Steps.

Mr. Fleishman noted that Multisystems hoped to complete the final study memo around the end of June. .

(Due in part to further discussions with ConnDOT, coupled with the holding of PANYNJ’s kickoff meeting

for its regional smart card initiative in late June, the Task 3 memo was not completed by the end of June;

completion is now planned for late July/early August.) . A final Advisory Committee meeting will be

scheduled once the memo is available.





Cubic Receives $33.4 Million Order From MTA New York City Transit For Additional MetroCard Vending Machines
SAN DIEGO, CALIF., JUNE 7, 1999 – The MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) has awarded Cubic Transportation Systems (CTS), a subsidiary of San Diego-based Cubic Corporation (AMEX:CUB), an order to manufacture and deliver additional MetroCard vending machines for the city’s automated fare collection system under contract options worth an estimated $33.4 million.

The order for 580 more of the automated touchscreen farecard vending machines raises the total number to be delivered to 1,589.

CTS is the contractor for the original automated fare collection system installation throughout New York’s subway and bus operations.

"By placing this order so soon after the introduction of the first MetroCard vending machines (MVM), the NYCT has given us a vote of confidence," said Peter Dugré, CTS senior vice president, East Coast Operations. Public reaction following the initial MVM installations at 59th Street/Columbus Circle Station and 68th Street Station has been positive, Dugré said.

The introduction of the MetroCard vending machines will reduce passenger lines at token booths and will add further convenience for subway and bus riders through the credit/debit card payment feature of the automated machines.

The contract option exercised by NYCT calls for an accelerated delivery schedule from 55 per month to 80 per month. The new schedule will allow NYCT to provide its customers full service automation by the end of the year 2000, including all new farecard purchases as well as value reload on existing farecards.

Preliminary data gathered by NYCT indicates that over 40 percent of the MVM sales are "add value" transactions wherein customers elect to keep their MetroCards and refill them with value rather than purchase new cards. This benefit reduces fare media cost to the transit authority by spreading it over a greater number of transactions.

Additionally, customer preference for credit/debit card purchases over cash will reduce cash counting costs. Initial reports from the 10 MetroCard vending machines presently installed in Manhattan show that approximately 50 percent of the dollar value of all transactions are made at those MVMs with a credit or debit card. Credit/debit purchases are available only at the MVMs.

CTS, a world leader in automated fare collection systems for mass transit, has installed turnkey systems in major cities throughout the world, including London, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, and two leading cities in China, Guangzhou and Shanghai.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.