Regional Transit Coordination Plan Universal Fare Card

Paula.max BRIEFING TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT

Universal Fare Card Project

March 17, 2005

Prepared by: Introduction Regional transit coordination involves numerous elements

Information coordination – improves signs, maps and schedules to allow transit riders to confidently use the entire system

ExampleExample–– The The RTA’sRTA’s Travel Travel InformationInformation CenterCenter providesprovides transittransit customerscustomers ththee informationinformation toto planplan tripstrips andand receivereceive informationinformation onon traintrain andand busbus schedules.schedules. SinceSince 1999,1999, custcustomersomers havehave alsoalso beenbeen ableable toto accessaccess thethe samesame informationinformation viviaa RTA’sRTA’s web-based web-based triptrip planner.planner. Physical coordination – addresses the ability of transit passengers to connect between modes operated by CTA, Metra, and Pace ExampleExample–– Through Through thethe RegionalRegional TechnicaTechnical l AssistanceAssistance Program,Program, thethe RTARTA isis activelyactively workingworking withwith aa numbernumber ofof regionalregional municipalities,municipalities, includingincluding OakOak ParkPark andand Harvey,Harvey, toto identifyidentify improvementsimprovements toto transittransit infrastructureinfrastructure toto provideprovide forfor betterbetter physicalphysical connecticonnectionsons betweenbetween transittransit modes.modes. SuchSuch improvementsimprovements maymay includeinclude newnew busbus shelters,shelters, rerelocatinglocating busbus stopsstops andand potentpotentialial newnew intermodal intermodal stations. stations. Service coordination – explores options to better connect regional travel markets with components of the existing transit system

ExampleExample–– Transit Transit SignalSignal PriorityPriority isis aa tooltool thatthat cancan rereduceduce traveltravel times,times, improve improve busbus scheduleschedule adherenceadherence andand reducereduce vehiclevehicle operatingoperating costs.costs. TheThe RTARTA isis leadingleading thethe developmentdevelopment ofof regionalregional standardsstandards andand guidelinesguidelines forfor aa multi-jurisdictionalmulti-jurisdictional TransitTransit SignalSignal PriorityPriority system.system. Fare coordination – makes it easier for customers to pay for travel on different parts of the RTA system with a single transaction or fare instrument

ExampleExample–CTA–CTA 30-day30-day andand 7-day7-day passespasses aandnd ChicagoChicago CardsCards areare nownow acceacceptedpted onon PacePace busbus routes.routes. Link-UpLink-Up andand PlusBusPlusBus tickets tickets providesprovides MetraMetra monthl monthlyy passpass customerscustomers aa ticketticket toto rideride CTACTA andand PacePace services.services.

1 Introduction

The purpose of this meeting is to brief the House Committee on Mass Transit on progress of the Universal Fare Card (UFC) project

Meeting Agenda

Background on existing systems and fare coordination

UFC project status

Recommended fare media technology

Challenges

UFC alternatives and management approach

Implementation and funding

2 Existing Systems and Fare Coordination Fare payment on CTA: CTA rail and bus systems support a flat-fare structure. Cash, magnetic cards, and smart cards are accepted on both bus and rapid rail Contactless smart cards are already used by approximately 5-6% of the CTA ridership. They are available in a stored-value-only form or in a combined stored-value/30-day pass form if linked to an credit/debit account

Over the last 20 years, CTA has made a significant capital investment in its fare system – Turnstiles and ticket vending machines that issue/accept magnetic stripe tickets and smart cards are installed at all CTA rail stations – Bus fareboxes that accept cash, magnetic cards and smart cards (upgrade planned) – LinkUp tickets are sold by Metra – Third-party ticket sales are available to customers at over 600 locations CTA Rail Fare Payment Process

TurnstileTurnstile acceptsaccepts cash,cash, RiderRider insertsinserts cash,cash, pre-pre- deductsdeducts farefare from,from, oror RiderRider completescompletes journeyjourney paidpaid magneticmagnetic ticketticket oror RiderRider entersenters throughthrough validatesvalidates ticketticket storedstored onon andand exitsexits systemsystem throughthrough tapstaps ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus turnstileturnstile magneticmagnetic cardcard oror turnstileturnstile atat turnstileturnstile ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus CTA Bus Fare Payment Process

FareboxFarebox acceptsaccepts cash,cash, RiderRider insertsinserts cash,cash, pre-pre- deductsdeducts farefare from,from, oror paidpaid magneticmagnetic ticketticket oror validatesvalidates ticketstickets storedstored RiderRider completescompletes journeyjourney tapstaps ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus onon magneticmagnetic cardcard oror atat on-boardon-board fareboxfarebox ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus

3 Existing Systems and Fare Coordination Fare payment on Pace: Pace also supports a flat-fare structure and accepts CTA- issued Transit Cards, CTA passes, Chicago Card/Plus and cash for fare payment Pace accepts both CTA and Pace fare products – Magnetic cards are encoded by CTA and support fare payment for single rides, 7-day passes and 30-day passes – Smart cards are also accepted for single rides or 30-day passes, but are sold and administered by CTA – 10-ride tickets are issued as paper tickets – Cash is also accepted on-board

Pace has made significant investments to better serve customers and integrate with CTA and Metra – Buses are equipped with fareboxes that issue/accept magnetic tickets and smart cards, as well as cash – PlusBus and Link-Up tickets are sold by Metra

In addition to CTA’s third-party outlets, Pace also sells tickets at over 250 outlets

Pace Bus Fare Payment Process

FareboxFarebox acceptsaccepts cash,cash, RiderRider insertsinserts cash,cash, pre-pre- deductsdeducts farefare from,from, oror paidpaid magneticmagnetic ticket,ticket, oror validatesvalidates ticketticket storedstored onon RiderRider completescompletes journeyjourney tapstaps ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus magneticmagnetic cardcard oror atat on-boardon-board fareboxfarebox ChicagoChicago Card/PlusCard/Plus

4 Existing Fare System Environment

Fare payment on Metra: Metra’s fares are distance-based and visual inspection of fares is completed on-board by conductors Metra operates its commuter rail services in a non-gated environment. All ticket collection (including payment by cash) is completed on-board. Fares are based on distance traveled

Four paper ticket types are available to Metra riders – monthly passes, 10-ride tickets, one-way tickets, and weekend tickets – Over 90% of Metra customers pre-purchase tickets (monthly passes,10-ride tickets, one-way tickets and weekend tickets). More than 60% use monthly passes – Monthly pass customers also traveling on CTA and Pace have the option to purchase either a Link-Up or PlusBus ticket to ride these systems – Of one-way and weekend ticket sales, 34% are purchased on-board. A service charge is assessed if a ticket office or vending machine is available at the boarding location – Tickets are distributed via mail and Internet programs (3%), sold at key Metra station ticket offices (56%) and (at Metra Electric stations only) from ticket vending machines (6%). Cash, checks or transit benefit vouchers are accepted as forms of payment

Conductors have a requirement to ensure that all customers have paid their fare or purchased a ticket. This can currently be accomplished due to the high use of monthly tickets which require visual, but not physical, inspection

RiderRider purchasespurchases ticketticket Metra Fare byby mail,mail, internetinternet oror atat ConductorConductor inspectsinspects RiderRider completescompletes journeyjourney Payment Process staffedstaffed windowwindow (or(or on-on- ticketticket toto assureassure validityvalidity boardboard fromfrom conductor)conductor)

5 Existing Environment It makes good business sense to help customers move across the region easily. This region has developed fare products to meet these customer needs

25,000 – 32,000 weekday transfers 20,000 – 25,000 weekday transfers 12,500 – 16,000 equivalent customers 10,000 – 12,500 equivalent customers

Coordinated ticketing on majority Link-Up sticker or of CTA magnetic stripe Transit magnetic ticket with Cards and transfer cards, multiple Metra monthly pass day passes, and Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus

Link-Up or Plus Bus sticker, or magnetic ticket with Metra monthly pass

Notes: 1. One customer makes two transfers per weekday 10,000 – 13,000 weekday transfers 2. Metra sells on average 5,200 Link-Up and 5,000 – 6,500 equivalent customers 1,000 Plus Bus tickets per month 3. Data source: Regional Transit Coordination Plan: Location Study, July 2001

6 UFC Project Status

In January 2004, a UFC Policy Committee was formed to identify approaches for a UFC, if the decision is made to implement a UFC

UFC POLICY COMMITTEE

7 UFC Project Status A UFC is a single card that can be used to pay fares on all bus, rapid transit, commuter rail, and paratransit services under the jurisdiction of the RTA UFC Project Goals

Enhance a customer’s experience and satisfaction through increased convenience, ease of fare payment and protection of fare value

Increase ridership (UFC technology provides a platform for service board policies that may result in added ridership)

Facilitate intermodal travel

Increase use and flexibility of automated transit benefits

Create opportunities for further private and public sector participation through additional transit and non-transit applications

Enhance data on travel patterns to support regional planning A UFC does not mean there is one single fare to ride all the services. CTA, Metra and Pace will continue to have their own fare policies

8 UFC Project Status

UFC project progress

The UFC Policy Committee has identified: – Program goals and criteria – Characteristics of other regional smart card programs and lessons learned – Challenges associated with implementing smart cards on commuter rail systems – Recommended fare media technology – Potential UFC market segments – Costs to operate the existing fare systems operated by the Service Boards – How to use a UFC for fare payment on CTA bus and rail, and Pace – Possible alternatives for use of a UFC on Metra – How to use a UFC for fare payment on paratransit and on-demand services – Potential benefits to riders and Service Boards from implementing a UFC – Potential opportunities for new uses, such as parking payment, building access or small purchases

Ongoing development : – How to use a UFC for fare payment on Metra – Management of a UFC system – Implementation schedule and funding

9 Recommended Fare Media Technology

Benefits of using a “smart card” as a UFC solution

Can provide increased convenience and simplicity for customers

Allows customers to easily add value, whether at a ticket vending machine, at a point-of- sale device, or electronically

Builds on existing fare collection infrastructure and smart card experiences at CTA and Pace

Enables fare payment for paratransit customers through the use of a magnetic stripe on cards issued to paratransit customers

Smart card technology is flexible and can support all current fare policies and products, and most that are found in other transit systems (peak pricing, fares that vary by distance, reverse commute fares, etc.) Provides potential new opportunities for transit-related partnerships, such as use on taxis, in parking and other uses

10 Recommended Fare Media Technology A smart card can make transit easier to use, but additional actions are needed to increase ridership

Customer can use a single fare card across all agencies – Simple, secure and fast fare payment – Provides balance protection, autoload and electronic transit benefit capabilities

More “seamless” transfers involve other aspects beyond fare payment – Thus far, in North America, there is no evidence that use of a UFC technology alone results in ridership growth. A UFC can provide a basis for changes in fare policies that may increase ridership

Information Physical Service Fare Coordination ++Coordination Coordination + Coordination =

Potential Ridership Growth

11 Recommended Fare Media Technology Smart card systems are being pursued in North America and internationally, although few are fully implemented

NON-GATEDNON-GATED COMMUTERCOMMUTER FULLFULL LIMITEDLIMITED ININ DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT RAILRAIL PARTICIPANTPARTICIPANT IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION Octopus Octopus (Creative(Creative Star,Star, HongHong 99 Kong)Kong) EZ-LinkEZ-Link (Singapore)(Singapore) 99 Oyster Oyster CardCard (London(London Transport)Transport) 99 Chicago Chicago Card/ChicagoCard/Chicago CardCard PlusPlus 99 (Chicago(Chicago TransitTransit Authority,Authority, Pace)Pace) ® TransLinkTransLink® (San(San FranciscoFrancisco BayBay 99 99 Area)Area) ** ® SmarTripSmarTrip® (Washington(Washington 99 99 D.C./BaltimoreD.C./Baltimore region)region) ** HoustonHouston 99 NavigoNavigo CardCard (Paris)(Paris) 99 BreezeBreeze (Atlanta)(Atlanta) 99 Trans Trans LinkLink (The(The Netherlands)Netherlands) 99 Transit Transit AccessAccess PassPass -- TAPTAP 99 99 (greater(greater LosLos AngelesAngeles region)region) Compass Compass (greater(greater SanSan Diego)Diego) 99 99 GO GO TransitTransit farefare cardcard (greater(greater 99 99 TorontoToronto region)region) SeattleSeattle 99 99 CharlieCharlie CardCard (Boston)(Boston) 99 99 South South EastEast QueenslandQueensland IntegratedIntegrated 99 TicketingTicketing SystemSystem (Brisbane,(Brisbane, Australia)Australia) Minneapolis, Minneapolis, St.St. PaulPaul 99 Sydney Sydney IntegratedIntegrated TicketTicket SystemSystem 99 (Australia)(Australia)

* TransLink® smart cards are in use for commuter rail on nine CalTrain stations by approximately 330 riders. SmarTrip® smart cards are not in use on commuter rail.

12 Pace and CTA A smart card UFC on Pace and CTA would build on existing programs and provide enhancements Implements an open (non-proprietary) smart card that can aid in seeking business opportunities beyond transit

The system includes investment in: – New stand-beside smart card readers for CTA and Pace buses to accept a UFC – Upgrades to CTA’s existing rail smart card system to accept both Chicago Card and UFC – Mobile data terminals for paratransit vehicles to also accept a UFC – New information systems for Pace and CTA – New cashless ticket vending machines for CTA rail stations and point-of-sale devices for third-party locations – New pay-by-space parking devices for CTA and Metra that accept the UFC – New back-office infrastructure to support complete card base management, customer service, financial management and reporting, specific to the UFC system

The cost to upgrade fareboxes on CTA and Pace buses has not been included in the alternatives analysis

13 Commuter Rail While smart cards are being implemented on bus and rapid rail systems, the characteristics of commuter rail make a business case justification more difficult

KeyKey CharacteristicsCharacteristics -- Commuter Commuter RailRail ChallengesChallenges -- Smart Smart CardCard ImplementationImplementation OperatesOperates inin aa non-gatednon-gated environmentenvironment PhysicallyPhysically gatinggating thethe systemsystem isis impracticalimpractical duedue toto stationstation designdesign andand costcost

UsesUses visualvisual on-boardon-board farefare inspectioninspection ChecksChecks ofof smartsmart cardscards usingusing electronicelectronic devicesdevices maymay slowslow downdown inspectioninspection timestimes andand requirerequire renegotiationrenegotiation ofof unionunion contractscontracts Operates over a large geographic area Operates over a large geographic area NewNew equipmentequipment installationsinstallations (e.g.,(e.g., ticketticket vendingvending machines)machines) willwill resultresult inin increasedincreased laborlabor costscosts associatedassociated withwith maintenancemaintenance andand ticketticket re-stockingre-stocking Uses either zone or distance-based fare Uses either zone or distance-based fare Need a cost effective and practical solution to structures Need a cost effective and practical solution to structures checkcheck aa complexcomplex arrayarray ofof origin-destinationorigin-destination pairspairs Limited fare collection hardware currently Limited fare collection hardware currently HighHigh capitalcapital costcost forfor newnew equipmentequipment (as(as installed, such as ticket vending machines installed, such as ticket vending machines opposedopposed toto upgradeupgrade oror replacemenreplacement)t) toto supportsupport aa newnew automatedautomated farefare collectioncollection systemsystem Implementing a smart card system on commuter rail could result in easier transfers for some customers, but would require significant changes in operations

14 Commuter Rail There are limited installations of commuter rail smart card systems, but none at Metra peer agencies in North America

MetraMetra PeerPeer AgenciesAgencies (Based(Based onon size,size, ununlinkedlinked passengerpassenger tripstrips andand fare fare revenue)revenue)

NoNo immediateimmediate plansplans forfor implementationimplementationonon LongLong IslandIsland RailRail RoadRoad (New(New York),York), MetroMetro NorthNorth RailroadRailroad (New(New York),York), NewNew JerseyJersey TransitTransit oror SoutheasternSoutheastern PennsylvPennsylvaniaania TransportationTransportation AuAuthoritythority (Philadelphia)(Philadelphia) MassachusettsMassachusetts BayBay TransportationTransportation AuthoritAuthorityy (Boston)(Boston) plansplans toto startstart usingusing itsits smartsmart card,card, “Charlie“CharlieCard”,Card”, inin 2006.2006. UseUse ofof thethe smartsmart cardcard onon commutercommuter railrail isis stillstill toto bebe determineddetermined

TransLinkTransLink®® (Caltrain,(Caltrain, SanSan FranciscoFrancisco BayBay Area)Area)

OperatesOperates oneone lineline withwith aa proof-of-payment,proof-of-payment, zone-basedzone-based fafarere systemsystem -- target target farefare inspectioninspection isis 1/31/3 ofof ridersriders TransLinkTransLink®®PhasePhase 11 – – nine nine stations,stations, ticketticket vendingvending machines,machines, stanstand-aloned-alone smartsmart cardcard validatvalidators,ors, hand-heldhand-held devicesdevices –– used used byby 330330 ridersriders (2%(2% ofof dailydaily riders)riders)

SmartLinkSmartLinkSMSM DemonstrationDemonstration (NJ(NJ Transit/PortTransit/Port AuthAuthorityority ofof NewNew YorkYork andand NewNew Jersey)Jersey) DemonstratedDemonstrated aa combinedcombined smartsmart cardcard/customer/customer sleevesleeve readerreader providingproviding visualvisual checkcheck ofof monthlymonthly passespasses LimitedLimited toto oneone stationstation -- supported supported fewerfewer thanthan 2020 monthlymonthly passpass usersusers

GreenGreen CarCar SuicaSuica SystemSystem (E(Eastast JapanJapan RailwayRailway Company)Company) Gated,Gated, distance-baseddistance-based farefare system,system, supportingsupporting on-bon-boardoard farefare paymentpayment forfor firstfirst classclass faresfares onlyonly TicketTicket isis pre-loadedpre-loaded toto thethe cardcard atat aa ticketticket vendingvending machinemachine andand validatedvalidated atat cardcard readersreaders abovabovee seatsseats uponupon boardingboarding

15 UFC Alternatives The way a customer uses a UFC on Metra differentiates the alternatives

MetraMetra TicketsTickets StoredStored onon UFCUFC UFCUFC applicationapplication MonthlyMonthly Ten-rideTen-ride One-wayOne-way onon MetraMetra passespasses ticketstickets ticketstickets Bare minimum – Monthly pass Chicago Card Plus with sticker Metra monthly pass sticker Used to purchase Alternative 1 – a paper ticket Fare payment medium

Alternative 2 – 9 9 Sleeve reader

Alternative 3 – 9 9 9 Conductor hand-held device

Alternative 4 –

Increasing functionality Increasing 9 9 9 9 Platform stand-alone validators

Alternative 5 – 9 9 9 9 On-board smart card readers 9

16 UFC Alternatives Bare Minimum – Chicago Card Plus and Metra Monthly Pass Sticker

Sticker purchased via Ticket-by-Mail/Internet Monthly Pass

Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Bare Minimum Benefits: Metra monthly pass sticker affixed to Chicago Card Plus to Allows a small portion of Metra customers to use one support Link-Up and PlusBus fares fare card to travel across the Service Boards Sticker received from ticket-by-mail program Limitations: Requires planned upgrade of CTA smart card system Customer features of the smart card technology will only be available on Pace and CTA systems Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): Metra market limited to monthly pass users who also use $ 400,000 $ 32,000 a Link-Up or Plus Bus ticket Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): Customer Impacts: CTACTA –– 6% 6% MetraMetra –– 2% 2% PacePace –– 1% 1% RegionRegion –– 4% 4% Limited benefit over current process for a small market (*) Additional details available in attachment segment

17 UFC Alternatives Alternative 1 – Fare payment medium

Cashless Ticket Vending Machine

Universal Fare Card Ticket

Ticket Office Terminal

Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Core Benefits: Provides a basis from which transit benefit programs UFC used to purchase Metra paper tickets from Metra may be expanded station ticket offices or from automated vending machines at Enhanced customer convenience e.g., balance downtown stations protection, autoload Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): Potential for other future, non-transit applications Limitations: $67 million $9 million Multiple fare cards required for travel Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): Automated vending machines at Metra limited to downtown CTACTA –– 43% 43% MetraMetra –– 20% 20% PacePace –– 33% 33% RegionRegion –– 38% 38% Customer Impacts: Still require multiple fare cards, but customer can use (*) Additional details available in attachment smart card to buy Metra tickets, and can access regional electronic benefit and autoload programs

18 UFC Alternatives Alternative 2 – Customer sleeve reader

Cashless Ticket Vending Machine

Universal UFC Fare Card Monthly Pass

Customer Sleeve Reader Ticket Office Terminal

Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Incremental Benefits (compared with Alternative 1): Allows Metra monthly pass users to store ticket on a UFC Allows one fare medium to be used across all Service Monthly pass is visually inspected with use of a customer Boards (for Metra monthly pass users only) sleeve reader Limitations: Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): Metra market limited to monthly pass users $68 million $10 million Electronic checking of tickets may slow inspection process Customer sleeve readers not a proven technology Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): Resistance from customers to carry a sleeve reader in addition to a UFC CTACTA –– 43% 43% MetraMetra –– 8% 8% PacePace –– 33% 33% RegionRegion –– 36% 36% Customer Impacts (*) Additional details available in attachment Customer needs to carry sleeve reader in addition to smart card and activate sleeve reader for conductor to check ticket

19 UFC Alternatives Alternative 3 - Conductor hand-held device

Cashless Ticket Vending Machine

Universal UFC – Universal Fare Card Monthly Pass 10-Ride Ticket Fare Card

Ticket Office Hand-Held Smart Terminal Card Reader

Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Incremental Benefits (compared with Alternative 1): Allows Metra monthly pass and 10-ride ticket users to store a Allows one fare medium to be used across all Service ticket on a UFC Boards (for Metra monthly pass and 10-ride ticket users only) UFC is electronically inspected using conductor hand-held Limitations: devices Does not support all Metra ticket types Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): Requires renegotiation of Metra conductor labor agreements to carry hand-held devices and additional conductors to $76 million $14 million complete visual fare inspection Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): Automated vending machines at Metra limited to downtown Customer Impacts: CTACTA –– 43% 43% MetraMetra –– 25% 25% PacePace –– 33% 33% RegionRegion –– 39% 39% Conductor must manually validate smart card, slowing fare inspection process (*) Additional details available in attachment Customer does not have visual account of remaining rides

20 UFC Alternatives Alternative 4 – Platform stand-alone validators

Cashless Ticket Vending Upon alighting Machine Universal Universal Universal Fare Card Fare Card Fare Card Single ride Prior to boarding users only

Platform Stand- Hand-Held Ticket Office Alone Smart Card Smart Card Terminal Validator Reader Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Incremental Benefits (compared with Alternative 1): Allows Metra monthly pass and 10-ride ticket customers to store Supports all existing Service Board ticket types a ticket on a UFC. Monthly pass users only tap their card at the Provides opportunities to develop flexible intra- and inter- beginning of the month agency fare policies across the region 10-ride ticket customers tap their UFC at a stand-alone validator Limitations: installed at Metra platforms prior to boarding Extensive equipment installation (e.g., stand-alone Single-ride customers need to tap their card at stand-alone validators, vending machines) required at Metra stations validators before boarding and upon alighting the train Requires Metra conductors to carry electronic devices to Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): check UFCs and additional conductors to complete visual fare inspection. Requires renegotiation of Metra $98 million $18 million conductor labor agreements to carry hand-held devices Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): Customer Impacts Some customers must “tap” smart card reader before CTACTA –– 43% 43% MetraMetra –– 51% 51% PacePace –– 33% 33% RegionRegion –– 44% 44% boarding and after exiting train, plus same impacts as

(*) Additional details available in attachment Alternative 3

21 UFC Alternatives Alternative 5 – On-board smart card readers

Cashless Ticket Vending Machine

Universal Fare Card Universal Fare Card

Ticket Office Terminal On-Board Smart Card Readers

Changes to Existing Fare Practices: Incremental Benefits (compared with Alternative 1): Allows Metra monthly pass and 10-ride ticket customers to store a Supports all existing Service Board ticket types ticket on a UFC. Requires customers to insert UFC into an on- Provides opportunities to develop flexible intra- and inter- board card reader nearest to their seat agency fare policies across the region Card readers are linked with on-board GPS to validate monthly Limitations: passes, deduct a ride from pre-stored 10-ride ticket or pre-stored Extensive on-board and station equipment installation one way ticket. All stored value and cash transactions are handled (e.g., on-board card readers, cashless ticket vending by the conductor machines) required for Metra with associated Est. Capital Cost: Est. Annual Incremental Operating Cost(*): maintenance cost $170 million $24 million Requires Metra conductors to carry electronic devices to Estimated % of Transit Customers using a UFC (*): check UFCs and requires renegotiation of Metra conductor labor agreements to carry hand-held devices CTACTA –– 43% 43% MetraMetra –– 52% 52% PacePace –– 33% 33% RegionRegion –– 44% 44% Customer Impacts:

(*) Additional details available in attachment Customer must insert card into on-board smart card reader and leave in reader for entire trip

22 UFC Alternatives The annual cost to operate a UFC program may increase existing costs by approximately 11% to 28%, depending on the UFC approach

Cost increases are associated with: – Additional on-board Metra staff required to complete fare inspection for those alternatives that include a hand-held device – New equipment at Metra resulting in increased staffing required to maintain these devices – Use of hand held card readers on Metra, which will require renegotiation of labor agreements – System management, including customer service, card base management, system security, transaction clearing and settlement processes, and central account management Preliminary analysis indicates marginal savings will be realized with implementation of UFC – None of the alternatives assume elimination of existing magnetic stripe tickets or paper passes. These programs and costs will continue for the foreseeable future – Existing Chicago Card back office costs will be transferred to regional system – Minor savings in fare media production, maintenance and commissions to third parties Future savings are possible – Moving at least 50% of CTA’s riders to a smart card can result in more significant reductions in equipment maintenance costs – Other savings may be possible, but would require significant changes to organization and customer practices in the long term – Smart card capabilities may result in additional fare policy flexibility that could generate ridership growth Note – The “Bare Minimum” Alternative does not offer any cost savings

23 Discussion and Next Steps A range of UFC alternatives have been analyzed, and vary by cost and the estimated number of riders who may be attracted to the product Evaluation of Alternatives Bare Minimum Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Chicago Card Payment Sleeve readers Conductor hand- Platform stand- On-board smart Plus + Sticker medium held readers alone validators card readers Enhance a customer’s experience and satisfaction Increase customer convenience

Ease of fare payment

Protection of fare value

Increase ridership UFC technology provides a platform for Service Board policies that may result in increased ridership

Facilitate intermodal travel

UFC GOALS Increase use and flexibility of automated transit benefits Create opportunities for private and public sector participation Enhance data on travel patterns to support regional planning

Ease of implementation

Estimated capital cost ($ million) $0.4 $67 $68 $76 $98 $170 Estimated incremental annual $10 $14 $18 $24 operating cost ($ million) $0 $9 Estimated % of regional riders 4% 38% 39% 44% 44% using UFC 36% Does not satisfy Partially satisfies Satisfies

24 UFC Alternatives A number of different functions are required to manage a smart card system

Back-OfficeBack-Office FunctionFunction DescriptionDescription PossiblePossible ManagementManagement ApproachApproach CardCard BaseBase ManagementManagement IssuingIssuing andand managingmanaging cardscards Centralized,Centralized, outsourcedoutsourced CustomerCustomer ServicesServices AnsweringAnswering customercustomer andand third-third- Centralized,Centralized, outsourcedoutsourced partyparty questionsquestions regardingregarding UFCUFC DistributionDistribution ManagementManagement IncludesIncludes signingsigning merchantsmerchants toto •• Distribution Distribution ofof cardscards –– CentralizedCentralized agreementsagreements forfor cardcard andand valuevalue outsourcedoutsourced distributiondistribution •• Relationship Relationship managementmanagement withwith third-partythird-party merchantsmerchants –– Decentralized,Decentralized, in-housein-house FinancialFinancial ManagementManagement ClearingClearing andand settlingsettling fundsfunds •• Management Management ofof fundsfunds settlementsettlement –– acrossacross agencies,agencies, andand Centralized,Centralized, outsourcedoutsourced accountingaccounting andand auditingauditing •• Funds Funds poolpool –– Decentralized,Decentralized, in-housein-house functionsfunctions SecuritySecurity ManagementManagement SystemsSystems andand personalpersonal datadata Centralized,Centralized, outsourcedoutsourced securitysecurity InfrastructureInfrastructure SystemsSystems ManagementManagement ofof somesome aspectsaspects ofof •• Software Software updates,updates, configurationconfiguration controlcontrol andand OperationsOperations regionalregional technology,technology, includingincluding andand disasterdisaster recoveryrecovery –– Centralized,Centralized, ManagementManagement interfacesinterfaces outsourcedoutsourced •• System System monitoringmonitoring –– Decentralized,Decentralized, in-in- househouse ProgramProgram ManagementManagement Brand/programBrand/program managementmanagement Centralized,Centralized, in-housein-house

Note: For the “Bare Minimum” Alternative, it was assumed the current Chicago Card/Plus management operations would be retained by CTA

25 Discussion and Next Steps

Implementation and funding…

Implementation – There are three basic approaches to implementing and funding a UFC system: 1. Pilot program 2. Phased-in implementation 3. Full implementation of preferred alternative

Funding – Implementing a UFC system should be contingent on additional state or federal funds being identified and provided for this purpose. Sufficient funding is also needed to operate and maintain the transit system in a state of good repair and provide for planned system enhancements

26 Attachment A

Detailed UFC Alternative Costs

27 Attachment A Bare Minimum – Chicago Card Plus + Sticker

Comparison of Current Fare Collection Costs Estimated Annual Operating Costs ($ Million) with UFC Alternative Operating Costs Current Savings New New Total Pace $3 $0 $0 $3 Metra $33 $0 $0 $33 $100 CTA $49 $0 $0 $49 $80 System Management $2 $0 $0 $2 $60 Total $87 $0 $0 $87 1) Current system management costs are CTA-only costs $40

($ Million) ($ 2) New Metra operating costs are estimated at $32,000 $20

$0 Current Bare Minimum - Chicago

Estimated Annual Operating Cost Card Plus + Sticker

Pace Metra CTA System management Total

28 Attachment A Alternative 1 – Fare payment medium

($ Million) ($ implementation, regardless of a UFC being implemented $20 2) Current system management costs are CTA-only costs $0 3) New system management costs are in addition to Service Board costs Current Alternative 1 - Fare 4) Estimated Service Board savings include a reduction in fare media and distribution costs associated with the existing pre-paid fare media,

Estimated Annual Operating Cost payment medium reduction in bank charges (Metra) and reduced maintenance costs Pace Metra CTA System management Total (primarily scheduling maintenance for faregates and vending machines) resulting from increased use of smart cards as UFC use increases and magnetic ticket use decreases (CTA) 5) Some of the estimated cost savings are transferred to System Management costs

29 Attachment A Alternative 2 – Customer sleeve reader

Comparison of Current Fare Collection Costs Estimated Annual Operating Costs ($ Million) with UFC Alternative Operating Costs Current Savings New New Total Pace $3 $0 $1 $4 Metra $33 $0 $1 $34 $120 CTA $49 ($1) $1 $49 $100 System Management $2 ($2) $10 $10 Total $87 ($3) $13 $97 $80 1) Estimated potential savings for CTA may result from smart card $60 implementation, regardless of a UFC being implemented $40 2) Current system management costs are CTA-only costs ($ Million) ($ $20 3) New system management costs are in addition to Service Board costs 4) Estimated Service Board savings include a reduction in fare media $0 and distribution costs associated with the existing pre-paid fare media, Current Alternative 2 - Sleeve reduction in bank charges (Metra) and reduced maintenance costs

Estimated Annual Operating Cost reader (primarily scheduling maintenance for faregates and vending machines) resulting from increased use of smart cards as UFC use Pace Metra CTA System management Total increases and magnetic ticket use decreases (CTA) 5) Some of the estimated cost savings are transferred to System Management costs

30 Attachment A Alternative 3 - Conductor hand-held device

Estimated Annual Operating Cost Cost Operating Annual Estimated hand-held device (primarily scheduling maintenance for faregates and vending Pace Metra CTA System management Total machines) resulting from increased use of smart cards as UFC use increases and magnetic ticket use decreases (CTA) 5) Some of the estimated cost savings are transferred to System Management costs

31 Attachment A Alternative 4 – Platform stand-alone validators

($ Million) ($ 2) Current system management costs are CTA-only costs $20 3) New system management costs are in addition to Service Board costs $0 4) Estimated Service Board savings include a reduction in fare media Current Alternative 4 - Platform and distribution costs associated with the existing pre-paid fare media, stand-alone validators reduction in bank charges (Metra) and reduced maintenance costs Estimated Annual Operating Cost (primarily scheduling maintenance for faregates and vending Pace Metra CTA System management Total machines) resulting from increased use of smart cards as UFC use increases and magnetic ticket use decreases (CTA) 5) Some of the estimated cost savings are transferred to System Management costs

32 Attachment A Alternative 5 – On-board smart card readers

Comparison of Current Fare Collection Costs Estimated Annual Operating Costs ($ Million) with UFC Alternative Operating Costs Current Savings New New Total Pace $3 $0 $1 $4 $120 Metra $33 ($1) $15 $47 $100 CTA $49 ($1) $1 $49 System Management $2 ($2) $11 $11 $80 Total $87 ($4) $28 $111 $60 1) Estimated potential savings for CTA may result from smart card implementation, regardless of a UFC being implemented $40 2) Current system management costs are CTA-only costs ($ Million) ($ $20 3) New system management costs are in addition to Service Board costs 4) Estimated Service Board savings include a reduction in fare media $0 and distribution costs associated with the existing pre-paid fare media, Current Alternative 5 - On-board reduction in bank charges (Metra) and reduced maintenance costs Estimated Annual Operating Cost Cost Operating Annual Estimated smart card readers (primarily scheduling maintenance for faregates and vending Pace Metra CTA System management Total machines) resulting from increased use of smart cards as UFC use increases and magnetic ticket use decreases (CTA) 5) Some of the estimated cost savings are transferred to System Management costs

33 Attachment B

Assumptions – Potential UFC Customers

34 Attachment B

Assumptions - potential UFC customers Metra – Bare minimum – 50% of existing Link-Up and Plus Bus ticket customers – Alternative 1 – 50% of monthly pass and 10-ride ticket customers who purchase tickets at downtown stations – Alternative 2 – 50% of monthly pass customers who purchase tickets at downtown stations – Alternative 3 - Same as Alternative 1 plus one-third of ticket-by mail customers (monthly pass and 10-ride ticket customers only) – Alternative 4 - 50% of monthly pass and 10-ride ticket customers who purchase tickets at a station, plus two- thirds of customers who use ticket-by-mail, plus 10% of one-way and weekend ticket customers – Alternative 5 - Same as Alternative 4 for monthly pass, 10-ride ticket and ticket-by-mail customers, plus 20% of one-ride and weekend ticket customers

CTA – Bare minimum – Existing Chicago Card Plus customers – Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – 10% of single ride and cash users, 60% of stored value ticket and pass users, 100% of existing Chicago Card/Plus customers

Pace – Bare minimum – Existing Chicago Card Plus customers – Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - 10% of single ride and cash users, 60% of stored value ticket and pass users, 100% of existing Chicago Card/Plus customers

35 Attachment C

36 Attachment C

Important Notice

To the best of the knowledge of the RTA, CTA, Metra and Pace, the information contained in this document is current as of the date of the document. The information contained in the document and any opinions expressed in the document are subject to change.

Projections regarding UFC costs and market share are estimates based on current data and assumptions. Actual future implementation of a UFC may vary significantly from these market share projections and cost estimates. No representation is given that market share projections or cost estimates contained in the document will be achieved.