Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

Study on the Impact of Fare Collection Process with Multiple Fare Media on the Passenger Service Time at Bus Stop

Pradeep Kumar SHRESTHA Fumihiko NAKAMURA Former Post Doctoral Researcher Professor Graduate School of Engineering Institute of Urban Innovation Yokohama National University Yokohama National University 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, JAPAN 240-8501, JAPAN Tel/Fax:+81-45-339-4031 Tel/Fax: +81-45-339-4033, E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Toshiyuki OKAMURA Associate Professor Institute of Urban Innovation Yokohama National University 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, JAPAN Tel/Fax:+81-45-339-4032, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Passenger service time mainly depends on numbers of passenger boarding and alighting, and fare collection process. Understanding the impact of fare collection with multiple fare media helps to reduce the variation of passenger service time. This paper has attempted to study the effect of existence of multiple fare media for fare collection purpose on passenger service time. It is natural that the IC card payment and commuting passes consume least time for fare payment processing. However, when bus rider uses exact required coin, its marginal payment time is not significantly different with other fare media. Also, the predecessor’s fare payment process has no significant effect over the follower’s payment process. Thus, multiple fare media can embraces wide variety of users who can select fare media according to their ease and also supports implementation of complex fare policy including fare transfer policy.

Key Words: Fare collection process, Fare media, Fare payment model, Passenger service time

1. INTRODUCTION

The bus punctuality is the important factor for better performance of bus service and passenger’s satisfaction. Various causes of the bus schedule irregularities are delay due to traffic congestion as bus runs along with mixed traffic, bus dwelling at the bus stop for passenger boarding and/or alighting, and bus stoppage at signalized intersection etc. The greater portion of bus delay is accounted for bus dwelling time which is the time difference between the time bus arrives at the stop and the time bus leaves the stop.

1115 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

The bus dwelling time is highly variable component which mainly depends on the passenger service time i.e. numbers of passenger boarding and/or alighting, the type of fare collection processes and fare policies. The effect of the varying bus dwelling time at bus stop can propagate further at next bus stop there by resulting increase/decrease in delay. Furthermore, the situation worsens as bus miss the green light at traffic signal and it need to collect the accumulated passengers over delayed time at next stop. Then, bus can never grasp its scheduled time table along its route.

Minimizing fare collection time is a key factor for the improvement of bus services through reduction of bus dwell time at bus stop. Other factors are numbers of door, configuration of bus, bus headways, bus stop spacing etc. The complex fare collection systems not only lengthen dwell time but also affect the passenger ease on the fare payment. Though the off board payment has been popular fare collection system in most Bus Rapid Transit system around the world, on board payment is prevalent fare collection system in most conventional bus systems around the world. It is to be noted that paying to the conductor is still common practice in developing and under developing countries. The fare media and fare collection process directly affect the passenger service. The availability of different fare media eases the wide range of passenger with different knowledge, abilities and purpose of travel as they can select fare media based upon their ease in use. However, the cost of fare collection for bus operator increases for making availability of different types of fare media. Also, it will affect the total time needed for the fare collection process at bus stop.

The electronic fare collection system such as magnetic card, IC card, Credit/Debit card etc. has been effective in reducing passenger service time at bus stop subsequently reducing bus dwell time. Recently, Smart Card (IC) based on payment system, has been introduced by most of bus companies in Tokyo, Japan along with the existing methods of payment such as bus card, coins or cash payment and daily commutating passes. The variations in payment time differ for different types of payment methods.

This research analyzed the effect of availability of multiple fare media for fare collection on passenger service time at bus stop. Understanding the impact of fare collection with multiple fare media helps to improve the variation of passenger service time which in turn reduces the overall variation in bus dwell time and thus maintains bus punctuality. Thus, the objectives of this research are:  To quantify and compare the marginal payment time for each fare media in mixed fare collection process.  To develop fare payment models considering multiple fare media

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The previous researches on dwell time include dwell time estimation for different scenarios and the factors affecting dwell time variation. In brief, almost all literature has considered numbers of boarding and alighting passengers as major factor contributing to bus dwell time. Guenthner and Sinha (1983) has determined dwell time per passenger as a function of the passenger boarding and alighting and later they used results to develop a procedure to determine the resulting bus delay and its effect on operating speed, ridership, and ultimately on route performance.

Further researches on dwell time tried to reflect the effects of fare collection system, bus type (low floor bus, number of doors and size), effect of standee, special conditions (lift operation for wheel

1116 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

chaired passenger, etc) . Guenthner and Hamat (1988) considered the nine different fare type and payment methods, and applied regression analyses to determine independent equations for the boarding and alighting times as a function of the number of passengers at a stop.

The advancement in Intelligent Transportation System has offered new enhanced options either in fare collection process or data collection process. Dueker et al. (2004) analyzed bus dwell times that use archived automatic vehicle location (AVL)/automatic passenger counter (APC) data from TriMet reported at the level of individual bus stops. The determinants of dwell time included passenger activities (boarding and alighting), bus schedule adherence, lift operations, low floor bus, passenger friction, time of day, bus route type etc. Similarly, Rajbhandari, et al. (2003) investigated the impact of boarding and alighting passengers, the effect of standees, time of day and service type on dwell time using data collected from an archived database using Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) through regression modeling.

The fare media and fare collection process can significantly influence public transport operational efficiency and passenger convenience. From the operator’s perspective the passes are optimal because they reduce the costs of fare collection and the costs of ticket control where as from the passengers’ perspective the more fare types the better since this enables passengers to minimize costs based on their specific travel patterns (Dorbritz et. al. (2009).

In developed countries, the bus systems has eliminated the conductors for selling tickets to passengers in buses though developing countries are still practicing this method of fare collection. In most European urban areas off-vehicle ticket sales or self-service ticket control practiced where as in rural areas drivers are responsible for selling tickets (Dorbritz et. al. (2009). In North America, most bus systems generally use pay on boarding either using a farebox or ticket processing unit (TCRP Report 80 (5)). In Japan, most bus systems generally use a driver monitored a complex fare box to accept coin, equipped with smart card reader and magnetic card reader as well as driver monitored bus passes. The TCRP Report 80 (5) identifies two major disadvantages for paying on boarding: first, boarding time is increased and second, drivers can be distracted from their main responsibility, to operate the vehicle safely.

Guenthner and Hamat (1988) observed no significant relation between the fare structure and the type of payment on dwell delays. Dorbritz et al. (2009) found that onboard ticket sale processes are relatively long and vary significantly and can impact a public transport line’s travel time and reliability significantly. Also, the fare structures such as general fare payment strategy (flat rate or distance based), pricing levels, and multiple fare media etc add the complexity in terms of both understanding and usage for bus rider, and design of fare collection unit for operator (TCRP Report 80). However, the fare collection process with multiple fare media and their influence on the bus delay has not yet been studied. Hence, the objective of this research was to analyze the process of fare collection with mixed fare media and their impact on total dwelling process.

3. FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM

With advancement of technology, wide varieties of fare collection media are available conventional type such as cash, paper ticket, pass card etc. to varieties of automated fare collection types such as Magnetic ticket, Smart card, Debit/Credit card etc. This study was

1117 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

conducted in Keio Bus in Tokyo and Kanachou Bus in Fujisawa. The available fare media in these two areas can be classified into IC card (PASMO, SUICA), Magnetic Card (Common bus card), Cash/coin and daily commuter passes.

Passenger using cash/coin as a fare media pay fare on the fare boxes just next to the driver while boarding or upon alighting. The Fare boxes in buses are capable of accepting and changing the cash greater than designated amount including 1000 Yen bill. The fare payment process consume greater amount of time, if the bus riders’ do not posses exact fare.

Common Bus Cards (Magnetic card) allowed in Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama prefectures that indicate ' Common Bus Card Accepted ' or ' Common Card Accepted ' (the service discontinued since July 31, 2010 in most bus companies and some companies are on the process of discontinuation). Magnetic cards were most popular among the riders as riders can get discount on that card. The amount of discount increases as the stored value of money in the card increases. For e.g. the rider can by bus card for 5000 Yen worth of 5,850 Yen.

Smart card (IC Card) is an integrated circuit card that contains a microprocessor and has built-in logic. Smart card can store large amounts of data, which can be altered and updated in accordance with the logic built or programmed in. Two types of the IC card used by the most bus company around Tokyo region are PASMO (PASsnet + MOre) which is issued jointly by rail / bus companies in the metropolitan area, and SUICA (Super Urban Intelligent CArd) which is issued by JR East Company.

Pass card includes one day free passes, daily commuting passes for designated route, and special pass for elderly and disabled persons etc are also in practice. The commuter pass will probably be the most convenient and economical method of payment for those who use buses regularly. Commuter passes can be purchased at the offices of the Bus Company. Normally, it is available for period of 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month. Students can receive commuter pass as well as a student discount. Passenger need to show pass to the bus driver while getting on or off the bus respectively for on board payment or off board payment.

The Fare collection equipment consists of a fare box to collect cash/coin, bus card reader, and IC card reader. The driver monitors the fare collection process and checks the riders with commuter passes. The bus route with flat rate fare system has only fare collection equipment located right next to the driver where as the bus route with distance based fare has additional equipment at the back door for recording identification of the station where rider boarded the bus. It consists of passenger entry ticket (Seiri-ken) issuing tool and equipment for reading IC card and bus card.

3.1 Distance based bus fare system The passengers need to board from either front or rear (common) door and disembark from the front door after fare payment. The time for alighting take longer than boarding as the real fare collection is processed while alighting. While boarding,  Coin/cash user needs to take a boarding ticket (Seiri-ken) which indicate the bus stop where passenger boarded through the number  Bus card user inserts bus card into the machine which memorize the bus stop where passenger boarded

1118 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

 Similarly, IC card user touches the top of IC card reader to indicate the bus stop where he/she boarded  Pass Card: Passenger using commuter pass does not need to do

While getting off,  Coin/cash user calculates fare by matching number in boarding ticket with the number on the information board with fare amount, and then insert coin along with boarding ticket into the fare box. In case of lack of exact changes, passengers use slot for change in fare box.  Bus card user again inserts bus card into the machine. Machine automatically calculate the amount of fare and deduct from the bus card. In case of insufficient amount of insufficient amount of balance, passenger need to use new card  IC card user again touches the top of IC card reader with IC card. Card reader calculate and deduct correct amount from the balance  Pass Card: Passenger shows their commuter passes while getting off to the driver.

3.2 Flat rate bus fare system The passenger pays the required amount of fare on boarding by cash/coin, bus card or IC card or show commuter pass to driver.  Coin/cash: Passenger drops the total fare into the fare box. In case of scarce of change, passenger can use a slot for change in the fare box which is capable of giving change up to 1000 Yen bill  Bus card: Passenger inserts Bus card into the machine. Machine automatically deducts the required fare from the bus card. In case of insufficient amount of insufficient amount of balance, passenger need to use new card  IC card: Similarly, passenger touches the top of IC card reader with IC card. Card reader deduct the required fare from the balance in IC card  Pass Card: Passenger shows their commuter pass which is printed with validity date to driver while boarding

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of on board fare collection process with multiple fare media on passenger service time. The type of fare payment affects average marginal time for boarding/alighting i.e. passenger service time affecting total dwell time of buses at bus stop. The dwell time is a total passenger service time plus door opening and closing time, and time need to accelerate and decelerate the bus. In this study, fare payment models are developed considering the passenger service time as function of the number of boarding and alighting passengers, fare payment type for assessing the effect of existence of multiple fare media.

4.1 Study Area The flows of bus passengers vary from least numbers during off peak period to the highest numbers during peak period. The bus passenger flow is highest during morning peak period towards the station and the situation is opposite during evening peak period. This research aimed

1119 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

to study effect of on board fare collection process with multiple fare media on bus delay. Both the effect on boarding time as well as on alighting time is to be studied. The study was conducted in two areas Tama centre station of Tokyo, and Minami centre and Komayose bus stop in Fujisawa city. Keio Dentetsu bus line has alighting fare collection system, thus was selected to study effect on alighting process. Kanagawa Chuo bus was selected for studying the effect on boarding process. In fact, Kanagawa Chuo bus too has alighting fare collection system. However, the passenger boarded from selected bus stops i.e. Minami centre and Komayose need minimum fare to travel up to terminal station and driver adjust the fare collection equipment suitable for boarding payment. Since the data collection were made during the morning peak period, Minami centre and Komayose but stop has negligible alighting passengers compared to boarding passengers. As the Tama centre is terminal station, there were no boarding passengers.

4.2 Data collection Field surveys were conducted for 3 hours in morning peak hour time from 7.00 AM to10.00 AM in the month of May 2008. The data collections were made through video recording of passenger boarding at Minami centre and Komayose of Kanagawa Chuo Bus, and passenger alighting at Tama centre staion of Keio Dentetsu bus for modeling the dwell time considering multiple types of fare media. The video records of boarding and alighting were further processed out to estimate the duration of fare collection time using Time code (TC) reader software. The software has ability to calculate the duration of the fare payment processing time with 1/30 seconds accuracy. The total boarding or alighting time is defined as the time first passenger stats boarding or alighting to time to complete last passenger. The counted data are:  Time when bus come to stop,  Time when bus door is fully open,  Time taken by each individual for fare payment,  The type of payment passengers are using  Events such as cash change, bus card change etc.  Time when bus door is fully closed  Time when bus departs

Time taken by each individual passenger for particular fare payment type was defined as the time between the instant he/she reaches inside the bus and the time he/she leaves the fare collection equipment. The time taken for next passenger is the time difference between the time first passenger leaves the fare collection equipment and the time he/she leaves the fare collection box. The effect of on board fare collection process using multiple fare media was studied comparing the fare collection processing time for each individual using different fare media. Also, the effect on total boarding/alighting time due multiple fare media was also studied.

4.3 Analysis, Modeling and Results First, the effect of different types of fare payment on bus dwell time has been studied in this section. The time required processing different types of fare payment and their relation with Bus dwell time has been modeled using Regression analysis.

4.3.1 Marginal Boarding/Alighting Times By observing video recording of boarding and alighting process, the time required to accomplish the payment procedure was noted down for each passenger in detail. For IC card and Bus card

1120 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

users have to touch or insert card to fare machine so that fare machine able to read the data stored in IC card and Bus card. For coin/cash users either pay or take small receipt while boarding which indicate boarding stop, and pay money while alighting. Commuting pass users have to show card during boarding and alighting. The whole process affects the marginal boarding/ alighting time for each passenger. In addition, the passengers’ ability and familiarity with the payment procedure also affect the marginal time. Amount of time taken by each passenger to pay fare with specific fare media to board or alight was averaged to get average marginal boarding/alighting time per passenger.

The following Table 1 explains the observed mean and standard deviation of marginal fare payment time per passenger for different fare media. Use of pass card and smart card takes least time for fare payment where as coin/cash takes highest time. The fare payment process by bus card and cash/coin was further analyzed. Higher amount of time, i.e. about 3 times more, consume when bus card user change bus card or buy new card for payment. Similarly, passengers with exact change reduce marginal payment time to the level of marginal time for IC card and pass card. However, the numbers of samples for bus card change and pay as well as change cash and pay items are small, and need to be treated with caution.

Table 1 Marginal Boarding Time Fare Medias N Mean (Sec) St. Deviation (Sec) IC Card 87 2.188 1.446 Pay by one card only 347 3.735 1.617 Bus Card Change card & pay 9 12.363 5.566 (Magnetic Card) All 356 3.953 2.255 Exact pay 37 2.349 1.012 Coin or Cash Change & pay 10 10.380 9.064 All 47 4.057 5.283 Pass Card (Commuter Ticket) 113 1.946 1.169

Alighting times were also found to be affected by the fare media as shown in Table 2. Alighting time tends to reduce for each type of fare media except for pass users. Most pass users are elderly people and have difficulties while alighting could have contributed to increase in alighting time. Similar to boarding process, the highest marginal alighting time were observed for bus card and cash/coin media. Further analysis of bus card and cash/coin fare media has indicated that the passenger which tends to buy bus card from driver while paying, and passenger who need changing cash can contribute 3 times and 6 times increase in alighting time respectively.

4.3.2 Significance Test for Marginal Payment Time with Different Fare Media The difference of mean time values between different fare media could be explained by using Independent sample t-test. The result explained in Table 3 shows that mean marginal boarding time value with IC card is significantly different with mean marginal boarding time value of bus card, cash/coin and pass users. The average time taken for IC card is least compared to bus card and cash/coin where as slightly higher than pass card. Bus card user and cash/coin user incur longer boarding times than IC card user. They often control the duration of bus dwell time. Bus card users find

1121 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

difficult in inserting card, buy new card with driver, and Coin users need time to find exact change, they drop coin resulting higher delay.

Table 2 Marginal Alighting Time Fare Medias N Mean (Sec) Std. Deviation (Sec) IC Card 241 1.887 1.020 Pay by One card only 320 3.095 1.306 Bus Card Change card & Pay 25 10.085 4.283 (Magnetic Card) All 345 3.602 2.481 Exact Pay 127 2.205 1.439 Coin or Cash Change & Pay 17 15.537 8.391 All 143 3.793 5.339 Pass Card (Commuter Ticket) 239 2.034 1.426

Table 3. Comparison of Boarding Times t-test for Equality of Mean Boarding Times Remark Comparison Significance Mean t-Critical (2- (Sig. different if t df (2-tailed) Difference tailed) <0.05) IC Card – Bus Card -6.170 441 0.000 -1.565 1.965 Sig. different IC Card – Cash/Coin -2.770 132 0.006 -1.669 1.978 Sig. different IC Card – Pass holder 2.386 198 0.018 0.441 1.972 Sig. different Bus Card – Cash/Coin -0.242 401 0.809 -0.104 1.966 Not Sig. different Bus Card – Pass Card 9.076 467 0.000 2.007 1.965 Sig. different Cash/Coin – Pass Card 4.033 158 0.000 2.111 1.975 Sig. different

Similarly, while comparing the average marginal alighting payment time for IC Card with other fare media, the time taken for IC card is least. The difference of mean values between different payment methods can be explained by using Independent sample t-test as in Table 4. The result shows that mean value of IC card payment method is significantly different with other rest of payment methods. The difference of alighting payment time for bus card and cash card could not be explained.

Table 4. Comparison of Alighting Times t-test for Equality of Mean Alighting Times Remark Comparison Significance Mean t Critical (Sig. different if t df (2-tailed) Difference (2-tailed) <0.05) IC Card – Bus Card -10.147 584 0.000 -1.715 0.107 Sig. different IC Card – Cash/Coin -5.383 382 0.000 -1.906 1.966 Sig. different IC Card – Pass holder -2.187 478 0.029 -0.247 1.965 Sig. different Bus Card – Cash/Coin -0.539 486 0.590 -0.191 1.965 Not Sig. different Bus Card – Pass Card 8.249 582 0.000 1.467 1.964 Sig. different Cash/Coin – Pass Card 4.543 380 0.000 1.659 1.966 Sig. different

1122 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

Consequently, the difference between boarding and alighting time for each fare media was tested by using Independent sample t-test as in Table 5. The alighting takes longer than boarding time for all fare media except for pass card. However, the difference in average marginal boarding time and alighting time for cash/coin as well as pass card are not significantly different.

Table 5. Comparison of Boarding and Alighting Times t-test for Equality of Mean Boarding & Alighting Times Remark Fare Media Significance Mean t Critical (Sig. different if t df (2-tailed) Difference (2—tailed) <0.05 IC Card -3.489 326 0.000 -0.501 1.967 Sig. different Bus Card (Magnetic Card) -1.964 699 0.049 -0.351 1.963 Sig. different Not Sig. Coin or Cash -0.295 188 0.768 -0.264 1.972 different Pass Card (Commuter Not Sig. 1.219 350 0.224 0.188 1.966 Ticket) different

4.3.3 Influence of Multiple Fare Media on Bus Boarding/Alighting Time A number of multiple linear regression models were developed for total bus boarding/alighting time with multiple fare media as independent variables. Four models have been presented, two for alighting payment case and two for boarding payment case. The accuracy of these models was assessed based on R2 values and t-value for independent variables obtained after least square regression.

During morning peak hour, the data showed higher numbers of boarding passenger with few case of alighting. Hence, total dwell time is mainly due to boarding only and fare payment models mentioned here has developed considering boarding case only as shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Fare payment model I relate total boarding time, number of boarding passengers with four types of fare media by multiple regression analysis.

Table 6. Fare Payment Model I Passenger service time = f(x) Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Intercept 1.584 1.288 1.229 0.022

IC Card (ICB) 2.104 0.452 4.649 0.000

Bus Card (BCB) 3.163 0.318 9.933 0.000

Cash/Coin (CCB) 4.348 0.825 5.272 0.000

Pass Card (PCB) 2.529 0.503 5.027 0.000 R Square = 0.795

The boarding time with bus card and cash/coin has larger variation. Bus cards users find difficulties in inserting card, buy new card with driver, or use two cards for payment, and Cash/Coin users need time to find exact change, change the cash/coin with machine, they drop coin resulting higher delay. Hence, in fare payment model II, bus card users are divided into users who pay by single bus card, and those who use two bus cards when balance is not sufficient in one card and one who buy card with driver. Cash/coin users also divided into

1123 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

passengers with exact pay and passengers who use change slot to change coin for payment. The total boarding time increase with increase in such type of passengers. The multiple regression analysis result has been shown in Table 9. Table 7. Fare Payment Model II Passenger service time = f(x) Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Intercept 1.671 1.053 1.587 0.016

IC Card, ICB 2.016 0.369 5.462 0.000

Bus Card (Pay by one card), BCB1 3.110 0.263 11.794 0.000

Bus Card (Change card and pay), BCB2 9.710 1.739 5.583 0.000

Cash/Coin (Exact pay), CCB1 2.473 0.733 3.378 0.001

Cash/Coin (Change and pay), CCB2 13.288 1.633 8.134 0.000

Pass Card, PCB 2.178 0.411 5.301 0.000 R Square =0.868

Selected station for studying alighting payment process is the terminal station where there are no boarding passengers. Thus, fare payment model III consider passenger service time as the dependent variable and number of alighting passengers with four types of fare media, IC card, bus card, cash/coin and pass card as independent variable. The total passenger service time is the time elapsed since start of fare payment by first passenger to the complete alighting of last passenger. Table 8. Fare Payment Model III Passenger service time = f(x) Coefficients Standard Error t-stat P-value Intercept 11.288 2.598 4.345 0.000

IC Card (ICA) 1.331 0.638 2.085 0.003

Bus Card (BCA) 2.615 0.482 5.418 0.000

Cash/Coin (CCA) 3.624 0.857 4.226 0.003

Pass Card (PCA) 2.998 0.544 5.511 0.000 R Square = 0.827

Similar to boarding payment case, bus card users are divided into users who pay by single bus card, and those who use two bus cards or buy card with driver before paying. Also, cash/coin users also divided into passengers with exact pay and passengers who change coin for payment. The fare payment model IV as a result of multiple regression analysis has been shown in Table 9. Statistically all four model can represent the passenger service time satisfactorily as the R2 value and t-values for individuals’ variables are significant at 5% significance level. The higher coefficients were observed, as shown in Table 7 and 9, for independent variables bus card (change card and pay) and cash/coin (change and pay). Also, Table 7 and 9 showed that the multiple regression models separating some independent variables produced better R2 value.

The estimated coefficients for fare payment models showed that the coefficient associated with model I and model II are higher than Model III and IV. It indicates that boarding time is higher than alighting time as the models I and II are associated with passenger boarding where as model III and IV are associated with alighting. However, the coefficient for each payment types when compared with marginal payment time shows some differences. It is to be noted that the

1124 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

measurement of marginal payment time by considering two reference point around fare box. During passenger crowding sometime it is difficult to find exact separation between two passengers. Table 9. Fare Payment Model IV Passenger service time = f(x) Coefficients Standard Error t-stat P-value Intercept 11.180 1.903 5.874 0.000

IC Card, ICA 1.425 0.469 3.039 0.003

Bus Card (Pay by one card), BCA1 2.453 0.367 6.676 0.000

Bus Card (Change card and pay), BCA2 7.986 2.542 3.142 0.003

Cash/Coin (Exact pay), CCA1 2.333 0.656 3.557 0.000

Cash/Coin (Change and pay), CCA2 18.987 2.142 8.865 0.000

Pass Card, PCA 2.562 0.401 6.349 0.000 R Square = 0.91

4.3.4 Effect of Predecessor’s Payment Method on Smart Card It was assumed that the predecessor’s boarding/alighting and payment process will affect the follower’s boarding/alighting and payment process. Table 10 and Table 11 have demonstrated the average marginal boarding/alighting time for smart card (IC card) payment cases with different payment media by preceding rider, and IC card as the first starting payment has taken least time. The payment time is least when the predecessors payment method is bus card as passengers can start tap the IC card even before completion of bus card reading by fare machine. Though Table 10 shows the differences in IC card fare processing time for different predecessors, the difference in mean value is significant only for Bus card and pass card as the leader’s payment method. IC card payment time with pervious payment also by IC card has larger value compared to previous payment by bus card or Cash/Coin. However, the difference couldn’t be statistically validated as a significant.

Table 10. Effect of Predecessor’s Fare Media on IC Card

Predecessor’s Alighting Time Boarding Time payment method N Mean Std. Deviation N Mean Std. Deviation Start 27 1.868 1.122 13 2.395 0.446 IC card 67 1.931 0.919 16 2.358 1.019 Bus Card 64 1.664 0.753 45 2.295 1.779 Cash/Coin 26 1.948 1.148 4 2.875 1.081 Pass Card 57 2.065 1.250 8 2.925 1.475

5. CONCLUSION

Bus dwell time mainly depends on numbers of passenger boarding and alighting, and then fare collection (payment) process used. The fare collection (payment) process is affected by fare pricing policy and payment type and technology adopted. Minimizing fare payment time and its variation is a key factor for the improvement of bus service reliability. Therefore, bus companies

1125 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

are implementing advance technology of fare payment such as smart card for the purpose of reducing passenger service time as well as reducing fare counterfeiting. This paper attempted to study the effect of existence of multiple fare media for on passenger service time at bus stop.

It is natural that the IC card payment and commuting passes consume least time for fare payment processing. However, when rider use exact required cash/coin, the marginal payment time in not significantly different with other fare media. The effect of predecessor’s fare payment process on the follower’s payment process was examined for IC card to study whether the existence of other fare media can influence the performance of the particular fare media. Though some differences in the marginal values for different predecessor were observed, the differences could not be verified statistically.

In this way, using cash as fare media is easiest as everybody will be carrying cash and occasional travelers and new users can also use it conveniently. On the other hand, using advanced fare payment media such as smart card (IC card) gives possibilities of applying wide range of fare options, such as zonal/distance based fare, promotion fare, discounted fare etc in the simplistic manner as IC card can store large amount data in its memory. Moreover, IC card is much more useful when company wants to adopt the transfer policy between different routes of bus or transfer policy between bus route and other different modes such as mass rapid transit or transfer policy between other bus companies. This type of system they have been using in Japan is example for co-existence of multiple fare media without significant effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S6-5) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The authors would like to pay sincere gratitude to the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

REFERENCES

Dorbritz, R. Luthi, M., Weidmann, U. and Nash, A. (2009), Effects of On-Board Ticket Sales on Public Transport Reliability, Transportation Research Board, TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD- ROM, Washington, D.C. Dueker, K.J., Kimpel, T.J., and Strathman, J.G. (2004), Determinants of Bus Dwell Time, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol.7, No.1, Fleishman, D., Shaw, N., Joshi, A. and Freeze, R. (1996) Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies, TCRP Report 10, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1996 Guenthner, R. P. and Hamat, K. (1988) Transit Dwell Time under Complex Fare Structure, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 3, May/June 1988, pp. 367-379 Guenthner, R. P. and Sinha, K. C. (1983) Modeling bus delays due to passenger boarding and alighting. Transportation Research Record, 915: 7-13 Levinson, H. S., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Gast, J., Rutherford, S.R., and Bruhn, E. (2003) TCRP

1126 Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9, 2011

Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2 : Implementation Guide Lines, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/ tcrp_rpt_90v2.pdf, [Accessed November 3, 2008] Rajbhandari, R., Chien, S.I., and Daniel, J.R. (2003) Estimation of Bus Dwell Times with Automatic Passenger Counter Information, Transportation Research Record No. 1841, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., TCRP Report 80 (2002), A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-free Fare Collection, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1996

1127