Oregon Department of Transportation

Electronic Fare System Peer Analysis

December 19, 2016

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 0

I. Introduction ...... 2

II. Implementation Cost ...... 4

III. Funding Strategies ...... 6

IV. Fare Policy Goals ...... 8

V. Operations Impacts ...... 9

VI. Public Outreach & Customer Adoption ...... 10

VII. Staffing ...... 12

VIII. eFare Implementation Challenges ...... 13

IX. Regional Inter-Agency Coordination ...... 15

X. Institutional Programs...... 16

XI. Financial Settlement & Reconciliation ...... 17

XII. Summary Observations ...... 18

Appendix A: Peer Agency Interviews ...... 20

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Jennifer Largaespada ...... 21

County Connection, Anne Muzzini ...... 27

Petaluma Transit, Joe Rye ...... 34

Rio Vista Delta Breeze, Jim McElroy ...... 41

Metro, Robin O’Hara ...... 47

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Barbara Andres ...... 52

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 1

Executive Summary

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is considering the expansion of TriMet’s Hop Fastpass system in Regions 1 and 2 in northwestern Oregon. To gather lessons learned and best practices from peer transit agencies on either launching or joining an eFare system, CH2M conducted telephone interviews with six agencies from two different eFare systems, Clipper in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Transit Access Pass (TAP) in Los Angeles County:

• Clipper, San Francisco Bay Area o Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) o Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) o Petaluma Transit o Rio Vista City Transit (Rio Vista Delta Breeze) • TAP, Los Angeles County o Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) o Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB)

The peer reviews were structured to inform key areas of eFare system implementation and address the following topics: Implementation Cost Staffing Funding Strategies eFare Implementation Challenges Fare Policy Goals Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Operations Impacts Institutional Programs Public Outreach & Customer Adoption Financial Settlement & Reconciliation

Key Findings

With the following key observations about peer agencies and their implementations, ODOT can distill the most pertinent lessons and consider them in determining the future expansion of TriMet’s Hop Fastpass system.

• Fare Policy : Unless mandated by a lead funding agency, agencies are not apt to change their fare policy to adapt to regional standards. All agencies interviewed believe that fare simplification is a worthy goal. • Staffing : Agencies that manage their respective eFare systems , such as Metro and MTC, experience significant growth in staffing levels while the agencies that participate see either little or no change to existing staff levels. Identifying adequate staffing levels is the biggest challenge for the smallest agencies.

• Implementation Challenges : as noted by the peer review agencies o Conducting fare coordination for County Connection’s group implementation amongst four agencies o The lack of trust in Metro as the lead agency in the nascent days of TAP development o BBB’s lack of data integration with separate datasets for ridership and revenue reporting

• Rio Vista: Several reasons contributed to Rio Vista’s decision to decline participation in the Clipper program. o Inadequate Rio Vista staffing for Clipper oversight o Specialized fare programs, passes, and variable fares that did not work well with Clipper fare structure o Fleet that could not accommodate full size devices on board o Operating cost relative to the city budget

• Customer Adoption : The rate of adoption correlates with the presence of financial incentives and/or the elimination of alternative fare media, customer convenience, and duration of program implementation. In general, customer adoption does not increase significantly in the absence of financial incentive (e.g., discounts available to those using the eFare instrument), or the elimination of legacy fare media. • Funding : Both TAP and Clipper derived capital funding from federal sources, Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). • Institutional Programs : All agencies with institutional programs waited until they had launched their eFare systems before switching their institutional programs to smart card, usually at least a year. • Regional Inter-Agency Coordination : TAP and Clipper hold regional meetings on a regular basis to obtain approval and buy in from participating agencies on current and future operational tasks.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 1

I. Introduction

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is considering the expansion of TriMet’s Hop Fastpass system in Regions 1 and 2 in northwestern Oregon. To gather lessons learned and best practices from peer transit agencies on either launching or joining an eFare system, CH2M interviewed six agencies from two different eFare systems, Clipper in San Francisco Bay Area, and Transit Access Pass (TAP) in Los Angeles County. CH2M interviewed four agencies from the Clipper program and two agencies from the TAP program. The agencies interviewed include:

• Clipper, San Francisco Bay Area o Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) o County Connection o Petaluma Transit o Rio Vista City Transit, Rio Vista Delta Breeze (Rio Vista) • TAP, Los Angeles County o Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) o Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB)

All agencies except for one, MTC, operate transit service. MTC is responsible for funding and operating the Clipper program and provides coordination between the 22 agencies that participate in the program. Similar to MTC, Metro in Los Angeles also is responsible for the funding and operations of the TAP program but operates the majority of transit service in the region. Rio Vista City Transit that operates Delta Breeze service is the one agency interviewed that did not implement Clipper on its system. Rio Vista was slated to join the Clipper program as part of a group implementation with MTC funding but later decided to opt out of the program due to projected high cost of operations from adding additional staff.

County Connection and Petaluma Transit are unique cases as each agency joined Clipper as part of a group implementation, as mandated by MTC. County Connection joined the Clipper system as part of a group of four transit agencies collectively called East Bay group. Petaluma Transit joined the Clipper system as part of a group of two transit agencies called 101 Corridor group.

The interviewed agencies represent a diverse array of transit service from the large regional service provider, Metro, to the small local service provided by Petaluma Transit.

Table 1 includes information on the scale of the respective eFare systems, the size of each of the transit agencies, and provides a comparable Oregon agency that is similar in size.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 2

Table 1: Peer Agencies Selected for Review Number of Comparable Number of Annual Program Participating Agency Interviewed Oregon Agency Vehicles Ridership Agencies MTC TriMet N/A 240 million County Connection SKT Cherriots 117 3.5 million Petaluma Transit Wilsonville 20 385,000 Clipper 22 Rio Vista Delta Breeze ODOT 5 12,500 Columbia Gorge Metro N/A 2,700 480 million TAP 26 Santa Monica Big Blue Lane Transit 200 18.9 million Bus District Source: Ridership data is from NTD 2014. *Average market share of all 22 participating agencies in Clipper.

Clipper and TAP programs launched within two years of each other in the mid to late 2000s and are both very large programs with similar number of participating agencies, 22 and 26 respectively. The six agencies interviewed span from the small Rio Vista Delta Breeze service with five vehicles to the giant service provided by Metro with 2,700 vehicles. Ridership corresponds to each agency’s number of vehicles with the highest annual number of riders, 480 million, attributed to Metro.

The peer reviews were structured to inform key areas of eFare system implementation and address the following topics:

1. Implementation Cost 2. Funding Strategies 3. Fare Policy Goals 4. Operations Impacts 5. Public Outreach & Customer Adoption 6. Staffing 7. eFare Implementation Challenges 8. Regional Inter-Agency Coordination 9. Institutional Programs 10. Financial Settlement & Reconciliation

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 3

II. Implementation Cost

Implementation cost represents the price of bringing an agency onto an eFare system, including the cost of the materials and labor by the lead agency and its contractors. The Southern California agencies Metro and BBB did not have readily available information for their implementation cost. The implementation cost for the three Clipper agencies, all of which joined the eFare system as part of a group implementation, is listed below.

MTC pursued grouped Clipper implementation for smaller agencies in the 9-county Bay Area to reduce the cost and time for installation. With this approach Clipper added 11 agencies in less than 36 months, between notice to proceed for Napa-Solano in spring 2013 and public launch of the 101 Corridor operator group in winter 2016.

Key aspects of grouped implementation included similar fare structure across all agencies in the group (e.g., transfer windows, fare categories, pass types), a single fiscal agent for the group, and coordinated installation of equipment.

Cost Table 2 identifies the total cost for the Clipper contractor to implement the group of operators for each of the interviewed agencies. The table also notes the number of agencies in the implementation group, number of vehicles within group, number of vehicles of the interviewed agencies, and duration of implementation.

Table 2: Implementation Cost for Transit Agencies on Clipper Total Group Implementation Agencies Vehicles Agency Duration of Program Agency Implementation Group in Group in Vehicles Implementation Cost Group County East Bay 4 300 117 Total $4.4 million Connection

Petaluma 101 Corridor 3 94 10 Total $2.4 million Clipper Transit 18 months Rio Vista Delta Napa Solano 5 154 5 Total $1.8 million Breeze

• County Connection is part of the four agency East Bay operator group, comprised of four agencies and 300 total vehicles. • Petaluma Transit’s contract placed it as part of a three agency implementation with a total cost of $2.4 million for 94 vehicles. • Rio Vista opted to not join Clipper but it was originally part of a five-agency implementation with 154 vehicles at a total cost of $1.8 million.

Clipper implementation costs are comprised of software (e.g., fare policies, testing, reporting), and hardware (on-board card readers) necessary to launch and operate the system.

• Software development is relatively similar for each participating transit operator

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 4

• Equipment costs are generally proportional to the fleet size

Duration of Implementation All three agencies’ implementation period lasted 18 months . County Connection and Petaluma Transit’s implementation period spanned from Spring 2014 to Winter 2016. Although Rio Vista did not join Clipper, the implementation period of its group spanned from Spring 2013 to Winter 2015.

Agency Lessons Learned Agencies were able to accommodate the multi-agency coordination and fare simplification demands necessary for Clipper implementation.

Costs include the contractor costs for equipment and installation such as vehicle equipment, ticket office terminals, and equipment at bus yards, requirements capture, software development, testing, and training.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 5

III. Funding Strategies

Identifying funding sources for eFare implementation is an essential step to successfully launch transit agencies onto eFare. Agencies have to support capital and operating costs, and there are generally different strategies for each of these.

Capital funds are used to purchase devices and equipment and pay for the labor needed to coordinate and install equipment. These funds are used to prepare for the launch of the eFare system.

Operating funds provide the means to operate an ongoing eFare system, tasks that must be accommodated include operations and maintenance of the system, training, reconciliation, IT support, customer service, marketing and outreach, and ongoing coordination amongst regional agencies and maintenance of software and equipment.

The peer survey asked whether agencies paid capital costs to join an eFare system and to identify their capital and operating funding sources.

Findings Capital Funding • MTC obtained capital funding for County Connection, Rio Vista, and Petaluma Transit from two different federal sources, which are administered by the Federal and Highway Administration: o Surface Transportation Program (STP) which provides states with flexible funding that may be used for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, which support surface transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief. • One of MTC’s transit agencies, Fairfield and Suisun Transit, paid for its implementation with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), implementation funds. • BBB , under the TAP program, leases hardware, mobile validators and Point of Sale equipment from Metro and thus did not absorb a significant capital cost. • Metro also obtained capital funding for TAP from federal funds.

Operating Funding • Although MTC pays for a portion of Clipper operating costs, including regional maintenance and help desk as well as general system operations and maintenance, the participating agencies pay for variable transaction fees, including credit/debit payment processing. MTC staff cost for management of the Clipper program is paid for by a mix of local, state and federal transportation funds as well as investment income. The variable operating costs are split amongst the participating agencies based on a share of the program ridership and revenue generated by each system. Agencies indicated that additional operating costs were incorporated into existing agency budgets. • In contrast to MTC, Metro provides full operating funding to its municipal agencies since it operates 86% of transit service in the greater Los Angeles region.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 6

FTA Funding • County Connection and BBB , under the Clipper and TAP programs, have had no problems receiving Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding for bus purchases or farebox refurbishment, respectively.

Agency Lessons Learned Metro and MTC both fund capital costs through federal grants to join their respective eFare systems. Yet Metro provides operations funding while MTC does not. Metro is by far the largest provider of transit service in the region, 86%, and as such takes on the operating cost of TAP.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 7

IV. Fare Policy Goals

Each agency determines its unique fare policy, such as the fare categories offered, how much it will charge for adults or children, types of transfers on its own system, and transfers onto other transit agencies. Fare policy serves as a tool to balance customer ease of use and revenue goals. The peer survey asked questions related to agencies’ fare policy goals in launching eFare system and whether agencies changed their fare policy for eFare system.

Findings Overall Goals All agencies had similar fare policy goals for their respective systems: a desire for a universal fare system, ease of payment across transit agencies in region, reduction of cash fares, and faster boarding times.

Changes to Fare Policy • The majority of agencies, Metro, BBB , and Rio Vista maintained their respective fare policies. • County Connection and Petaluma Transit , who participated in two different group implementations as mandated by MTC changed their fare policies for the eFare system. • County Connection agreed upon fare policy as part of a four agency implementation. • Petaluma Transit changed its fare policy to be consistent with its partner agency. • Rio Vista who chose not to join Clipper had specialized fare programs, passes, and variable fares that did not work well with Clipper. This reason amongst others contributed to Rio Vista’s decision to decline participation in the Clipper program.

Fare Simplification • All transit agencies from both TAP and Clipper agreed that fare simplification is recommended but is dependent on the will and motivation of the transit agencies to implement changes to their fare policies. • County Connection noted that it is a “tough lift to simplify the fare structure – you don’t know what’s going to happen if you eliminate something. Laying the groundwork for potential future consolidation is not something that’s done easily.” • Metro acknowledged that simplification is good “if you can get municipal agencies on board.”

Fees for Transportation Options (Bike Share, Parking) • No agency included fees for other transportation options such as bike share, bike locker rental, parking in their eFare systems.

Agency Lessons Learned Only two agencies, County Connection and Petaluma Transit, changed their fare policies in coordination with others when mandated by the funding entity, MTC. Rio Vista had a specialized and variable fare structure that did not translate well to Clipper and contributed to its many problems with Clipper implementation. Overall, agencies recommended fare simplification where possible but acknowledged that there are challenges to implementation since it requires significant coordination and consensus amongst many stakeholders.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 8

V. Operations Impacts

An eFare system introduces new devices and equipment on-board vehicles. Those new devices come with a whole array of possible issues with operating and maintaining new equipment. The peer survey focused on what type of impacts arose from eFare system implementation, specifically on dwell time and device operations and maintenance.

Findings Dwell Time • County Connection and Petaluma Transit did not see significant improvement to their dwell times. • Rio Vista did not launch Clipper therefore has no change to its dwell time. • Metro’s dwell time has greatly improved as a result of its TAP system. • BBB has significantly improved its on-time performance (from high 60% to over 80%) with TAP implementation.

Devices • Metro, BBB , and Petaluma Transit did not experience any significant operations or maintenance impacts with its devices. • County Connection experienced a significant operational challenge with a conflict in the alignment of Clipper device functionality with operational procedures, specifically driver breaks. o Issue: Clipper devices would turn off automatically five minutes after the driver shut off the vehicle, which was shorter than the 15-minute driver break. Upon completion of the break drivers pick up passengers immediately, which Clipper cannot accommodate as the equipment takes 2-3 minutes to go into service upon vehicle ignition. o Resolution: County Connection’s maintenance manager installed a switch in the Clipper power line to prevent automatic shutoff after five minutes.

Agency Lessons Learned eFare systems either improved (Metro, BBB) or had no discernible impact on dwell time. There were no significant problems with operations or maintenance during launch, though County Connection encountered an issue with its devices that did not fit with its bus operations. By reworking the device’s power connection, County Connection was able to resolve its problem.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 9

VI. Public Outreach & Customer Adoption

The purpose of public outreach is to notify riders that an eFare system will soon arrive and educate them on how to use the new system. With an extensive and comprehensive public outreach campaign, agencies hope their customers will adopt the new eFare system in large numbers in order to achieve regional goals of ease of travel and payment. The peer survey asked questions on agencies’ public outreach strategies and customer adoption rates.

Findings Implemented Strategies • All agencies utilized the same methods to educate and reach out to the customers such as social media, website, email outreach, outreach at community events, bus exterior and shelter advertisements, on-board pamphlets or Take Ones, and press releases. • BBB launched a “Buy one, get one free” promotion, valid for transit passes and cash value for up to $20. • MTC notes that Clipper roll out during the last two months was most important as riders generally adopted within the last two months. There were few early adopters. • MTC in preparation for the launch of early adopters onto Clipper : o Deployed teams of staff at major transit hubs and larger stations to assist people and show them how the fare gates work. o Provided greater assistance to youth and seniors because they had to apply for special discounted fares.

Customer Adoption Rates

Table 3 summarizes the adoption rate of each interviewed agency as well as the year that its eFare system launched.

Table 3: Customer Adoption Rate by Agency Program Agency Interviewed Adoption Rate Year Launched MTC 50% 2006 County Connection 20% 2015 Clipper Petaluma Transit 2% 2016 Rio Vista Delta Breeze N/A N/A Metro 65% -69% 2008 TAP Santa Monica Big Blue Bus 17% 2015

• Rate of customer adoption ranges from 2% for Petaluma Transit to almost 70% for Metro • The rate of adoption seems to correlate with how long the transit agency has operated an eFare system. • MTC – larger agencies are required to eliminate competing fare media that replicate the functionality offered on the Clipper card. This requirement was waived for grouped agencies, including County Connection and Petaluma Transit , and in conjunction with the relative youth of the program with these agencies accounts for the adoption rate differential.

Agency Lessons Learned All agencies used similar marketing and public outreach strategies that included social media, website, email outreach, outreach at community events, bus exterior and shelter advertisements, on-board

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 10

pamphlets or Take Ones, and press releases. Both MTC and BBB had more specific strategies that helped their transition to eFare system. MTC took a hands on approach with the Clipper early adopters and deployed teams of staff at major transit hubs and larger stations to assist people, providing extra assistance to seniors and youth. BBB launched a “Buy one, get one free” promotion, which encouraged more riders to switch to TAP.

Metro emphasizes that there were a few agencies that did not want to join TAP. Despite some opposition, TAP continued to move forward with its implementation and became a very successful program with a market share in the high 60% range. Higher market share also comes over time as evidenced by the higher market shares from agencies that launched many years ago versus more recent launches.

MTC notes that although riders were given advance notice of the Clipper system launch, riders waited until paper media was no longer accepted to switch over to the new system. Rollout during the last two months was most important. Riders generally adopted within the last two months and there were few early adopters.

County Connection noted that the segment of their customers that also use BART, the regional rail system that also supports Clipper, were eagerly awaiting Clipper launch. In the absence of other incentives, the relatively high adoption rate given the age of the program, launched in November 2015, is likely due to these customers use of the system.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 11

VII. Staffing

With the implementation of a new and technologically complex system, agencies must evaluate if they are prepared to take on the responsibilities and added tasks of overseeing an eFare system. Staffing plays an important part of implementation since agencies must identify or hire staff members capable of undertaking new tasks. The peer survey asked agencies how staffing levels changed with eFare implementation.

Findings Increase in Staff Members • Metro staff grew from four to 54 employees. • MTC ’s staff grew from a handful to 12 employees and also employs a number of consultants. • Petaluma Transit brought on consultants to manage the data and revenue aspects of Clipper.

No Change or Insufficient Staffing • BBB and County Connection did not add any additional staff members to operate TAP and Clipper. • Rio Vista lacked sufficient staff to oversee daily operations of the system.

Agency Lessons Learned Agencies that manage their respective eFare systems experience significant growth in staffing levels while the agencies that participate see either little or no change to existing staff levels.

Rio Vista , as a participating agency, was an exception. Since its operations of five vehicles is so small, Rio Vista employs a part time transit manager. With the Clipper program, Rio Vista would need to devote additional time and resources and simply did not have the staff to oversee the Clipper program. As such, Rio Vista did not join Clipper program due to limited resources.

Metro also recommends keeping Customer Relationship Management in house if possible since it has learned that it is the best way to control quality of the interactions with riders.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 12

VIII. eFare Implementation Challenges

Peer agencies encountered a wide range of implementation challenges related to fare policy, administrative oversight, data integration, fleet and equipment, and whether implementation was worth the effort. Some agencies were challenged to agree upon shared fare policy, hire additional staff for eFare operations, find ways to integrate eFare and legacy systems, or troubleshoot devices that did not suit transit operations. The peer survey asked agencies about their most prominent challenges in eFare implementation.

Findings Fare Policy • County Connection and Petaluma Transit both joined Clipper as group implementations. • Petaluma Transit had to agree on fare policy with only one other agency. o As the smaller of the two agencies, it adapted to the larger agency’s fare policy. • County Connection had a larger challenge with three other agencies with which to coordinate and decide on a joint set of business rules. o Settling on a common set of business rules was challenging as well as deciding on a revenue splitting agreement. o Conducting a fair amount of independent coordination to make sure they acted as a group for the purposes of design and implementation.

Administrative Oversight • Metro attributes the majority of its challenges to the lack of trust in Metro in the nascent days of development. o Issue: Participating agencies feared that Metro was estimating TAP usage based on paper passes and that when TAP arrived revenue would be reduced because it recorded actual rides. Agencies also did not trust that Metro was settling and recording settlement correctly. o Solution: Metro changed the management staff in the TAP office and the new staff members fostered trust and collaboration in the region and made it easier to implement the program. • Petaluma Transit and Rio Vista as the smallest agencies interviewed find that because of their small staff size, it is difficult to oversee Clipper operations. • Rio Vista with its insufficient staffing was not able to operate Clipper on its system.

Data Integration • County Connection has not been able to integrate Clipper with its Automatic People Counter data. o Since County Connection cannot tell what route the riders are on, they cannot reconcile ridership and fare payment methods. o Data is manually entered by the driver to address this problem. • BBB has two completely separate datasets for ridership and revenue reporting since there is no communication between the TAP system and its legacy system, which are separate and not integrated in any fashion.

Fleet & Equipment • Rio Vista’s fleet could not accommodate full-size Clipper on-board equipment. o To address this challenge, Rio Vista ended up using a handheld device instead of the full size dedicated on-board equipment.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 13

Worthy and Valuable Endeavor? • All agencies , with the exception of Rio Vista, believe that it is a worthy and valuable endeavor to join a regional eFare system. • Rio Vista with its non-fixed route service with variable fares, small fleet size, and insufficient staffing did not find Clipper to be a valuable endeavor. • Petaluma Transit notes that at this time, its ridership on Clipper is insignificant but when a new train service launches on Clipper, its Clipper ridership will grow. • BBB acknowledged that joining TAP was valuable but also states that the current speed of execution for TAP is not fast enough to ensure that the technology, when implemented, will meet its future needs.

Agency Lessons Learned As evidenced by County Connection, group implementations are difficult due to the high level coordination to agree upon common policies and determine a revenue sharing formula. Metro’s TAP implementation suffered from a lack of trust from the participating agencies and notes that any agency needs to ensure that customer focused management is in place before launching an eFare system. Metro specifies that management needs to have negotiating skills, a politically savvy staff, and be key influencers in the region. Data integration with legacy systems is also a challenge as well as ensuring that devices fit properly in vehicles.

Despite these challenges, all agencies except Rio Vista, think that joining an eFare system is a valuable and worthy endeavor.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 14

IX. Regional Inter-Agency Coordination

Clipper and TAP are both large regional programs with 22 and 26 participating agencies, respectively. They require substantial coordination efforts to ensure that all agencies are communicating and up to date on current and future operations. The peer survey focused on the types of initial and ongoing coordination structures in place to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system and whether participating agencies have a voice during vendor contract renewal.

Findings • MTC and Metro hold regular program meetings on an ongoing basis for all participating agencies to obtain approval from municipal agencies and listen to their concerns on a variety of operating issues. • BBB, County Connection, and Petaluma Transit participate in their respective program meetings. • Only MTC commented on its contract renewal process o Currently, MTC has one contract with Cubic that is valid through 2019. o At the time of renewal, participating agencies will have quite a bit of influence on the contract vendor.

Agency Lessons Learned Clipper and TAP programs provide regular meetings for participating agencies to voice opinions on current operations and future tasks. Metro notes that it is important to obtain approval early on from participating agencies to successfully operate and maintain an eFare system

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 15

X. Institutional Programs

Institutional programs are complex, involve educational and employer institutions, and require tracking the eligibility of all participants. The introduction of an eFare system presents new challenges in how an agency can serve its institutional program participants with a smart card instead of paper based products. The peer survey focused on how agencies phased their smart card launches and whether they transitioned their institutional programs before or at the same time as their eFare system.

Findings Agencies with Institutional Programs • Petaluma Transit and Rio Vista did not have institutional programs that were transferred to Clipper. • County Connection, BBB, MTC, and Metro all have transferred institutional programs to eFare system.

Institutional Program Launch Time Line • Metro is the only agency interviewed that implemented an institutional program, a University Pass or U Pass, at TAP launch. o Metro is now piloting a new U Pass where all riders use the same college pass, subsidized by all colleges in the region. • BBB launched both its college pass and employer program one year after TAP launch • Clipper agencies such as Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Alameda Contra Costa Transit rolled out their program within two to three years after Clipper launched. o VTA had such a large institutional program that it had to split up implementation into two parts. • County Connection is currently launching its institutional program one year after Clipper launch. • Most operators in the Clipper system are still utilizing paper passes because it is much easier than converting to smart card.

Agency Lessons Learned All agencies with institutional programs waited until they had launched their eFare systems before switching their institutional programs to smart card, usually at least a year. MTC notes that agencies with very large programs might have to split implementation into several phases and that most have stayed with paper passes because of the paper method of delivery is much simpler.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 16

XI. Financial Settlement & Reconciliation

Integrating financial settlement into an eFare system is a fundamental element of a successful system and a goal for all agencies. Without integration, agencies must reconcile multiple sources of data to determine their daily settlement which can be a time intensive task. The peer survey asked whether agencies had successfully integrated financial reporting into the new eFare system.

Findings • Metro, Petaluma Transit, and County Connection have successfully managed financial integration. • BBB has not integrated financial reporting into its eFare system because it has two completely separate datasets for ridership and revenue reporting. • Rio Vista did not join the Clipper program and could not comment on financial settlement.

Agency Lessons Learned

All agencies except for BBB successfully integrated financial settlement and reconciliation into their eFare systems. BBB notes that its lack of integration between its fare box and TAP mobile validators creates more work for its staff members because the two data sets must be reconciled manually.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 17

XII. Summary Observations

The most applicable lessons learned from peer agencies are related to funding, fare policy, customer adoption, data and device integration, customer communication, staffing levels, regional inter-agency coordination, and institutional programs. In particular, Rio Vista provides a useful case study in why smaller transit agencies may choose not to join an existing eFare system. Below are the key observations gathered from peer agencies that ODOT can draw upon when considering expansion of TriMet’s Hop Fastpass system.

• Funding : Both TAP and Clipper derived capital funding from federal sources, namely:

o Surface Transportation Program (STP) o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) o American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

• Fare Policy : Unless mandated by a lead funding agency, agencies are not apt to change their fare policy to adapt to regional standards. All agencies interviewed believe that fare simplification is a worthy goal. But there must be consensus or considerable motivation to do so amongst all participating agencies since there is substantial effort in coordinating multiple agencies. • Customer Adoption : The rate of adoption correlates with the presence of financial incentives and/or the elimination of alternative fare media, customer convenience, and duration of program implementation. In general, customer adoption does not increase significantly in the absence of financial incentive (e.g., discounts available to those using the eFare instrument), or the elimination of legacy fare media.

• Staffing : Agencies that manage their respective eFare systems, such as Metro and MTC, experience significant growth in staffing levels while the agencies that participate see either little or no change to existing staff levels. o The smallest operators, Rio Vista and Petaluma Transit, both voice the challenge of overseeing Clipper operations. Petaluma Transit was able to provide additional Clipper oversight through the hiring of consultants to collect and analyze data and revenue. But Rio Vista did not manage to find adequate staffing for Clipper operations and opted to decline participation in Clipper.

• Implementation Challenges : o Conducting fare coordination for County Connection’s group implementation o The lack of trust in Metro as the lead agency in the nascent days of TAP development o BBB’s lack of data integration with its two completely separate datasets for ridership and revenue reporting

• Regional Inter-Agency Coordination : Hold regional meetings on a regular basis to obtain approval and buy in from participating agencies on current and future operational tasks.

• Institutional Programs : All agencies with institutional programs waited until they had launched their eFare systems before switching their institutional programs to smart card, usually at least a year.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 18

• Rio Vista: Several reasons contributed to Rio Vista’s decision to decline participation in the Clipper program. o Inadequate Rio Vista staffing for Clipper oversight o Specialized fare programs, passes, and variable fares that did not work well with Clipper fare structure o Fleet that could not accommodate full size devices on board o Operating cost relative to the city budget

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 19

Appendix A: Peer Agency Interviews

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 20

Peer Review Questions November 2, 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Jennifer Largaespada Summary by Question Note: MTC is the provider of the eFare/clipper system and maintains the system architecture. Twenty-two agencies participate. 1. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced when you joined a regional electronic payment system program? Fundamental question was were other transit agencies going to keep their business rules/fare policies or integrate? They decided to keep existing business rules and did not integrate. This was preferable from the customer’s point of view, because only the fare media changed, but it made building the system more complicated. Fare integration will be part of the consideration for the next version of Clipper.

2. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice? eFare in the Bay area was mandated by the State through Resolution 3866, and area agencies were required to participate. A few did not join however.

3. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system? Has customer adoption met expectations? What percentage of your riders currently use the electronic fare system, i.e., market share? What was your rider satisfaction post- implementation (and how did you measure)? Clipper has been in place for 10 years. There were customer adoption expectations, and not all agencies were required to give up paper fares. Smaller agencies were not required to give up paper fares.

* Need to research what percentage use eFare.

Rider satisfaction is fairly high, either in the high 80% or low 90% rating service as good or excellent, based on a survey conducted every other year. The survey is both a telephone survey of card holders and rider intercept survey.

4. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? i. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding? Smaller agencies did not pay.

*Not sure of funding sources. Need to research.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 21

ii. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)? Can you share the upfront (capital) and ongoing operating costs? Did you experience any cost savings?

Knowledge isn’t as detailed as question. Some agencies pay a percentage of operational fees based on their usage. Memos of Understanding (MOUs) exist for other agencies that cost-share based on a formula which is a combination of their size and use of the system.

iii. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system?

MTC pays for expansions.

o If you joined an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? How will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies?

Not sure.

o Did you have any problems with receiving FTA funding for secondary agencies, e.g.? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution and thus require a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? iv. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process?

Currently they have one contract with Cubie that is through 2019 (20 years). At the time of renewal, other agencies will have quite a bit of influence. There will be another requirements capture and more committee work to determine future contracting.

v. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning.

They have regular monthly program meetings on an ongoing basis.

5. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)?

They kept their existing fare policies.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 22

6. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? What were the effects on fare collection (e.g., usage of cash or passes, adoption rate of the new system, operational impacts for drivers, etc.), and were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease) ?

Agencies wanted to keep their same fare policies.

They wanted to reduce cash collection. They did not want to carry multiple fares.

7. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes? Would need to research; no knowledge. 8. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well? Would need to research; no knowledge. 9. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently? Getting people used to the new system was fairly straightforward. Getting people used to how eFare and zone based systems was more difficult. Some agencies required a minimum balance because of the variation of their fares. For example, a ferry ride is $11, so the minimum value to board the ferry is higher. CALTRANS has some commuter rail routes that are $12 a ride.

Rollout was slowly done for agencies. A date was given to customers saying when paper media would no longer be accepted. Advance notice didn’t really help in changing people over. Rollout during the last two months was most important.

They deployed teams of staff at major transit hubs and larger stations to assist people and show them how the fare gates work.

Customers generally adopted within the last two months and there were few early adopters.

Greater assistance was given to youth and seniors because they had to apply for special discounted fare.

Parking had to be integrated as well.

Pre-tax payments had to be accommodated. MTC worked with some benefit providers of pre-tax transit and parking accounts to load directly onto Clipper.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 23

The next version of Clipper is up in the air. They are considering changing to an account based system.

They have integrated a new agency since the initial launch and it is an entirely new service. MTC rail systems made suggestions on fare policy. It is a regional rail service, and they had to do geographic zone based fares for revenue collection.

Currently there is no fare capping. A subcommittee is studying this.

They are evaluating the possibility of integrating more parking lots and bike share.

Schools, employers, and social services have not typically used Clipper. They have a different fare product, like a monthly pass in the system. More are developing their programs to use Clipper.

Maintenance: MTC provides first line of maintenance. Cubie provides new equipment and monitoring it.

Other:

Two agencies have piloted mobile fare apps themselves for just special events.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 24

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? C. Who is your system supplier? D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system? Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system? Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff? K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)? M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection? Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system? Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 25

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned? Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 26

Peer Review Questions October 21, 2016 County Connection, Anne Muzzini Questions 1. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced around joining a regional electronic payment system program?

Biggest issue: being part of a grouped implementation as a later participant in the system, needed to figure out a joint set of business rules. Also – needed revenue splitting agreement. Needed a fair amount of independent coordination to make sure the agencies acted as a group for the purposes of design and implementation. Certain amount of complication associated with the downstream nature of the relationship (MTC holding the contract) and timing around implementation (major decisions on overall system functionality had been made by the time East Bay operators were included) so there weren’t a lot of options or a lot of input.

2. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice?

Promoting ease of fare payment for the passengers. County Connection riders already using it on BART, connecting regional operators, so County Connection customers were anxious to get it, along with Board members. Regional (BART) connection was a major factor. Didn’t eliminate any fare instruments, waiting to see if people shift from paper monthly pass to Clipper pass before making any decisions. Should be easier to do a Title VI analysis if there are fewer people on the paper pass. Haven’t seen as much of a reduction in paper pass use as would have been hoped (still in the first year, Nov. 2015 launch). Implemented a new day pass, that hadn’t been in place. Didn’t eliminate any fare policies. Did a Title VI for adding the day pass (public hearings, Board action). Overall, Clipper hasn’t hurt too bad, would do it over again. Customers have generally liked it. Haven’t been able to assess the revenue impact yet, hasn’t been a year yet, but it makes it easier for the drivers as well as money counting. A few issues with maintenance, keeping track of the devices that are installed on County Connection buses and ensuring Clipper systems are updated, and dealing with Cubic. Net is an advantage.

3. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system? Has customer adoption met expectations, and what percentage of your riders currently use the

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 27

electronic fare system, i.e., market share? What was your rider satisfaction post- implementation (and how did you measure)? Eleven months since launch (Nov. ’15), Clipper adoption is ~20% of potential customers (those that pay a fare, i.e., 20% excludes that portion of the customer base that uses free shuttles and/or employer programs). The expectation is that it will climb even more (County Connection didn’t anticipate that Clipper would top out at 20%). Waiting for a full year to enable good analysis. Customer satisfaction for those on Clipper is good.

Part of the puzzle – a lot of riders are on employer programs. Also, some routes are free (sponsored by the city).

An outstanding issue – integration of Clipper with CAD/AVL/APC. Can’t tell what route the riders are on. Can’t reconcile ridership and fare payment methods. No integration of data from Cubic and other fare payment data (APC data). Data is currently entered by the driver for Clever devices.

4. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? Joined an existing program. a. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding? County didn’t pay for the initial installation, MTC had funding. County Connection has found that it’s expensive for Clipper installation on replacement vehicles. ($10K-$15K/vehicle).

b. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)?

Yes, cost sharing agreement with the East Bay operators/group (four in total). LAVTA is the fiscal agent, everyone is generally happy. Agreement is based on transactions, helped that a consultant (Solutions for Transit) was able to use data for the cost-sharing formula, and that they’d done this before (supported Clipper implementation for the Napa Solano operator group). Cost sharing uses proportional allocation based on revenue paid per participant. Data is used to determination distribution of the fees and revenue for routes where drivers didn’t log on and for the East Bay multi-operator pass. The fee arrangement is 1/3 based on transaction and 2/3 based on revenue.

One multi-operator instrument: EB Value Pass (only pass for County Connection), for the most part just County and Tri-Delta are the ones that use it. Revenue allocation is based on transactions on County Connection and Tri-Delta.

c. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 28

N/A o If an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? H ow will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies? Rolling it into bus purchases, using FTA 5307 for 80% of the cost. Miffed that Cubic won’t release specs/details for Gillig to build the wiring harnesses. Issue is wiring harnesses and providing detail in advance so Gillig can produce these in the bus. Currently, Cubic insists on providing the harnesses and there’s a very long lead time. Don’t anticipate any issues with funding and availability of FTA 5307 funding. Only issue is obtaining. o What happens to downstream relationships when it comes time to renew a service contract with the primary vendor of the fare management system? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution requiring a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? Haven’t had any trouble and don’t anticipate difficulties moving forward. Structures are in place for the participating agencies to have input into the operations and decision making regarding the Clipper program. MTC coordinates and manages these activities as the contract holder. d. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process? MTC has established working committees and a Clipper Executive Board participates in the procurement and overall management process. The Clipper Executive Board is the formal decision making body for the program, with participation by transit agency GMs and MTC. e. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be with regard a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning. Things don’t change very quickly. Existing processes include monthly operations calls, ongoing committees and the Clipper Executive Board mentioned above. More immediately, the EB operator group has also coordinated directly, although there’s not a lot going on right now.

5. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)? Day pass is the biggest change. Changes were in place for launch, Title VI was complete to support this. The public hearing process was necessary, essentially everything needed to change fare structure: Board authorization, public hearing, report to the Board, formal authorization. An analysis on the impact on low-income and minorities was presented to the Board at the final authorization stage; the whole process took 2-3 months.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 29

6. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? Were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease)? Eventually – would like to eliminate paper products, paper transfers. First year is seeing how it shakes out and see if you can go without forcing Clipper (for the most part). Want to eliminate paper transfers and it may negatively impact customers. 20-ride punch pass – would also like to eliminate that (a lot of students that only ride once a day). Further Title VI analysis will be necessary, the hope is that not many customers are using the paper media by the time the fare policy change is proposed. 7. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes? Nope, it’s gone smoothly. LAVTA, with the support of Solutions for Transit, manages the financial reconciliation process, based on Clipper data. 8. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well? No major issues with customer dwell times. One significant operational impact: Clipper equipment design has the devices turn off automatically after five minutes. This doesn’t with operational layovers/breaks which are ~15 minutes. The driver turns off the bus for this 15-minute period and commences service immediately after the break is over. Clipper equipment takes 2-3 minutes to re- boot so this created a problem. The maintenance manager devised a workaround to put in a switch in the Clipper power line so it doesn’t turn off – this has worked out but it was a problem at first. 9. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently? Launch went well, there were some wrinkles as the launch date approached, it got pushed out a little, but it wasn’t unreasonable. From the customer launch perspective – MTC did a lot of marketing for the launch. From an operational perspective – it went on at once (MTC did a “soft launch”). Once the bags were off, customers used it. The launch went well.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 30

EB 31-day: allocated by % of ridershiop

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? 20 B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? The East Bay implementation lasted ~20 months from contract execution (March 2014) to launch (November 2015). C. Who is your system supplier? Cubic Transportation Systems D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Existing staff, Anne Muzzini – Director of Planning and Marketing, took on the PM role for County Connection.

Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system? Incorporated in day-to-day transit operations.

Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? Yes, recommend simplifying the fare policy. Some people may be paying more than if they had a monthly pass. Some people are getting a better deal (day pass), might not even know it. Tough lift to simplify the fare structure – you don’t know what’s going to happen if you eliminate something. Not something that’s done easily. Laying the groundwork for potential future consolidation. H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? Not discussed as a part of Clipper implementation for the east bay. I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system? Institutional pass is being implemented now, after the fact. The reason for County Connection – the County Connection monthly passed wasn’t used so they’re using it for an employer pass (Bishop Ranch) in January 2017. Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff? K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 31

Don’t have smart cash fareboxes, so County doesn’t spend much on farebox maintenance (they have the dumbest fareboxes you can buy). Maintenance issues with Cubic have to do with swapout of the Clipper devices: maintenance is relatively easy but it’s important to track the serial numbers of the new and replacement Clipper devices. County has had issues with receiving replacement equipment with software loaded is for another operator. But, don’t have a lot of failures, this isn’t an aggravation for maintenance, drivers or customers. For the most part the stuff works. M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection? None, used existing staff. For the implementation – took ~10% of Anne’s time to coordinate between the multiple parties (for ~ one year). There were instances of support from different departments (IT, training for Clipper operations).

Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system? No, but LAVTA is able to use data for reconciliation (with help from Solutions for Transit). Data is available based on how people pay (pass, Clipper cash), but not. Have APCs on all buses.

Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 32

Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 33

Peer Review Questions October 17, 2016 Petaluma Transit, Joe Rye Questions 10. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced when you joined a regional electronic payment system program? 11. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice? 12. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system? Has customer adoption met expectations? What percentage of your riders currently use the electronic fare system, i.e., market share? What was your rider satisfaction post- implementation (and how did you measure)?

Launched in January 2016. Slow adoption – a couple week soft launch with a few testers. Very few riders use Clipper – only 33 boardings last week or about 8-9 customers total. One of the smaller systems in the region – Napa had 94 boardings last week as comparison. Most riders don’t leave the town, so they don’t need to transfer. No benefit for them to use Clipper. When the SmartRail starts, PT anticipates more riders to Clipper.

13. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? a. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding?

MTC paid for capital costs; Petaluma pays for operating. Server installed for Clipper – some costs there to maintain. Not a big operations burden. A per transaction charge to participate in the system, which is charged by the tag.

With MTC’s direction, PT partnered with Santa Rosa and formed a business group with Santa Rosa as the lead. They share everything, including data and revenue. Consultants were brought on board to manage the data and revenue, which is the biggest charge.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 34

Transaction charge (fare reconciliation process on the backend): deducted from fares

Impact to operations – just making sure equipment is functioning. More foot traffic due to clipper cards, added to staffing pressures.

b. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)? c. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system? o If you joined an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? How will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies? o Did you have any problems with receiving FTA funding for secondary agencies, e.g.? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution and thus require a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? d. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process? e. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning.

14. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)?

Mandated by MTC to become a business group with Santa Rosa. Good decision since the business rules were similar. The most compromise, though, was on Petaluma’s end since they were smaller.

Minor business rule decisions regarded such things as: “Under 6” vs. “6 and under”. Biggest fare policy change: Santa Rosa is bigger and the lead, they at first were opposed allowing second transfer. Petaluma is set up that you need two transfers on certain routes to get across town, especially once the train opens. Many customers are not using Clipper because of this business rule, and stick with paper tickets. Clipper is a one transfer maximum, but it’s capable of more and PT is getting a quote to make the change.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 35

15. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? Were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease)? Two objectives: • To maintain eligibility for MTC funding to join Clipper. • To integrate seamlessly with the commuter rail

Fare revenue has gone down due to operational costs.

16. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes?

One issue is that because PT is so small, it adds another task to run the business. That’s not needed. No time to oversee Santa Rosa. Money is so minor, it doesn’t matter, but once the train opens it’ll be different. Need to find time and bandwidth to pay more attention to that process.

17. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well?

No dwell time changes since there are so few customers. The Clipper System will integrate into the MDT at some point, which will help operators.

If reader goes down, send to Cubic and Install a new one.

18. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently?

They thought there would be more customers – 100 at least. Customers aren’t forced to use it so they haven’t. Soft launch. Peer agencies put more effort into promoting it. Extremely low transfers – went with the bare minimum outreach. Clipper posters on

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 36

most bus shelters (2 dozen shelters) for a couple months, cards in the fleet, flyers. Press articles. Once rail launches, they’ll do more outreach.

Not a lot of parking at rail station, so there will be a jump. Handed out Clipper cards for free. MTC had a street crew. North Bay Clipper group launched at the same time.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 37

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? C. Who is your system supplier? D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system?

No incentive program (under than MTC provided the capital and a contractor who did the installation). No additional funding on top of that.

Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? Yes, definitely.

H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? No.

I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system?

Institutional passes are tricky and PT does not issue them through Clipper. There is no value to the customer.

Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff?

Cubic provided the training for the maintenance. Trained managers to pull reports. Trained front-facing dispatch, road/ops supervisors.

K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 38

None at all. It’s just something else for maintenance to do. The equipment has been reliable.

M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection?

The whole organization is 20-25 people, which includes drivers. Clipper touches everybody, but more in the office and Ops/Dispatch to sell Clipper. 6-8 people are directly impacted. Drivers haven’t been impacted

Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system?

It’s integrated in that Santa Rosa is the business manager. After they do the reconciliation they direct deposit to Petaluma.

Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 39

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned? Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 40

Peer Review Questions October 31, 2016 Rio Vista Delta Breeze, Jim McElroy Questions – Rio Vista Notes

BUT, my role with Clipper at RV is limited and somewhat odd. During my short time at RV, I was working to keep the bus system afloat and did not find Clipper a compelling use of my time other than to keep programs in place moving forward. The previous manager (who left abruptly) had doggedly pursued Clipper for RV. I think, that was mistake on his part. The system is incredibly small and its ridership and fares reflect that. The costs and administrative burden exceed the benefit to the system and its current users. But, that previous manager had largely put the details in place to install the system and no one had stopped it. There is a tendency, I think, to want to support such a management decision, as wrong as it might be in someone else's opinion.

For right or wrong, I felt it was best to keep rolling with the installation so I could deal with other more pressing issues such as basic record keeping and mandated reporting. And, there seemed to be some positive expectations of the Clipper implementation although I felt these to be unrealistic. I was just not certain enough or in place long enough to be confident in a decision to pull the plug.

When actual implementation of Clipper on-site infrastructure came along, I got Bobby Kuhn to deal with installing the servers and other hardware so that got it off my plate - and that was not a drain on RV financial resources at that point.

When I left, another consultant took over and apparently had more time to consider the impacts and costs, and, as I understand it, got those involved to agree to stop the project. That made a lot of sense to me; and, I would have probably done the same thing, given the opening.

Don't get me wrong though, I enthusiastically support Clipper for the other agencies in Solano County that eventually implemented the system. While at SolTrans, I even tried to advance the startup date. But, Soltrans, FAST, and Vacaville are completely different from RV. Their systems are relatively integrated with each other (and BART) and the Clipper system is essential to keeping their programs moving forward.

19. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced when you joined a regional electronic payment system program? Most important issues and questions: - Marginal operating costs – costs were too high for the system

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 41

- Usage by patrons o Primarily local users, utilizing dial-a-ride services o Fare structure was also problematic: variable and unclear - Two routes connected to the BART (one or two trips/day), lucky if it carried four or five people per day - Second route connected to Suisun and Fairfield 20. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice? RV joined primarily due to the desire to be a part of the regional fare collection program, prior to analysis of potential target market and operating costs. When these issues came to light (e.g., fixed operating costs to maintain network connectivity), the case for joining the program didn’t make sense. And the previous transit manager that had championed joining Clipper was no longer with the city of Rio Vista.

21. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system? Has customer adoption met expectations? What percentage of your riders currently use the electronic fare system, i.e., market share? What was your rider satisfaction post- implementation (and how did you measure)? 22. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? a. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding? MTC had funding for the capital For the operating costs, would have been. Backend costs – Rio Vista couldn’t afford any reduction in fare revenue. Clipper doesn’t reduce costs and RV couldn’t afford to have any reduction in net revenue. Dixon had backed out of Clipper, seems like RV should have done the same.

b. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)? Can you share the upfront (capital) and ongoing operating costs? Did you experience any cost savings? c. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system? o If you joined an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? How will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 42

o Did you have any problems with receiving FTA funding for secondary agencies, e.g.? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution and thus require a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? d. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process? e. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning. 23. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)? Fare policies were another challenge. Delta Breeze had specialized fare programs/passes as well as variable fares that don’t work well with Clipper. Clipper does not support paratransit services in the region, yet that’s the primary service provided by Delta Breeze. Fixed route portion (inter-city only) is a very small part of their service.

24. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? What were the effects on fare collection (e.g., usage of cash or passes, adoption rate of the new system, operational impacts for drivers, etc.), and were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease) ? 25. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes? 26. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well? There were issues around equipment – full-size Clipper on-board equipment was overkill for the five cutaways/vans used for the Delta Breeze service. A viable option that was found: using the handheld device instead of the dedicated on-board equipment. Also, getting consultants to handle server/IT installation (Solutions for Transit) addressed the technical challenges of Clipper implementation. Funding for technical support was provided by MTC, Soltrans contracted with Solutions for Transit to support the Napa/Solano group. General Delta Breeze operations: city-owned vehicles and contracted out for service provision to Transportation Consultants. General fleet maintenance is a challenge.

27. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 43

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 44

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? C. Who is your system supplier? D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system? Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? Simplifying fare policy would have happened, if the operating cost. Could have been worked out for the fixed slot. H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system? Multiple unique passes and ticket types that would not have been possible with Clipper (part of the demand responsive). Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff? K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)? M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection? Consultant support was used for implementation. There wasn’t sufficient staffing available to support what was needed.

Administrative effort: ~1 day/week. Staffing support couldn’t handle daily operations management for Clilpper.

Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 45

Vacaville handled financials for the Napa/Solano group.

Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned? Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 46

Task 1 – Peer Review Questions October 17, 2016 Metro, Robin O’Hara Questions 1. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced when you joined a regional electronic payment system program? Initiator of TAP system, desire for a universal fare system, enabling connectivity and ease of payment across region. Questions were funding, all the different transit agencies, also to cover orange county. Just ended up doing LA county. Started talks in 2002, TAP launched in 2008. 2. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice? Reduce cash fares, inter-agency travel, connectivity was v. important. Re-wrote business rules and early implementors of smart card with chip. Careful to enable partners to be able to keep own fare structure, had common card that could hold many diff types of passes. EasyPass goes across systems. Stored value for card. It’s been worth it! 3. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system?2008 Has customer adoption met expectations? More than met expectations, with first nine operators, other agency customers started pushing for usage on their systems. Had a ton of agencies interested. Had 3g mobile validator on board bus that made it more cost effective. 700 products in fare table. What percentage of your riders currently use the electronic fare system, i.e., market share? Mid to high 60% compared to cash. 1 or 2 local programs where use paper coupon to buy pass, plans to put it on TAP. What was your rider satisfaction post-implementation (and how did you measure)? We saw the number of taps go up, and so. Incentivize tap usage awith free transfer on metro. Measure by surveys- very well in TAP’s favor, 26 agencies system. 24 munis, paratransit, and own rail system. 4. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? a. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding? Capital Funding from federal grant, then there was a cost to come onto tap. Mobile validator was cost effective way to implement. We are looking to invest in new equipment in next two years, think about regional. Agencies that joined later, agencies paid for mobile validator. We did a few agencies free of charge if they did it immediately. Hold outs had to pay. b. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)? Customer service center for shared cost. When 86% of system is Metro, we end up paying for most of it. Charge a tiny bit. Use our own operating funds for this, mostly local funding.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 47

c. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system? o If you joined an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? How will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies? o Did you have any problems with receiving FTA funding for secondary agency participation in TAP, e.g. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus under the primary agency, LA Metro? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution and thus require a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? No, metro doles out the funding so they’re happy to get their portion. There’s not been issues. Initially, mistrust that they weren’t getting share. d. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process? Cubic as vendor, CRM is in house now, cloud based Salesforce shared by munis and us. Build account based layer where card and account systems. Metro does the planning and gets approval from muni’s and listening to their concerns. e. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning. TAP operators group, bi-monthly meeting with newsletter, technical to business rules, updated biz rules with committee of volunteers from TAP operators, marketing, gets run through smaller committees. Update General Managers group, not just LA county but whole region. Coordinate with BOS, bus operations service. 5. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)? Inter-agency transfers changed, because can’t magically change ppl to tap. Took special care with student, senior communities to transition slowly. Didn’t lock gates, did honor system. Bus operators had to visually inspect. Frequent meetings and communications with operations from bus and rail. Paper to plastic was enabled to keep current fare structure and policy in place and work to make it adaptable. Some agencies took opportunity to make changes they were gonna do anyway. 6. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? Were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease)? Lately, fare revenue has been down due to current trends. Didn’t see big change in ridership. Fare enforcement got easier after implementation and after locking gates, tapping went up. Saw 40% increase in tapping after locking gates. 7. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes? A lot of mistrust in the beginning and fear, fear

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 48

that it was estimating based on paper passes, fear that when tap came, revenue would be reduced because it was actual taps. Metro is doing settlement, can we trust them to do it right? Mgmt change in tap office that enabled trust and collaboration in the region. 8. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well? Biggest challenge was gaining trust and getting people on system. Challenge is now how big do we want to be. Unexpected that this would happen so quickly. Frequent meetings and allowing people to weight in and plan is the success. Have good communicators explain benefits. Appearance of transparency. Dwell time: way way faster, 9. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently? Would have put more customer/client focused people in the beginning, if we had better leading and negotiating skills and political savvy staff, key influencers in the region that people listen to and bring them to your meeting. Launch worked as planned but took longer to implement and not on every agency but got it to work. Don’t’ force anything down anyone’s throat. Move along without naysayers,

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 49

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? C. Who is your system supplier? D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system? Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? TAP can adapt to all biz rules, but everyone should work hard to simplify. If you can get muni’s on board, then definitely talk about that. Goal is to simplify now. H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system? Yes, had college pass that anyone could get, show proof of enrollment. Some colleges wanted to subsidize further, offer an even cheaper pass. Piloting a new u pass to get everyone in region on same college pass where college subsidizes. Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff? K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)? Don’t think there was much difference compared to TAP. Same TVM for both. Vendor network had to be trained with the new point of sale, looking to change to tablets. M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection? Started with four people in TAP operations, with large Xerox contract to do contract service. Hired 54 employees to handle back office, crm, business and corporate outreach, developers internal and external. Keep crm in house if you can. Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system? Yes, absolutely. TAP makes it relatively easy to pull financial reports off nextfare and CRM, salesforce. Settlement gets done with Cubic reports.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 50

Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned? Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 51

Task 1 – Peer Review Questions October 17, 2016 Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Barbara Andres Questions 1. What are the most important questions or issues you experienced when you joined a regional electronic payment system program? a. Several issues: i. The requirement for two completely separate datasets for ridership and revenue reporting as there is no communication between the regional fare collection system and our legacy system, which are separate and not integrated in any fashion. The regional system uses a mobile validator, a separate and discrete piece of hardware. Our fare collection system (which currently accepts cash and mag-striped fare media but has the hardware capability of accepting electronic fare media and scanning QR codes as well as mobile ticketing apps) is from a different vendor and the two systems do not interact. ii. As a partner or client of the regional fare collection system we have a relatively small voice in the conversation concerning upgrading the system to one that is far more robust. The timeline to launch the next generation of the regional fare collection system has varied but seems to be at least five years in the future. The problem is that with rapid advances in fare collection technology, this speed of execution is not fast enough to ensure that the technology, when implemented, will meet our needs. A project of this magnitude has a hard time being as agile as it needs to be to keep us competitive in the transportation marketplace and if we don’t change that we will quickly be made irrelevant by TNCs and other private transportation providers. iii. For this reason, we performed an upgrade of our own fare collection system, moving to a future-proof farebox with the possibility of adding mobile ticketing to it while at the same time encouraging our customers to use the regional system as, even if it is not state-of-the art, it is an account-based prepaid fare system that results in faster boarding time and a more integrated experience for our customers as they travel through our region using ours and partner agencies’ bus and rail. 2. Why did you join the electronic fare system, e.g., reduce cash fares, promote inter- agency travel, etc.? Did you replace existing fare policies and media (e.g., magnetic strip passes) or maintain legacy systems alongside the new program? Would you do it over again if you had the choice? a. To reduce cash fares resulting in faster boarding and to streamline interagency travel resulting in a better transit experience for customers. b. We have moved some of our magnetic strip media entirely onto the interagency system, starting with the 30-day pass and the 13-ride pass. We continue to sell day passes and 7-day passes as mag stripe media as these are products popular

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 52

with tourists and the unbanked for whom a cash purchase is a better (or in some cases the only possible) experience. c. We are currently in the process of moving our two U-Pass clients, Santa Monica College and UCLA) onto TAP exclusively. Their mag striped student IDs will continue to read in our fareboxes as a back-up, at least during a transition period. d. Yes, would do it over. Mostly positive experience for customers and us. Facilitates customers being able to move around region 3. How long has it been since you launched the fare payment system? Has customer adoption met expectations? What percentage of your riders currently use the electronic fare system, i.e., market share? What was your rider satisfaction post- implementation (and how did you measure)? a. We first launched our products on the regional fare system (TAP) in approximately May 2015. We have continued to move products exclusively or concurrently onto TAP since that time. b. Yes, movement of other fare types to TAP. Don’t be the first to jump on board. Did customer satisfaction survey, baseline survey, started early this spring 2016. 4. Did you join an existing electronic fare system or were you the first to implement? a. Did your agency pay a portion of the capital costs to join (central system updates and/or agency-specific implementation costs like equipment, training, etc.)? If yes, where did you obtain funding? i. We joined an existing system. We did not have significant up-front costs as the hardware is owned by Metro. b. Are there cost-sharing mechanisms for any shared infrastructure (capital and/or operating)? Can you share the upfront (capital) and ongoing operating costs? Did you experience any cost savings i. We lease our hardware (mobile validators and our Point of Sale equipment to load fare media onto TAP cards) from Metro. There were no significant infrastructure costs to us. ii. Dunno if we have cost savings but guess so. Just spent $3.4million on new fare boxes bc they were obsolete. Used FTA funding for that. Havent’ been doing it long enough to see if change from legacy system. c. If you joined an existing fare system, where did you obtain funding to expand the electronic fare system? i. I believe our upfront costs were minimal as we lease the hardware. o If you joined an existing fare system, how did the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) interpret this relationship with respect to providing funding support? How will this relationship comply with FTA’s requirements for procurement of goods and services? Does FTA have a provision for a collaborative partnership between agencies? ° I believe that question is best answered by FTA. We did use an FTA grant to refurbish our existing fare collection system (fareboxes and vaults) which had reached the end of its useful life and we need it to continue to

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 53

work until we can be part of a complete, holistic regional system which is still in the early planning stages and is years from fruition. o Did you have any problems with receiving FTA funding for secondary agency participation in TAP, e.g. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus under the primary agency, LA Metro? Would FTA perceive a multi-year contract renewal as a sole-source solution and thus require a competitive bid process to justify any renewals? ° I don’t know. That is a question to ask the TAP administrators as they own the regional system. d. What level of input will participating entities have in the contract renewal process? i. I know there are monthly meetings of the Transit Operators Group and of various sub-committees although the extent to which we, as a partner agency, have a voice is not clear to me. I would guess that our voice is equal to that of any one of the perhaps 20 partner agencies in the regional system. e. What kind of initial and ongoing coordination structures are needed to stay in sync with the main agency responsible for the eFare system? This could be a wide range of issues from regular technical updates to long-range planning. i. We attend meetings of the operators’ group who are partners in the regional system. 5. Did you change existing or create new fare policies to participate in the electronic fare system? If so, what were the primary changes and when did you implement them (prior to or after rolling out the new fare payment system)? a. We did not change existing policies except to include procedures for sales of the electronic fare system and to train our operators how to use the regional system. 6. What were your fare policy objectives when launching the electronic fare system, e.g., replicate existing fare policy, reduce cash fares, simplify fare policy etc.? What were the effects on fare collection (e.g., usage of cash or passes, adoption rate of the new system, operational impacts for drivers, etc.), and Were there any effects on fare revenue after implementation (increase, no change or decrease)? a. All of the above. b. Overall less cash use bc some products are only avail on TAP. OTP is much better but not due to just TAP but also bus stop re-spacing, added more rapid lines, attn. to service quality, pricing prepaid passes more attractively. c. Fare revenue has not increased or decreased in a way that could be attributed to this system. However, cash fares have decreased, percentage wise, since implementation. I will locate and forward pie charts. 7. Did you encounter challenges adapting to new financial settlement and reconciliation process? If so, how did you handle the changes, and do you have any recommendations on how best to approach such changes? a. I am not the best person to respond to this, as our Finance & Grants Manager manages financial settlement and reconciliation. However, I will note again the challenge presented by parallel siloed systems of fare collection with no integration between them. 2 different data sets from fare box and mobile

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 54

validator. Someone has to manually marry the sets to do analysis. Farebox only does mag ticket and cash. 8. Did you experience any unexpected challenges with operations and maintenance of the new system? How did the new fare system impact dwell times? Did you find specific preparation and planning activities that worked especially well? a. Implementing TAP has been one of several strategies to improve on-time percentage (including bus stop respacing, operational procedures, etc.) OTP has improved significantly (from the high 60’s to over 80 percent) coincidentally with this impact so it can be concluded that there has been at least some impact on reduction of dwell time. 9. Did your system launch work as planned? Which tools/strategies were most effective in your customer outreach, and is there anything you would do differently? a. As for customer outreach, our marketing staff can speak to this more directly. I am aware of social media, web site, and email outreach as well as Take Ones, car cards, and bus exterior advertising. We had a promotion running for cash value, “Buy one pass get one free,” timed with Expo Line opening, social media, exterior, banner ads. Ask sirinya. “buy up to $20 and match $.” Funded by general fund.

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 55

Discussion Items Background A. How many transit agencies participate in your electronic fare system? B. What was the high level project schedule and what year did your agency launch? C. Who is your system supplier? D. Did you staff a project manager to represent your agency? Funding Strategy E. What is the source of funding for the on-going operation of the fare system? Fare Policy F. What challenges did you encounter in developing fare policy for electronic fare system? G. Do you recommend simplifying fare policy to ensure a successful transition? Yea, we’re talking about this now. Unbanked population and how to serve them with electronic payment, looking into limited use card. H. Were fees for indirectly related transportation options such as bike share fees, bike locker rental fees, parking fees considered as a part of the project? No fees were part of this project. Not funded by city general fund, bike share or parking. I. Were existing pass programs with schools, employers and social services providers included in the new system? UCLA-sept 2016 & SMC-starting pilot Jan 2017 of sticker with chip, launched employer program for st. John’s hospital- spring 2016, 200 cards. Now talking to other employers. Operational Impacts Operations & Maintenance J. What type of training did you provide for drivers and transit operator staff? K. Did implementation of electronic fare system create additional driver responsibilities? L. What impacts did electronic fare system have on maintenance responsibilities, specifically on existing fare collection equipment, e.g., reduced maintenance of fareboxes and Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)? NONE, bc no TVMS or fareboxes not used with TAP. If we had it, we’d see lower maintenance cost. M. Did electronic fare system create new responsibilities in maintaining new electronic fare system equipment, e.g., card readers? N. Did customer service representatives require additional training, including call center staff/ticket office staff/fare inspectors? O. Approximately how many FTEs per position did you add to support electronic fare collection? None, there wasn’t a need for it. Metro provides support for it. Financial Settlement & Reconciliation P. What type of data & reports did you obtain from the new electronic fare system? Q. Were you able to integrate your financial reporting into the new electronic fare system? No

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 56

Technical System & Installation R. What challenges did you face with preparation and execution of installation of new hardware & network systems for electronic fare system at bus yards? S. What challenges did you face when installing equipment on existing fleet? T. For the network, did you integrate your existing system into a new one or was a new network required? U. For site preparation, were there any specific requirements for on-site, e.g., bus yard, equipment installation that were challenging, regarding technical or physical space constraints?

Launch Strategy & Customer Adoption Launch Strategy - X V. How did you transition customers to new electronic fare system? E.g., did you phase the elimination of paper tickets or did you offer electronic fare payment along with paper tickets? Did you have a formal outreach and marketing plan you can share with us? W. Did you have a phased marketing approach – e.g., target commuters or employer/institutional programs during first phase, target youth/seniors in 2 nd phase? X. Was there enough time built into your schedule for the amount of outreach planned? Y. What was your launch strategy for distributing cards to the public, e.g., TVMs, retailers, temporary sales booths, give cards away for free, etc.? Customer Adoption Z. What were the assumptions for the rate of adoption? AA. What was the actual rate of adoption post launch? BB. What factors were responsible for the actual rate of adoption?

Prepared by CH2M December 19, 2016 Page 57