CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-99-30 This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Report for RTA 65V313-7 August 1999 ISSN 1055-1425 CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob Research Report MOU RTA 65V313-7 July 1999 DISCLAIMER This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people deserve thanks for their contribution to this report. The agencies and organizations participating in the Demonstration devoted many staff hours to this evaluation. Staff members from Echelon Industries, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, South Coast Area Transit, Simi Valley Transit, Thousand Oaks Transit, Camarillo Area Transit, Moorpark City Bus, Laidlaw Transit, Antelope Valley Bus Lines, Santa Barbara Transportation, and Fillmore Area Transportation Company participated in interviews and meetings, provided data, and in some cases collected data specifically for the evaluation. Several agencies and contractors provided access to their garages, buses, and related records. Without their assistance and cooperation, this report would not have been possible. The authors were also assisted by USC graduate students Elif Karsi and Susan Rossbach, and by undergraduate student Ana Diaz. These students participated in all aspects of the evaluation, from conducting on-board passenger surveys to manipulating automated data files. Their efforts are most appreciated. Linda Bakabak of USC contributed many hours formatting and improving multiple versions of this report. She has made an enormous contribution to the quality of the final product. This research was sponsored by the California Partnership for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH), a research consortium consisting of California Department of Transportation, the University of California at Berkeley, and other California university and industry partners. iii ABSTRACT This report presents evaluation results of the Smart Card Phase III Field Demonstration. Its purpose is to demonstrate the feasibility of using Smart Cards and other technology to provide an integrated fare medium across several transit operators. The Demonstration took place from May 1995 through June 1997, and it was located in Ventura County, California. Participants included seven transit agencies, with the Ventura County Transportation Commission acting as the lead local agency. The technology deployed is an integrated fare transaction and vehicle management/monitoring system, termed FareTrans VMS. Major system elements include smart passenger fare cards, fare transaction hardware and software, automatic passenger counters, a geo-positioning system, and associated communications hardware and software. The evaluation addressed technical performance, user response, and institutional issues. Many problems were encountered in installing and deploying the hardware and software, and equipment failures continued throughout the demonstration. Communications problems prevented complete deployment of the system and implementation of all planned support functions, though most technical elements were ultimately put into revenue service in the field. Technical problems were often the outcome of institutional issues. The system was deployed before adequate testing could take place. Problems at specific sites were due to inadequate training, lack of maintenance and trouble-shooting procedures, etc. Although Smart Card users were very satisfied with the new fare medium, few transit users bought and used the cards. Transit patrons in Ventura County have very low incomes, and many are not English speakers. Smart Cards are more attractive to higher income, discretionary riders. Overall, the demonstration suffered from the absence of clear roles and responsibilities, as well as a lack of understanding of the complexity and demands of the technology. Despite deployment problems, however, participating agencies were generally enthusiastic about the FareTrans VMS, and ultimately it became a permanent part of transit operations in the county. i TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 WHY SMART CARDS? 2 1.3 THE CHALLENGE OF SERVICE INTEGRATION 3 1.4 THE VENTURA FIELD DEMONSTRATION 5 1.4.1 Demonstration Objectives 7 1.4.2 Technical Elements 7 1.5 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION 8 1.5.1 Functional Performance of Hardware and Software Components 8 1.5.2 Impacts on Transit Operations, Management, and Efficiency 9 1.5.3 Transit Passenger Responses 9 1.5.4 Organizational and Institutional Issues 10 1.6 CONTENT OF VOLUMES 1 AND 2 10 1.7 ORGANIZATION OF VOLUME 1 11 CHAPTER TWO DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST 14 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 14 2.1.1 Ventura County 14 2.1.2 Public Transit 16 2.2 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 22 2.3 FULL FUNCTION FARE TRANSACTION AND VEHICLE MANAGEMENT/MONITORING SYSTEM (FARETRANS VMS) 26 2.4 FARE TRANSACTION AND VEHICLE MANAGEMENT/MONITORING SYSTEM (FARETRANS VMS) DEPLOYED IN PHASE III OF THE FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST 30 2.4.1 Onboard System Configuration 30 2.4.2 Fare Transaction Data Flows 35 2.5 INTEGRATION OF FARETRANS VMS DATA LINKS 38 2.5.1 Bus-to-Agency Communications 39 2.5.2 Agency-to-Bus Communications 41 2.5.3 Agency-to-Agency Communications 43 2.6 SUMMARY 44 CHAPTER THREE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE 46 3.1 INTRODUCTION 46 3.2 FIELD LOGISTICS 47 3.2.1 Deployment Prior to Non-revenue Tests 47 3.2.2 Delays in Component Deliveries 49 3.2.3 Changes in Agency Requirements 49 3.2.4 Variable Requirements across Fleets 50 3.2.5 Access to Vehicles 50 3.2.6 Operator Maintenance, Problem Reporting, and Repair Policies 50 3.3 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE 53 3.3.1 Equipment Tests 53 3.3.2 Wiring Practices 54 3.3.3 Voltage Incompatibility and Power Supplies 54 3.3.4 Card Initialization 55 3.3.5 Man/Machine Interface and Training 55 3.3.6 APC/Fare Card Integration 58 i 3.3.7 Data Communication 59 3.3.8 Data Management 60 3.4 FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE 61 3.4.1 Onboard Equipment Survey, Test Card Transactions, and Manual Passenger Counts 61 3.4.2 Assessing Communications between Vehicles and Garage Computers: Verification of Transactions 72 3.4.3 Failure Frequency Analysis 76 3.5 SUMMARY 80 3.5.1 Field Logistics 80 3.5.2 Operational Performance 81 3.5.3 Functional Performance 82 3.5.4 Conclusions 83 CHAPTER FOUR USER RESPONSE 85 4.1 INTRODUCTION 85 4.2 SUMMARY OF PHASE II RESULTS 85 4.3 ROLE OF TRANSIT IN VENTURA COUNTY 86 4.4 CARD SALES AND USAGE IN VENTURA COUNTY 87 4.4.1 Trends in Card Sales 89 4.4.2 Interpreting Sales Trends 92 4.5 USER RESPONSE 94 4.5.1 The May 1996 Survey 95 4.5.2 The July 1997 Survey 102 4.5.3 Conclusions on User Response 115 ii CHAPTER FIVE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE 118 5.1 INTRODUCTION 118 5.2 THE ROLE OF PROJECT EVALUATORS 118 5.3 THE PROJECT PARTNERS 119 5.3.1 Echelon Industries, Inc. - The Technology Developer 119 5.3.2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Office of Advanced Systems Integration and Implementation 120 5.3.3 Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) 120 5.3.4 South Coast Area Transit (SCAT) 121 5.3.5 Simi Valley Transit 121 5.3.6 Thousand Oaks Transit 121 5.3.7 Camarillo Area Transit 121 5.3.8 Moorpark City Bus 122 5.3.9 Ojai Trolley Service 122 5.3.10 Fillmore Paratransit Service 122 5.3.11 Santa Paula Dial-A-Ride 122 5.3.12 Project Manager, A Consultant 122 5.4 THE GOALS OF THE STUDY 123 5.5 FORMAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES 123 5.5.1 Project Objectives 123 5.5.2 Operator Investment 123 5.5.3 Operator Responsibilities 124 iii 5.6 ANTICIPATED OPERATION BENEFITS 124 5.6.1 Section 15 Reporting 124 5.6.2 Service and Route Planning 124 5.6.3 Schedule Adherence 124 5.6.4 Understanding the Market 125 5.6.5 Other Benefits 125 5.6.6 Passenger Benefits 125 5.6.7 Benefits Not Raise or Discussed 125 5.7 MAJOR ISSUES 125 5.7.1 Operator Information about the Project 125 5.7.2 Fare Policy 126 5.7.3 Marketing 127 5.7.4 Equipment