Rail Transit Fare Collection: Policy and Technology Assessment

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Technical Reference Centerhttps://doi.org/10.21949/15269511982PDFTech ReportDeshpande, Govind K.Cucchissi, John J.Heft, Ronald C.Jet Propulsion Laboratory (U.S.)United States. Urban Mass Transportation AdministrationJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)United States. Urban Mass Transportation AdministrationSan Francisco (California);Washington (District of Columbia)Automatic fare collectionFare collectionFaresOperating costsRapid transitReliabilitySpecificationsUMTA-MA-06-0025-82-4;DOT-TSC-UMTA-82-49In an attempt to resolve reliability problems, lower operation and maintenance costs, and simplify fare collection, transit authorities are focusing on their fare collection systems. Many transit properties have existing fare collection systems which are inflexible in terms of meeting special fares; such as monthly passes, elderly and handicapped fares, and fares differentiated by time of day. This study was conducted as a systems analysis of fare collection in support of the Fare Collection Research and Development program of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. The basic objectives of the study were to: 1) evaluate how fare policies and fare structures affect the selection of fare collection equipment; 2) provide a description of existing fare collection equipment; 3) document hardware-related problems at various properties and methods used to collect reliablity data; 4) describe the fare collection systems and specifications being chosen at new properties; and 5) outline the requirements of a fare collection simulation model. To develop supporting data for various aspects of the study, interviews were held with the fare collection staff of several transit properties. The interviews involved such issues as fare policies, fare structures, equipment and related problems, and current hardware development efforts. Information concerning maintenance and reliability data collection methods was also gathered. Major findings of this study include: 1) a wide variation in the fare collection system and equipment, caused primarily by historical precedence; 2) the reliablility of AFC equipment used at the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority in San Francisco and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in Washington, D.C., discouraged other properties from considering use of similar equipment; 3) existing equipment may not meet the fare collection needs of properties in the near future; 4) the cost of fare collection operation and maintenance is high; and 5) the relatively small market in fare collection equipment discourages new product development by suppliers. Recommendations for fare collection R&D programs include development of new hardware to meet rail transit needs, study of impacts of alternate fare policies, increased communication among policymakers, and consensus on fare policy issues.138