An Octopus Card For Portland?
Jeff Alworth
I have a suggestion for the City that Works: develop a Hong-Kong-style Octopus Card.
It is not a particularly new idea--a rechargeable, plastic card that can be used for payment on public transportation. Portland, in fact, has a version of this for street parking called the "Smart Card." But the genius of the Octopus Card is not in its technology, but its application. This is hinted at by the card's name "Octopus," which apparently arose out of the number of ways it can be used. Whereas the Smart Card is only useful for paying for parking, the Octopus card is good for all public transportation in Hong Kong: buses (city and regional), the subway, light rail, ferries, parking lots, taxicabs, the Peak tram and Lantau Island aerial tram, and--well, you get the picture, it's ubiquitous. But the uses don't stop there. Since its release almost ten years ago, retailers have started to use it as a payment alternative. It's even used as keyless entry for apartments and offices.
What makes it especially handy for users is that you don't have to insert it or swipe it, just hold it near one of the payment readers. I watched men wave their wallets and women swipe their entire handbag. When you're in a herd of commuters on the morning subway, umbrella under one arm and Starbucks in one hand, this makes things speed along. Once the computer reads your card, it displays the deducted fare and the amount remaining on the card. For consumers (and confused travelers), it's like magic.
There are advantages for the city as well. Because it's an electronic device, the cards can track where people board the subway or a bus and charge them for the actual distance they traveled. When you board a bus, for example, you wave your Octopus card on the way in and it records where you are; when you exit, it assesses a fare based on the distance you traveled.
For Tri-met, it would eliminate the cumbersome zone and transfer system. It would be possible to keep Fareless Square, but still track numbers of users and how far they travel when riding around Fareless Square. And it would also help track usage on the Streetcar and could be used to earn more revenue for those trips beyond Fareless Square (wherein people mostly stiff the city).
I have no idea how successful the Smart Card program is, but it must pale in comparison to Hong Kong's Octopus system. There are 14 million cards in circulation and 9.9 million daily transactions; 95% of the population uses one; 420 service providers accept them as payment; and they generate $3.6 billion a year in transactions. The real value, obviously, is in integration, which gets people using the cards.
Portland is positioned well to use this kind of technology. The City has already spent the money to convert parking meters, it has a broad web of public transportation, and it has a user-friendly downtown--just like Hong Kong. It would require buying more machines for buses, light rail, and the streetcar, but the benefits would outweigh the costs. I suspect retailers in Portland would, like those in Hong Kong, begin to integrate these if they became as common as they are in Hong Kong. So consider this a personal appeal to the City of Portland: bring the Octopus Card to Portland.
The only thing left is to come up with a name. RoseCard, anyone?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 30, '06
The technologies involved in Portland's SmartMeter Card payment system are different from the ones in the Octopus system.
The SmartMeter card uses smart-card technology, which requires a physical connection to the card itself. The Octopus cards use RFID, which only require proximity. Wikipedia has some good information on the Octopus card here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_card
I think an Octopus-like card would be cool, but the SmartMeter card isn't going to get there. Switching to a different card type would mean changing-out all of the existing SmartMeter equipment (the kiosks, not the meters), and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Nov 30, '06
Smart-card and RFID ("octopus") transit pass systems require turnstiles/barriers to entry, or at least stepped up fare enhancement with on-board readers. Turnstiles/barriers require station agents to deal with problems for people who cannot enter, people with physical disabilities, etc. Switching to such a system could require dozens if not hundreds of additional transit employees.
I agree that such a system would be easier for users, but it could be quite costly to implement, and would take a lot of reconfiguring of the current system to do it right.
There may be a clever way to implement this which does not require barriers or extra staff, and I'd love to hear about such implementations... but I just wanted to point out that a new payment system is not a magic bullet to improve our current system.
Nov 30, '06
Jeff,
You may also be interested in learning about Chicago's Chicago Card Plus and London's Oyster. These two cards employ similar technology, albeit not with the same reach as Hong Kong's Octopus (you can't buy your coffee or morning paper with these ... yet). But you can navigate the Chicago Transit Authority and the vast majority of the Transport for London network with these cards.
Implementation of these technologies has been smooth for the most part, but the transition between paper and circuit has been a bit stickier in London, where Mayor Ken Livingstone continues jacking up the price on paper Transport for London tickets (an imminent fare hike will push the price of a single Undeground ride within Zone 1 to over $7 for a paper ticket!). As more people adopt the technology however, things will no doubt return to normal and prices will fall substantially (Oyster fares being more than 50% cheaper).
However, I would have to take issue with your point that a smart card system will obviate the need for a zone or transfer system. Zones are still a fact of life in London, and transfers fares are still calculated and assessed on the Chicago Card Plus. Maybe you mean that smart card technology would remove any frustrating moments for a tourist trying to figure out the zone system and fare on his own - let the card do the math? Implementing a technology that can accurately pinpoint on the fly the distance one travels is precisely the point, and it fits in perfectly with a scheme of pricing by the mile (or arbitrary zones).
Ridding Tri-Met of the zone system - and fixing some of its weird pricing schemes - is a slightly separate issue, but if a discussion on smart card technology enters the mix, then we'll probably hear more about those issues as well.
Other benefits: loading up cards online, checking transportation histories, card registration and security, green technology, transforming the same card to/from single-use or weekly/monthly/seasonal.
And no more waiting for grandma to empty out her nickel collection on the bus.
I think I'm with you on this, but only up to a point for the time being. I'm not entirely convinced that the city has the kind of transit system critical mass, user base, or diversity of systems that drive the kind of demand for smart cards in places like Chicago, London, or Hong Kong. That may indeed be a dealbreaker.
12:32 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
JeffK, I'll leave the tech to you. Those who know me know that I'm dimwitted on that front. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to convert the street meters to the type Hong Kong uses? Alternately, Portland, with a fraction the population of HK, probably doesn't need the RFID technology. Swipes might work. (Or am I being dimwitted again?)
Rob R., I found the checks to be pretty easy and intuitive in HK. There's always going to be the possibility of cheating, but what you really want is an easy, efficient system for the 95% of users who don't cheat. Chris's comment seems to address this pretty well.
Chris, payment systems are flexible, and I have no real issue with the zone question. It is a cruder effort to do what HK does--charge for use; the longer you ride, the more you pay. But HK's system charges you based on distance--a finer measure than the zone system. But if Portland were to make this switch, it need not adopt the HK model to still benefit riders.
Also, I should point out one other fact. Public transportation is not priced the same in HK. The subway is by far the most expensive way to travel. Buses and light rail (in HK these aren't state of the art, but ancient) are far cheaper. There's no reason TriMet would have to stick to a fare schedule where riding a bus, MAX, or Streetcar is the same fare for the same distance.
Nov 30, '06
Bob R.,
There is not necessarily a requirement for barriers or turnstiles with smart card technology when used in conjunction with light rail systems. For example, the outer zones of the Transport for London system are often unmanned by service employees and devoid of barriers, and it is an Oyster card owner's responsibility to "touch in" and "touch out" at card readers on the platform (lest he tempt a fare penalty).
So, no barriers/turnstiles and no on-board validation readers (those go on the platform, same as always), and the enforcement job remains in the hands of fare cops, equipped, of course, with the appropriate technology to read the new cards.
12:48 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
"Portland is positioned well to use this kind of technology. "
Funny. Should we give it to the Revenue Bureau, the Water Bureau, or the Transportation Office to screw up?
Nov 30, '06
Why do you need turnstiles? Couldn't the reader be built into the doors of whatever you're boarding? You get on a streetcar and it knows where it is, marks you as having boarded and then notes where you exit?
Nov 30, '06
sounds like a winner. Randy, got your ears on?
1:39 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
It's a good idea in most respects, but I'm against it. Government can already track our movements too easily. I don't support any proposal to make doing so still easier.
Nov 30, '06
This is a great idea. I was I HK a few years ago and I must say the Octopus card was fantastic. You could even use it to buy things at 7-11 stores and pay for taxis. Of course the subways and buses in HK are definitely a cut above ours in terms of ridership and efficiency (checking in your bags in the subway station on the way to the Airport is a cool experience). Readers could defiantly be built into the max, bus, taxis, soda machines, whatever and I doesn't need to RFID, I'm sure existing mag stripe readers would be just fine, just get the coins and tickets out of the system.
I have to admit that I'm an enough of an occasional transit user that I can't justify a TriMet pass, yet sometimes I end up fair hopping because those ticket machines are such a PITA. I'll bet an Octopus type card could really boost revenue for Trimet.
Nov 30, '06
I imagine you could pay cash for one of these cards, and thus remain anonymous. I do wonder how the spot enforcement would work on MAX, though, Would the Tri-Met cops carry little card readers to determine if the card was used on the trip in question?
But the big question is: if I use my RoseCard or whatever it is called, do I get to accumulate points that can be eventually turned in for valuable merchandise or at least free trips?
1:55 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
It's a good idea in most respects, but I'm against it. Government can already track our movements too easily. I don't support any proposal to make doing so still easier.
and
I imagine you could pay cash for one of these cards, and thus remain anonymous.
Gil's right--in HK it can be anonymous. The info is linked to your card, but your card is not linked to you. At least in HK, you can by a generic card that you refill with cash. No one can ever link you electronically to your movements. In essence, it functions like smart cash. Of course, the system has to be set up like that intentionally, rather than set up to track people intentionally. If the city were ever to try to do this, they would be advised to recognize how much Portlanders value their privacy. The idea should be to increase ease and use of public transportation, not track citizens.
Nov 30, '06
New York City's MTA uses a MetroCard that you swipe when you board a bus or go through a turnstile. The cards can either carry a dollar amount (payment per ride) or allow for unlimited rides for a day, a week, or a month.
If Tri-Met were to adopt a similar technology, the "cash cards" (as opposed to "unlimited ride" cards) probably could be harmonized with the SmartCard. Swipe it to pay for parking, swipe it when you get on the bus to pay your fare, swipe it at a light rail platform to get a printed transit ticket, swipe it on board the streetcar.
Nov 30, '06
But the big question is: if I use my RoseCard or whatever it is called, do I get to accumulate points that can be eventually turned in for valuable merchandise or at least free trips?
That might be one way to get more people riding transit. Every time you swipe your card to buy a transit fare, you get a chance for an instant win -- signalled by a triple-chime or something. The card would get an "instant win" added to it, and you could trade in the instant win at a vending machine for a 3-day unlimited ride card or a $10 gift card at Powell's or Lloyd Center, or two Art Museum tickets, or whatever.
Nov 30, '06
djk,
Interesting idea. In any case, Tri-Met could certainly continue in re-thinking its approach to fares and incentives for using mass transit. An award system specific to Portland-area business and products could be attractive and have its distinct charm, but far simpler strategies are widely used elsewhere in this country.
Chicago's CTA and New York's MTA make rewards available instantaneously. Put more than $10 into a CTA machine? We'll give you a 10% bonus. Put more than $10 on an MTA MetroCard? Here's a 20% bonus for your trouble.
Regardless of any plans for souping up the technology on the system, Tri-Met could certainly stand to do more than offering a 0% discount on all-zone ticket carnets or more remote discounts on term passes.
People like incentives - Tri-Met should aim to deliver a few more.
Nov 30, '06
Very real and transparent privacy protections would need to be built into anything that could be used to show I was even in proximity to a given building, let alone inside it, before I'd ever use such a thing. The "pay cash" idea doesn't sound too convincing since data mining could pretty well figure out who you are. Data collected from such a system wouldn't just be of potential interest to the government, but also to marketing companies, divorce lawyers, and so on.
Of course, anyone who walks around with a cell phone turned on can already be tracked.
5:21 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
You can make the readers integral to the train/vehicle itself and not a turnstile, station enclosed station arrangement. Walk onto the MAX train, bus, etc., wave your card next to the door frame, or kiosk onboard.
Easy solve.
5:33 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
9.9 million transactions a day and $3.6 billion a year means the average transaction is $1.00. That seems a very, very low average, and a lot of transaction processing for small amounts of money.
Tri-Met already dumped a million or so some years back on automated on-board pay stations, so you could board front or back. It was a total bust. There are also security issues with these devices that you wave and don't actually swipe.
Maybe someday...but surely we've more important priorities?
Nov 30, '06
The reason that an RFID or smart-card system requires turnstiles in most cities (including HK) is because light rail vehicles and heavier-capacity subway systems allow boarding at multiple doors.
The current system used in Portland allows people to trickle in to a station over time, purchase their tickets, and when a train arrives they can board at any door as soon as the train arrives.
For buses and single-door streetcars, smart cards can work quite well, because there is one fixed point of entry accompanied by a human driver who can verify that everyone pays.
To outfit a max car with RFID readers, you'd need at least 4 on-board readers centered between each pair of entry doors (8 readers on a two-car train), or you could forgo turnstiles and on-board readers by having fixed readers at each station which print a receipt.
The real problem comes when you extend the system to feature distanced-priced fares. In this case, you must have an exit reader or exit gate system. Whereas now you can conveniently deboard a MAX train at any station and just walk away, you would instead have to find a reader and be sure to use it (or risk paying a fine or higher fare if you just plain forgot.)
Such a system would displace a minor inconvenience (having to decide what zones you are traveling in) to a per-trip inconvenience of finding a reader both when boarding and when exiting (either at-station or on-board).
All heavily-used distance-based systems with which I'm familiar use exit gates (BART is the nearest example.)
I say let's continue to give the individual who has to travel 15 miles with 3 transfers a price break (they are already suffering enough), and instead concentrate on keeping the ticket vending machines we have ACTUALLY OPERATING. Too many times I've been to stations where both TVMs were out of commission. TriMet's official policy in this case is that you should board, travel one station, get off, buy a ticket, and wait for the next train. Yeah, right.
7:19 p.m.
Nov 30, '06
In 2004, I visited Boston for 9 days for some training. While there, I road the subway system quite a bit-- both underground and aboveground (it switches near Fenway).
When you were underground, everything was behind turnstiles. But once it went aboveground, it wasn't. There, only one door per set of connected cars opened. You had to get on there and pay your fare, show your pass, etc. On the longer trains, there was an employee per set of connected cars (those being cars that you can easily travel in between while in motion).
I've always thought that might be a good idea for MAX. The fact is there aren't that many trains running each day. And you probably don't have more than 4 sets of connected cars. That would be a max of 5 employees (the one I rode on in Boston had the train operator collecting fees on the front car).
Would that really mean all that many more employees than are used right now to also do fare enforcement? And would it increase fares actually being paid enough so that there would be no loss because of the additional employees?
I also like the idea of paying according to how far you ride, as opposed to our current zones. There's nothing like going a few blocks, only to cross zones and have to pay more. Yet some of the longest trips in the system can be done under the one zone price.
I remember when I visited Portland for the first time in the summer of 1998. We were riding the MAX from the Hollywood stop to Lloyd Center. I had no idea what the tickets, zones, etc. meant. Finally I just bought 2 all-day all-zone tickets. It was very frustrating, and it cost more than it should have.
I really like the idea of this card. It sure would make using the transit system easier. There are plenty of times when I don't have the car, but decide Abby and I want to go somewhere. But unless you have exact change, you're out of luck. I've thought about buying a pack of bus tickets to help with that, but the card would be much easier. And I could just refill online, which I have no problem doing. I figure the government's watching me anyway.
Nov 30, '06
*I agree that the zone system is confusing for first-time riders and that is causes people to either overpay or be scared off. What I would like is for time you pay, you get a transfer that can be used once that day, placed in the farebox on the next bus or validated for MAX. Day passes would be cheaper to help out people who have to make multiple transfers.
*I'm pretty sure that Boston also simplifies fare collection on the surface portions by only collecting fares on inbound trips
*There's a nice report on the "automated on-board pay stations" folly (Self Service Fare Collection) that Frank mentions here
Nov 30, '06
Bob,
I'm not sure that turnstiles or gates are a necessary consequence of a smart card or RFID fare system. London's Underground should be proof enough that smart cards can co-exist quite happily with "open" stations. It is also a zone-based system, and a very heavily used one at that.
For example, one can travel between North Wembley and Hounslow (two stations a good deal away on separate lines) and never pass through a gate - he simply touches his Oyster card to a reader on the North Wembley platform as he approaches the train, and he again touches his card to another reader as he steps on the platform at Hounslow. It's an incredibly quick and painless process.
As far as the convenience of finding these readers is concerned, it's not like Tri-Met would be hiding such devices in hard-to-find or inaccessible areas. People would figure this stuff out after their first trip, and besides, it's not like MAX platforms are Parisian Metro labyrinths: you're gonna see the reader pretty quickly.
In all, a smart card system for Portland light rail would be remarkably similar to the one we have today. Simply envision a smart card instead of a ticket, and slap card readers on the validation posts at every platform.
If anything, a good ad campaign for a new system would seem to be more important than anything else.
Nov 30, '06
If the zone-based system created payment problems, Tri-Met could just dump it, and have a simple system-wide two-hour ride on each ticket.
Personally, I think Tri-Met should have dumped the zone system years ago. It's confusing to new riders, and the Tri-Met service area simply isn't large enough to justify division into zones. It also leads to some bizarre results: Sunset Transit Center to Hillsboro is less expensive than a one-station hop from Sunset Transit Center to the Washington Park station.
Nov 30, '06
I would totally love this, but unfortunately, it only works for stations that have mezzanine levels separated from the boarding platforms. It is virtually impossible to implement in an at-grade light rail system.
The good news is that the system we have, which uses people checking for tickets, is exactly what is used all throughout Germany... so its not like we're a lone, backwards system.
In Germany, however, if you don't pay - automatic 40 Euro fine (around $50). I saw a perfectly nice gentleman and his 10 year old kid get fined in Berlin - for a total of $100! They don't take any excuses over there, that's for sure. And even though I rode for free for 5 days, I would have eventually gotten caught. =P
Nov 30, '06
London has this system as well; it's called the Oyster Card. You're still able to buy paper tickets, however (especially useful for tourists).
Nov 30, '06
Follow up: In Japan, they allow you to charge up money on your cell phone, which has an RFID tag, which you can then use as a credit card in virtually any store in the country, and on trains and other transit systems.
Nov 30, '06
Thirdly: London's Oyster isn't RFID, its a swipe system. The paper tickets you get are also impregnated with a magnetic stripe (which is programmed when you buy it) that is throw away and deducts trips based on which one you buy... which is obviously as swipe as well.
Nov 30, '06
Why is it not ok for a business to run a failing money losing operation, but it's ok for the Government to run a money losing business day in and day out, then attempt to use capitalistic efforts and technology such as the octopus card in reaping what small revenue they do?
I really want to know. Also, why don't we libralize our markets more in Portland such as Hong Kong. Maybe transit, with the introduction of this octopus card would actually pay for itself? Maybe even apply it to auto travel and then they could fill in that measly 10-20% gap that isn't covered for roadways?
It really is a good idea, but something is just so unsettling letting the Government, and an entity (Trimet) know even MORE about what I do, where I go, how often I go, and other such information. It's bad enough that companies get it, but the Government getting it, the only entity legally entitled to use force and the only entity that can literally strip you of your rights if misused?
Doesn't seem the most grand of an idea until markets actually control transit again - if anyone will ever allow that to happen again.
Nov 30, '06
I was just in Hong Kong a couple of weeks ago, and their amazing public transit system has been on my mind ever since. The Octopus card was just one factor; it made it easy to ride all kinds of transportation - buses, trams, subways, ferries - without fumbling for change or having to learn a variety of fare and zone systems. But the other neat thing was how cheap it was. We rarely spent more than about $1.25 (US dollars) on a ride, and many of our subway rides were under a dollar. So we didn't think twice about hopping on this train or that boat. It's no surprise that most of the cars on the road are taxis. Whereas here in Portland, while I'm a huge public transit fan, I find myself reluctant to spend $1.70 one-way on a trip downtown.
I've heard that bus fares cover only a small percentage of TriMet's budget. If that is true, why not make them very cheap as an incentive, and see if increased ridership covers the revenue gap?
Dec 1, '06
Jenny Marx: I've heard that bus fares cover only a small percentage of TriMet's budget. JK: 20%
Jenny Marx: If that is true, why not make them very cheap as an incentive, and see if increased ridership covers the revenue gap? JK: To cover the gap, Trimet would have to increase its ridership by a factor of FIVE with no increase in total expenses. Impossible. Suppose added riders would only increase expenses at half of today’s rate: That would require a ridership increase of 10 times. That would require around ½ of all trips to be on transit - not very realistic.
The basic problem is that when we had the most complete transit system that we ever had, people abandoned it for superior technology: In the 1920s-1930s, people left in droves to the superior automobile as soon as they could afford one. (PS: transit does not save energy compared to new cars)
BTW, Hong Kong has an average commute distance of around five miles and one of the longest commute times in the world (if I recall correctly.) High density cities tend to have very long commute times - do we want to emulate this?
Thanks JK
Dec 1, '06
Ardon wrote:
I really want to know. Also, why don't we libralize our markets more in Portland such as Hong Kong.
Right, Hong Kong is the bastion of Libertarianism where 50% of people live in government subsidized housing, the government owns most of the open land and imposes strict urban growth limits and heavily subsidizes roads, transit, public health and works extremely closely with industry. Oh and keep in mind it's now a territory of a Communist government.
The completely fabricated Libertarian mythos is truly amazing.
10:40 a.m.
Dec 1, '06
Adron and all--transportation is always a money-losing venture, substantially subsidized by public funds. Free-marketers always place a preference on cars, but tend to ignore the huge costs to municipalities in terms of infrastructure--roads, bridges, traffic lights, police, etc. In Oregon, we subsidize these exclusively through taxes--we don't even recoup the 20% on fares because there are no fares.
However, I think that misses the point of my suggestion that the city adopt an Octopus-type card. It's not to somehow make Tri-Met profitable. The idea is to improve the function of the system so that riders find it easier and use it more; it also has efficiency and function advantages for Tri-Met.
Whether it's possible to move to a RFID system or not, the principle isn't beyond Portland. It may not be possible to replicate the Octopus here (for a number of reasons), but we could do a lot to integrate payment across the various transportations.
(And again, since it keeps getting mentioned, there is a way to protect people's privacy in a system like this. Scroll up the comments to see a discussion on that.)
Dec 1, '06
Jeff Alworth: Adron and all--transportation is always a money-losing venture, substantially subsidized by public funds. JK: Transit pays it own way in a number of foreign countires.
Jeff Alworth: Free-marketers always place a preference on cars, but tend to ignore the huge costs to municipalities in terms of infrastructure--roads, bridges, traffic lights, police, etc. In Oregon, we subsidize these exclusively through taxes--we don't even recoup the 20% on fares because there are no fares. JK: Where do yo get this misinformation? Cars always pay most of their costs. The subsidies to transit are well over ten times those of cars on a passenger-mile basis.
For the record: road user fees pay for all roads in Portland (except developer subsidies from the PDC in the Pearl and SoWhat) And street lighting, which one will note was general practice in cities before the car.
Suppose we had a general tax to pay for roads: That would be a case of taxing everyone for something that everyone uses. Seems fair to me. Now look at transit: everyone IS TAXED to supply service to a single digit percentage of the people.
At one time this was justified as helping the needy, but over time has become a subsidy to those working downtown, where the biggest three employers are government with well paying jobs. MAX is justified as being attractive to upper income people. Why is Trimet trying to attract yuppies out of their BMWs while they could be improving bus service and attracting lower income people out of old, high pollution cars?
Thanks JK
Dec 1, '06
Why did this thread get hijacked into a 'public transit vs. cars' debate (or why does this happen every time)? The question was if in Portland a E-Cash style ANONYMOUS card could be used to pay for transit, taxis, parking meters etc (notice two of those items are auto related). I think the answer is; Yes, this is a good idea that has been implemented with successfully else ware and should be looked into. Even if you hate the Street Car and the MAX transit isn't going to go away, so let's make it easier to pay your fare.
Dec 1, '06
Adron:
Perhaps people don't want transportation privatized in Portland because they want full responsibility by the organization that is running it, and to not allow any further externalization of costs onto society.
For instance, why not allow private companies to use eminent domain to build HOT expressways all over town, bulldozing down thousands of bungalows - with no oversight?
I believe Portlanders really fear this kind of thing, and value their community far more than their commute times. Noise, traffic, pollution, and the environment seem to rank much higher than privatization of the network so some guys can make millions/billions of dollars off of them.
One of the reasons the streetcar system failed, after all, was because people were fed up of what was considered "predatory business practices" by the monopolistic streetcar companies. Better to have them public, so at least citizens would have some say over these groups.
Dec 1, '06
JK - "Transit pays it own way in a number of foreign countires."
Japan and... Japan?
However, they privatized only AFTER the main rail corridors were established, using public and private partnerships. Japan was the first country in the world to create multinational, publicly-backed corporations, around 1895, called "Zaibatsus."
Do you really think the original Shinkansen high speed rail lines were solely paid for by private speculative investments?
Dec 1, '06
Does anyone here pay attention to JK and his rants against density and public transit? I hope not.
When I was in Hong Kong a few years ago, being the cheapskate I am, I stayed way out in Kowloon in the kind of lodging used by visiting Chinese. My subway ride to the island was pretty long and seemed to take hardly any time--far less than a MAX ride of similar distance. And the subway train came about every couple of minutes. What makes the transit system cheap and fast is exactly the population density.
Dec 1, '06
Mort: However, they privatized only AFTER the main rail corridors were established, using public and private partnerships. JK: Thanks for the info. It’s just like Trimet NOT counting construction costs in their published fare recovery of 19%.
Thanks JK
Dec 4, '06
Just for another reality check -- look to the nearest system to Portland to attempt to implement a Smart Card, the San Francisco Bay Area (as opposed to some metro area halfway around the world). The Bay Area has been attempting to implement the Translink Smart Card system to integrate fare collection for its 22+ transit operators... since the early 1990s. Currently, upwards of $100 million has been spent on the system (depending on how you calculate the costs), and it still is not operational for the core regional transit service: BART. It is up and running on Golden Gate and AC Transit services, and there is a planned eventual roll-out to the rest of the transit operators.
But at what cost?
I bring this up for two reasons:
1) Portland needs to very carefully examine the lessons from the Bay Area before embarking down the path of smart-card fare payment. I think that if you ask the Tri-Met managers about this, they will tell you that they are letting other regions take the lead on this issue, to see where the pitfalls are before they commit any of their own capital to the idea. And rightfully so. I'd much rather see one more streetcar, light rail or frequent bus service added to the system -- real additional functionality -- than a bunch of money wasted on what amounts to basically just a different way to collect the fare.
2) When all is said and done, the Translink system will be a HUGE benefit to the riding public in the Bay Area. It is currently extremely confusing, time-consuming and expensive to attempt to make multiple-operator trips from one part of the region to another. Heck, it's a PITA just to travel on ONE operator, BART, due to the complexities of their own paper-ticket fare-collection system and the byzantine fare-collection machines, fare gates and unfriendly station agents associated with it. Translink will definitely help to simplify all this, and when I was a participant in the pilot program and able to use it for travel between selected stations on BART, when it worked, it worked satisfyingly well.
That is to say -- there is a benefit from these smart card transit fare collection systems, but there are also enormous pitfalls associated with implementing them. Aside from the initial capital expense, there is the difficulty of navigating entrenched bureaucracies who are wedded to the current way of doing things, as well as the ongoing operating expenses and the pitfalls of dealing with international consultants who may have their own agendas.
Tread this road with extreme caution, for the promises of benefit are huge and the potential for averse consequences even larger.
Dec 5, '06
For more details, I've posted additional information on this topic here:
http://undergroundscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/regional-transit-smart-card-for_05.html
Specifically, I've tracked down more exact information on the San Francisco Bay Area's own smart card effort, TransLink, and how it may provide some meaningful lessons for Portland -- but not until at least a year from now, when it is implemented on more Bay Area transit systems (especially CalTrain, which is operationally the most similar to Tri-Met and specifically to MAX).
Don't be such an Oregonian California-hater that you refuse to learn from the mistakes made by your neighbors to the south!
cheers, ~Garlynn
<hr/>