% This file is part of the
% The Online BRT Planning Guide
%
% DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE MANUALLY!
%
% This file has been automatically generated from its sources
% using the OBRT tool:
%  tool version: 364c3e5
%  haxe version: 3.4.0
%  runtime: JS
%  platform: Linux

\chapter{18}{Fare Systems}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 1-6: code points 1-54

\quotation{Buy the ticket, take the ride.}{Hunter S. Thompson, journalist and author, 1937–2005}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-54

\highlight{Overview}\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 9-9: code points 1-20

Fare collection systems play a vital role in success or failure of any public transport system. Unaffordable fares and inappropriate collection methods may result in dissatisfaction and disappointment of passengers, while affordable fares, simplicity, and ease of use can attract more ridership. This chapter provides a brief description of fare collection systems. An explanation of fare structures and policies is provided in Chapter 15: Fare Policy and Structure.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 12-16: code points 1-41

Relying on the manual issue of paper tickets for fare collection involves considerable human effort, resulting in delays for customers and revenue leakage. Recent technological advances have introduced smart means of fare collection by using electronic devices, making the fare collection process faster and more secure. However, technology has its own limits that should be understood before adoption.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 19-22: code points 1-98

There are two types of fare collection processes: onboard systems, inside public transport vehicles, and off-board systems, outside the vehicles. Historically, onboard systems have functioned by means of a conductor inside the vehicle who issues paper tickets and collects cash payments. Some onboard systems make use of handheld ticketing machines that issue printed paper tickets (but still require a conductor inside the bus to issue tickets and collect the fares). Other onboard systems do not involve a conductor but require the passenger to pay a cash fare to the driver. Onboard systems may also incorporate prepayment mechanisms by means of smart card or token readers.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 25-31: code points 1-51

Off-board systems emerged as a means of handling large passenger volumes efficiently and without the inconvenience of onboard collection. Most rapid transit systems, including BRT and metros, collect fares at the station, before passengers enter the vehicle. Most successful BRT systems, such as Bogotá’s TransMilenio, rely on smart-card based, prepaid fare collection. Prepayment avoids the delays that occur when passengers need to file past the driver to pay their fares, or the inconvenience of having a conductor move through the bus and collect fares.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 34-39: code points 1-26

In general, a fare collection system must include:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 42-42: code points 1-50

\begin{itemize}
\item The payment media and devices for validation of payment media;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 45-46: code points 1-0
\item Access control mechanisms;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 46-47: code points 1-0
\item A central system for information processing and report generation with communication links between system components;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 47-48: code points 1-18
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 45-48: code points 1-18

Customer interface (signs, web pages, user complaints, etc.).\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 51-51: code points 1-61

The sections below discuss each of these components in more detail.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/fare-systems.src: lines 54-55: code points 1-0

\section{1}{Fare System Functionality}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-system-functionality}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 3-249: code points 1-0

\quotation{Customers require the effective integration of technologies to simplify their workflow and boost efficiency.}{Anne M. Mulcahy, businesswoman, 1952–}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-40

Rapid transit systems are designed to cater to large passenger volumes. Managing peak-hour volumes has been a challenge for public transport agencies around the world. While paper tickets were historically the primary mode of fare collection, public transport agencies have increasingly turned to electronic fare collection to cater to increasing demand, and to solve the problem of long passenger lines at ticket counters.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 8-12: code points 1-9

Any fare collection system must incorporate a mechanism to ensure payment by users. There are two primary means of ensuring compliance:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 14-15: code points 1-29

\begin{itemize}
\item Barrier control: Users need to pass through some kind of physical barrier to access the system. Typically this implies turnstiles on vehicles or at stations, sliding doors, or other such mechanisms. The users present a payment medium (e.g., a smart card or magnetic-strip card) for the barrier to open, and a payment is deducted from the medium;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 17-21: code points 1-0
\item Proof-of-payment: There are no physical barriers to enter the system. Users either enter freely (an “open system”) or show proof of payment upon entry and\slash{}or exit. In such systems, public transport staff conduct occasional checks to control fare evasion. For those caught without a valid fare during the random inspection process, a penalty is applied. Proof-of-payment systems entail pre-board fare collection, usually through a vending machine or kiosk. From the fare payment point onward, the customers proceed directly to the public transport vehicle without inspection.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 21-26: code points 1-60
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 17-26: code points 1-60

Barrier control is common on trunk corridors of many BRT systems, as it minimizes stress of human work and labor to maintain records and data. Proof-of-payment systems are typical in many European public transport systems, but are not very common in BRT systems due to the difficulty of coping with high demand levels and the costs of enforcement personnel necessary to reduce leakage to an acceptable level. Rigorous enforcement of fare evasion is something of an unpleasant business. Enforcement authorities have to be quasi police, either armed or physically large. Sometimes people are unable to figure out how to pay the fare, either because the cash point was not working, or it was closed, or it failed to punch the fare card properly. People need to retain the fare card, and sometimes it gets lost. When one of these things happens, it is highly unsettling for passengers, for they face a stiff penalty, and a humiliating encounter with enforcement agents.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 28-37: code points 1-34

Proof-of-payment systems are prevalent in subsidized public transport systems where there is less direct institutional concern about collecting the fare revenue. This kind of system also requires a legal framework that allows verification staff (that usually are not police staff) to have de facto police powers in the collection of penalties from violators, and a procedure for collecting when the passenger does not have the money to pay the fine. This legal framework is absent in many developing countries. Fare verification by personnel walking through the buses is also difficult on very crowded systems. Even with stringent verification requirements, cities can face significant amounts of fare evasion. As such, the viability of operating an effective honor system is questionable.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 39-46: code points 1-55

Some BRT systems with direct services that extend beyond trunk corridors sometimes make use of both compliance mechanisms: fares are collected off-board at trunk stations, but the system relies on proof-of-payment on service extensions. Other systems require paying the driver when the vehicles operate outside of the trunk corridor, as in Guangzhou, China, and Cali, Colombia. Thus, different components of a BRT system may require varying fare collection solutions.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 48-52: code points 1-46

Fare collection systems are also a factor of the fare structure. Fare collection is fairly straightforward in the case of flat fares, whereas distance-based or zonal fare systems typically require a more intricate solution. The following sections describe common approaches for typical BRT service types.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 54-56: code points 1-90

\subsection{1}{Fare Collection on Trunk Corridors}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-system-functionality:subSection:fare-collection-on-trunk-corridors}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 58-215: code points 1-69

Off-board fare collection is generally the most suitable process for BRT trunk corridors. Successful BRTs worldwide have adopted off-board fare collection systems to reduce boarding times and facilitate the use of electronic fare media. Bus frequencies on BRT trunk corridors are often so high that only electronic fare collection is a viable mechanism for handling fare payments during peak hours. For systems in which drivers are responsible for fare collection, passengers take as long as two to four seconds to pay the driver while entering the vehicle. Once passenger flows reach a certain threshold, the delays and time loss associated with onboard fare collection become a significant system liability.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 60-66: code points 1-92

By contrast, in a BRT system with pre-board fare collection, boarding and alighting is conducted from all doors at once. When fares are collected off the vehicle, there is no delay in boarding and alighting related to the fare collection and fare verification processes. A pre-board fare collection and verification process will reduce boarding times from 3 seconds per passenger to 0.3 seconds per passenger. In turn, the reduction in station dwell time greatly reduces vehicle congestion at the stopping bay.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 68-72: code points 1-91

The introduction of contactless smart cards and other modern payment systems can reduce onboard payment to fewer than two seconds per passenger. Systems such as the Seoul, South Korea, busway make use of onboard fare collection using smart card technology. However, any time the driver is responsible for verifying fares, the speed of the service is highly compromised, particularly if there is a large volume of passengers.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 74-77: code points 1-109

In the case of the Seoul busway system, passengers must remember to swipe their smart cards both upon entering the vehicle and when existing as well. Delays can occur simply if a person enters the vehicle and must search through their belongings to find the fare card. Onboard payment and verification psychologically also creates a lower-market image for the service. Off-board payment and verification gives the sense of a more metro-like system.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 79-83: code points 1-28

\tabletitle{1}{Observed Boarding and Alighting Times for Different Vehicle Configurations. Table courtesy of ITDP.}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:observed-boarding-and-alighting-times-for-different-vehicle-configurations-table-courtesy-of-itdp}
\halign to 30\tablemodule{%
	\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\cr
	\color{gray75}\bfseries Configuration characteristcs& \color{gray75}\bfseries & \color{gray75}\bfseries & \color{gray75}\bfseries & \color{gray75}\bfseries Boarding and alighting times& \color{gray75}\bfseries  \cr
	\noalign{\vskip 1mm} \hline \noalign{\vskip 2mm} 
	\color{gray50}Fare collection method&
	\color{gray50}Doorway width (meters)&
	\color{gray50}Stairway boarding or level boarding&
	\color{gray50}Vehicle floor height&
	\color{gray50}Observed; boarding time;&
	\color{gray50}Observed alighting time\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Onboard, manually by driver&
	\color{gray50}0.6&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}High&
	\color{gray50}3.0\textsuperscript{1}&
	\color{gray50}NA\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Onboard, contactless smart card (no turnstile)&
	\color{gray50}0.6&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}High&
	\color{gray50}2.0\textsuperscript{2}&
	\color{gray50}NA\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Off-board&
	\color{gray50}0.6&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}High&
	\color{gray50}2\textsuperscript{3}&
	\color{gray50}1.5\textsuperscript{3}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Off-board&
	\color{gray50}0.6&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}Low&
	\color{gray50}1.5&
	\color{gray50}1.2\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Off-board&
	\color{gray50}1.1&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}High&
	\color{gray50}1.5&
	\color{gray50}1.0\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Off-board&
	\color{gray50}1.1&
	\color{gray50}Stairway&
	\color{gray50}Low&
	\color{gray50}1.1&
	\color{gray50}0.9\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Off-board&
	\color{gray50}1.1&
	\color{gray50}Level&
	\color{gray50}High&
	\color{gray50}0.75\textsuperscript{1}&
	\color{gray50}0.5\textsuperscript{1}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 85-149: code points 1-9

Where:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 151-151: code points 1-6

\begin{enumerate}
\item Colombia\slash{}Mexico;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 153-154: code points 1-0
\item China;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 154-155: code points 1-0
\item Brazil;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 155-155: code points 1-15
\end{enumerate}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 153-155: code points 1-15

NA not available.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 157-157: code points 1-17

Off-board payment collection is not necessarily the only way to reduce boarding and alighting times, but there are institutional reasons why this approach is generally more successful in the developing-country context. Passengers can also enter through all doors at once if there are sufficient conductors to check tickets once on board. Alternatively, many European light-rail systems utilize an honor system, where it is the responsibility of passengers to punch their own tickets that they purchase at shops and kiosks. Enforcement is then the responsibility of the police or contracted security personnel. However, in developing countries such enforcement is usually ineffective.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 159-165: code points 1-50

Off-board fare collection also reduces the potential for leakage because there are fewer points of cash collection in the system. When passengers pay on board, and do not have to pass through a turnstile, there is no clear count of how many passengers boarded the vehicle. Off-board fare sales to a third party make it easier to separate the fare collection process from the bus operators. By having an open and transparent fare collection system, there is less opportunity for circumstances in which individuals withhold funds. Further, by removing the handling of cash by drivers, incidents of onboard robbery are reduced.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 167-173: code points 1-8

Off-board payment also facilitates free transfers within the system. The enclosed, controlled stations also give the system another level of security, as the stations can be better protected by security personnel, thus discouraging theft and other undesirable activities. Payment off board also is more comfortable than juggling change within a moving vehicle.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 175-178: code points 1-45

The main disadvantage to off-board fare collection is the need to construct and operate off-board fare facilities. Fare vending machines, sales booths, verification devices, and turnstiles all require both financial investment and physical space. The average station cost in the TransMilenio system was approximately US\$500,000 each. Of course, it is also possible to construct simpler closed stations for less; the stations on the Ecovía line in Quito, Ecuador, cost in the area of US\$35,000 each. Closed stations, though, also bring other benefits besides increased system efficiency. Such stations provide more protection from inclement weather, such as rain, wind, cold, and strong sun. Also, closed stations hold advantages in terms of providing security from crime as well as discouraging loitering.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 180-187: code points 1-73

In a BRT system with limited physical space for stations in a center median, accommodating the fare collection and verification infrastructure can be a challenge. Depending on how the fare system is configured, there may be some time loss while paying off board, whereas paying on board theoretically means that the payment time occurs while the bus is moving. Of course, this type of activity can create safety issues if the driver is both handling fares and driving at the same time. Customers can also be uncomfortably jostled about when trying to pay at the same time the vehicle is accelerating.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 189-194: code points 1-78

Some systems employ a reservoir area within the vehicle to hold passengers while they go through the fare payment and verification process. This system is utilized in Brazil to allow the passenger queue to quickly file into the vehicle, which can then accelerate to the next station without waiting for passengers to complete the fare-verification process. However, this technique often requires onboard fare collection staff, which in turn raises operational labor costs.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 196-200: code points 1-52

There is no one precise point at which a system’s capacity will determine if onboard or off-board fare collection is more cost effective. Much depends on demand figures from individual stations, station physical configurations, and average labor costs. However, the advantage of off-board payment clearly increases as the level of boardings and alightings at the station increases. In Goiânia, Brazil, the local public transport agency estimates that an off-board fare system is cost justified when the system capacity reaches 2,500 passengers per hour per direction. The development of a cost-benefit analysis may help determine this capacity point, provided the costing data is available.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 202-208: code points 1-60

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/41b5f293cf50f1390cd301146eb4bc9337d32283.jpeg}
		\fignote{1}{Off-board fare collection system in Beijing.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:off-board-fare-collection-system-in-beijing}}{Karl Fjellstrom.}
	}
\fi

BRT systems with off-board fare collection may use manned points of sale, automatic ticket vending machines, or a combination of both. Paper tickets can be issued during initial stages from ticket counters at stations, but the system should move toward paperless operations by introducing and promoting the use of cashless travel by means of automatic access control barriers.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 212-215: code points 1-69

\subsection{2}{Fare Collection on Feeders}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-system-functionality:subSection:fare-collection-on-feeders}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 217-232: code points 1-92

Depending on the system typology, feeder services can have onboard fare collection with conductors or proof-of-payment with electronic or paper tickets. Many BRT systems integrate fares between trunk and feeder services; feeder travel is discounted or free for passengers transferring to a trunk bus. In Bogotá’s TransMilenio, the user gets a complimentary feeder bus ride once he or she pays the fare to travel in the trunk bus. Transfer discounts are facilitated through the use of cashless fare collection systems in both trunk and feeder systems. For example, there can be a common smart card that can be used in the BRT as well as feeder services.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 219-225: code points 1-38

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/6461d8e4b4295d0d91a2ebff24c02226511539ec.jpeg}
		\fignote{2}{Onboard fare collection on a feeder bus in Yancheng, China, allows customers to connect to the BRT using a smart card payment system.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:onboard-fare-collection-on-a-feeder-bus-in-yancheng-china-allows-customers-to-connect-to-the-brt-using-a-smart-card-payment-system}}{Liu Henian.}
	}
\fi

The operating costs of fare collection in feeder services are generally higher than on-station, since additional personnel and communication costs are incurred. Revenue from trunk fares helps cover not only the increased cost of collection but potentially the cost of the feeder services themselves.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 230-232: code points 1-92

\subsection{3}{Fare Collection on Direct Services}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-system-functionality:subSection:fare-collection-on-direct-services}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 234-241: code points 1-103

Some BRT systems have special services and routes that connect trunk corridors with high-demand areas located a short distance from the segregated corridors. While these systems may employ off-board fare collection at trunk stations, an alternate solution is necessary on the extensions. One possibility is to employ electronic fare cards. Passengers tap onboard smart card readers when boarding from an extension, while fare collection is still accomplished off-board at the trunk stations. Monitoring by the driver or some other proof-of-payment mechanism is necessary to ensure fare payment on the service extensions.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 236-241: code points 1-103

\subsection{4}{Integration with Other Public Transport Services}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-system-functionality:subSection:integration-with-other-public-transport-services}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 243-249: code points 1-0

Integration of BRT fares with that of other forms of public transport has many advantages for passengers, reducing the need for cash payments and the inconvenience of learning multiple fare structures for different modes. In Guangzhou, China, customers may use the same fare card on the BRT, metro, and bicycle sharing systems.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/181-fare-system-functionality.src: lines 245-249: code points 1-0

\section{2}{Fare Collection Media}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 3-230: code points 1-60

\quotation{The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.}{B. F. Skinner, psychologist, 1904–90}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-38

The following payment mediums are in common use in BRT systems around the world:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 8-9: code points 1-0

\begin{itemize}
\item Coins;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 9-10: code points 1-0
\item Tokens;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 10-11: code points 1-0
\item Paper tickets;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 11-12: code points 1-0
\item Magnetic-strip cards;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 12-13: code points 1-0
\item Smart cards.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 13-13: code points 1-18
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 9-13: code points 1-18

No one solution is inherently correct. The choice of fare collection system often involves a trade-offs among costs, simplicity, cultural conditions, and service features. The selection of an appropriate fare collection medium is generally guided by the following goals:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 15-17: code points 1-61

\begin{itemize}
\item Minimize the time a passenger spends in purchasing tickets and entering the public transport system;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 19-20: code points 1-0
\item Make the overall fare collection process simple and easy to understand;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 20-21: code points 1-0
\item Minimize human interference in order to reduce the possibility of revenue leakage and fraud;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 21-22: code points 1-0
\item Minimize the cost of fare collection;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 22-23: code points 1-0
\item Generate financial and travel data for use in system monitoring;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 23-24: code points 1-0
\item Respond dynamically to changes in fare policies and service plans.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 24-24: code points 1-72
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 19-24: code points 1-72

Two decades ago, printed paper tickets were the only economically and technologically viable fare collection system in public transport systems around the world. But with the advent of electronic fare collection systems, the scenario has changed. Across the globe, most BRT systems have adopted contactless smart cards as the preferred payment medium. This technology has become popular because it is relatively inexpensive both in terms of upfront investment and in recurring maintenance costs, while providing numerous operational features.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 26-31: code points 1-9

\subsection{1}{Coin\slash{}Token Systems}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media:subSection:cointoken-systems}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 33-76: code points 1-10

Mechanical coin and token-based systems are among the simplest technologies available to handle fare collection and fare verification. These systems can be quite robust and economical to operate. New York City’s public transport system worked on a token-based system for more than a hundred years.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 35-37: code points 1-92

The number of sales personnel can be reduced and ticketing machines are not necessary with coin-based systems because the customer does not need to go through the cumbersome process of programming the electronic card. Instead, the currency acts directly as the fare payment and verification mechanism. There is no need to issue any paper tickets to customers. Also, there is typically no queue at the exit side of the trip, either. Thus, while other systems may involve at least three separate customer queues (purchase fare, verify fare at entrance, and verify fare at exit), coin-based systems require the customer to only enter one queue (verify fare at entrance). However, once a ticket is purchased, contactless cards tend to have higher throughput at the turnstile; coin-based systems will likely move only eight to twelve passengers per minute, versus fifteen to twenty passengers per minute with contactless cards.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 39-47: code points 1-93

In Quito, Ecuador, a simple coin-based system has worked successfully for both the city’s Trolebús and Ecovía lines. The system thus avoids the need to purchase any payment medium whatsoever. In Quito, an attendant window does exist, but it is only to give change to those who require it. Upon exiting a system, passengers simply file through one-way exit doors without the need for further fare verification. Quito’s system also allows the flexibility to utilize discount fare cards as well; these fare cards are based on magnetic-strip technology. However, the entire turnstile device can fit into a limited space, and thus permits two turnstiles within a relatively narrow station.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 49-55: code points 1-67

Naturally, coin-based systems depend on the availability of coins in the local currency. Further, the coins must be available in a combination that matches the desired fare level. If coins are not part of the local currency, then tokens are an option. However, the inclusion of tokens in the fare collection system defeats many of the benefits of coins. While still providing a relatively simple fare system, tokens require all customers to purchase from a machine or sales point. This activity increases the amount of customer queuing required to use the system. Another alternative is to utilize fare collection turnstiles that handle paper currency. However, this technology is not nearly as robust as coin readers. The extra moments required for authenticating the currency note will slow down the entry process and thus reduce system capacity. This problem is exacerbated by the poor quality of older currency notes.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 57-65: code points 1-89

But there are some limitations to this simple system. Coin-based systems are only usable with flat-fare structures, and cannot offer multi-trip discounts, time of day discounts, or free transfers to other modes without physical integration facilities. Of course, there are many conditions where a flat fare is desirable, as discussed in Chapter 15: Fare Policy and Structure. Also, by combining a coin-based system with another technology (such as magnetic-strip cards or smart cards), then multiple-trip fares are also possible.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 67-72: code points 1-18

Coin and token systems are subject to the illegal use of slugs and counterfeit coins. The handling and administrative requirements related to coin collection and transaction accounting are also more labor intensive.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 74-76: code points 1-10

\subsection{2}{Printed Paper Tickets}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media:subSection:printed-paper-tickets}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 78-112: code points 1-81

Printed paper tickets were previously a prime method of fare collection in public transport systems. Under most paper-based systems, preprinted tickets are issued to passengers against a cash payment of the fare. In many European public transport systems, paper tickets are sold off-board at vending booths, machines, kiosks, and other shops. The tickets are validated at the time of boarding by inserting the paper ticket into a stamping machine. This machine marks the time and sometimes the location of the validation. The validation process employed is important when paper systems have time limits on usage. Verification of paper tickets can take place manually upon entrance into the system, or may only be verified occasionally through random inspections.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 80-87: code points 1-27

In many public transport systems in Asia and Africa, a conductor inside the vehicle issues tickets. Often in such systems, the conductor manually issues and punches the tickets. Alternately, the tickets may be printed using a handheld ticketing machine; the conductor enters the codes of origin and destination on the numeric keypad of the machine and the ticket is printed using thermal paper. The continuous presence of a conductor helps ensure that all passengers are carrying valid tickets.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 89-93: code points 1-75

Paper tickets suffer from several drawbacks that limit their effectiveness in high demand rapid transit systems:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 95-96: code points 1-8

\begin{itemize}
\item For proof-of-payment systems without conductors, periodic checks are required on a frequent basis to ensure that passengers buy tickets. Such checks are difficult during peak periods when fare collection is highest;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 98-101: code points 1-0
\item In the case of tickets issued on board by a conductor, the process of issuing tickets is onerous and inconvenient for passengers, especially on crowded buses;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 101-103: code points 1-0
\item The likelihood of revenue leakage is high if the public transport agency does not record passenger and revenue data on a regular basis. There are numerous possibilities for fraud, such as the printing of fake tickets or the failure to issue official tickets to all passengers;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 103-106: code points 1-0
\item The agency must digitize any manual records generated at points of sale and from conductors into electronic records in order to carry out any kind of statistical analysis;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 106-108: code points 1-0
\item The system will have no record about who travelled with that ticket when the trip ends;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 108-109: code points 1-0
\item Battery-operated paper ticketing machines require charging every day.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 109-109: code points 1-75
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 98-109: code points 1-75

As a result of these drawbacks, paper tickets are rarely used on modern BRT systems. Agencies have turned to more robust fare collection media such as RFID smart cards (see below).\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 111-112: code points 1-81

\subsection{3}{Magnetic-Strip Cards}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media:subSection:magnetic-strip-cards}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 114-131: code points 1-80

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/36ae83f74f2f6f4bcccb30574332868d835a60ff.jpeg}
		\fignote{3}{All-purpose bus fare collection machine in Nagoya, Japan.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:all-purpose-bus-fare-collection-machine-in-nagoya-japan}}{Karl Fjellstrom.}
	}
\fi

Magnetic-strip cards were the first widely adopted form of automated fare collection to be used on many public transport systems around the world. Magnetic fare cards use the same technology found in consumer credit cards. Magnetic-strip cards can implement complex algorithms—including multiple trips and varying fare rates for different types of trips—and store data securely. They allow both read and write operations, and data from the verification turnstile can provide system operators with information on customer movements. In this way, they represent a major advance over paper-based systems. Magnetic-strip technology also has the advantage of the low cost of the fare cards themselves, about US\$0.02–0.05 per card. However, the magnetic-strip technology requires the card to come into extremely close contact with the card reader. Most systems require the user to feed the card into a slot. The card is then ejected for the user to retrieve. When the user removes the card, the turnstile opens. The extra time taken to process the card increases the boarding delay. In addition, magnetic-strip cards are generally made of coated paper, and can be damaged relatively easily. Some system providers utilizing magnetic-strip cards also elect to permit discounted fares for individuals purchasing multiple trips.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 119-131: code points 1-80

\subsection{4}{RFID-Based Smart Cards}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media:subSection:rfid-based-smart-cards}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 134-217: code points 1-98

Smart cards are based on a microprocessor that can read and process a variety of information regarding cash inputs, travel, and system usage with the highest possible security level. Smart cards are capable of supporting complex fare policies and can facilitate integration among multiple public transport modes. Smart cards rely on radio frequency identification (RFID) that activates a turnstile when held in proximity to the reader, an act that generally requires less physical precision than swiping or inserting a magnetic-strip card. Smart cards permit a wide range of information to be collected on customer movements, which ultimately can assist in system development and revenue distribution. BRT systems in Bogotá, Colombia; Goiânia, Brazil; and Guayaquil, Ecuador, have successfully employed smart card technologies.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 136-143: code points 1-83

Contactless smart cards have embedded dynamic logic that enables the implementation of complex fare rules, including transfer discounts during specific time windows, discounted off-peak fares, and distance-based fares. Other payment media lack the dynamic logic necessary to carry out such operations. Smart cards also have a longer life cycle and are less likely to experience a loss of data when compared to magnetic-strip cards. Smart-card-based systems can also incorporate solutions for single-journey tickets such as RFID tokens. A passenger taps a token when entering the system and deposits it in a turnstile when leaving the system.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 145-151: code points 1-11

The main drawbacks of smart card technology are the relative cost of the card and its complexity. The system requires fare vending personnel and\slash{}or card vending machines. The system also typically requires verification machines at system exits if distance-based fares are utilized. In each instance, the risk of long customer queues, especially during peak periods, is increased at the point of sale but reduced at the turnstile. In addition to the costs of the vending and verification machines, each smart card is a relatively costly expense. Current prices are in the range of one to three US dollars per card. The card cost depends on the card complexity.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 153-159: code points 1-45

Virtually all smart cards conform to the ISO 7816 size standard. The card material can vary with options such as PVC, PET, and even paper. Different manufacturers have developed their proprietary protocols and operating systems that define the security and compatibility between cards and reading devices. The most common standard is defined in the ISO 14443 A\slash{}B standard, which details the card characteristics.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 161-164: code points 1-102

The microchip on a smart card can either be “memory only” or “memory with microprocessing” capabilities. Cards with a memory chip can only store data, and have pre-defined dedicated processing capabilities. The addition of microprocessing allows the smart card to actually execute applications as well. For example, a microprocessor chip can allow the stored value of the smart card to be used for purchases outside the public transport system.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 166-170: code points 1-24

In Hong Kong, the Octopus card permits users to make purchases at shops as well as pay for public transport. The Octopus card allows up to HK\$1,000 (US\$125) of stored value to be placed on the card. While this feature can be quite convenient, smart cards with microprocessing capabilities tend to be more expensive than other types of cards. However, for systems such as Hong Kong, the flexibility and utility of the cards make them a worthwhile investment. There are currently an estimated 26 million Octopus cards in circulation in Hong Kong. Approximately 13 million transactions take place in Hong Kong each day using the Octopus card.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 172-178: code points 1-17

Once a card brand such as the Octopus is established, its ability to penetrate into a wide variety of related markets is significant. Octopus started with a core network of transport services in 1997, and soon expanded into almost all forms of transport payment services.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 180-182: code points 1-70

Likewise, the Octopus card is finding utility in several applications outside the transport sector. Some of these outside payment applications include supermarkets, convenience stores, fast food franchises, vending machines, photocopiers, cinemas, and sports venues. The flexibility of such cards means that the system’s marketplace and potential for profit can extend well beyond the transport sector. Such market diversity can help strengthen overall company performance.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 184-188: code points 1-58

The Seoul, South Korea, T-money system is in many ways quite similar in performance to the Octopus card. T-money can be used both on the city’s metro system as well as other transport services such as the BRT system. Likewise, T-money is crossing over into many non-transport applications, such as retail purchases. The fare card systems in Hong Kong and Seoul are also showing much creativity in the form of the cards themselves. Both cities allow customers to accessorize with fare chips that are inserted in a range of products such as watches and key chains. Also, in the future it is likely that customers will be able to swipe their mobile telephones in order to make payments.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 190-196: code points 1-72

Typically smart cards for transport applications have from one to four kilobytes of memory. A four-kilobyte card will be able to support multiple applications, including e-money transactions.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 198-199: code points 1-83

Unlike magnetic-strip cards, though, smart cards have a long life and can be reused for periods in the range of five to ten years. As smart cards become more common, the cost of the cards will undoubtedly continue to fall.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 201-203: code points 1-17

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/1fdfe015606cf24de7b44dfd6e9b3f126522eda0.jpeg}
		\fignote{4}{A fare collection machine in Chengdu, China, that accepts tokens and smart cards.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:a-fare-collection-machine-in-chengdu-china-that-accepts-tokens-and-smart-cards}}{Xianyuan Zhu.}
	}
\fi

From a financial point of view, although smart cards have a relatively high initial cost (one to three US dollars per card), the cost per transaction is significantly less than that of magnetic-strip cards. Some system designers estimate that maintenance costs for contactless smart card equipment are between 7 to 10 percent of the initial investment, compared with 15 to 20 percent for magnetic-strip systems.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 208-211: code points 1-101

Besides the cost of the cards, the chief disadvantage of smart cards is the relative complexity of the implementation. In the case of TransJakarta, the BRT system operated for more than one year before the smart card system could actually function. Implementing a smart card system is an order of magnitude more difficult than many other payment mediums. Smart-card systems are not yet in the category of a “plug-and-play” technology, as much software programming and specialized skills must accompany the implementation.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 213-217: code points 1-98

\subsection{5}{Advanced Technologies}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:fare-collection-media:subSection:advanced-technologies}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 219-230: code points 1-60

Several emerging technologies offer the promise of simplifying fare collection in the future. One such technology is near field communication (NFC), a short-range wireless technology used in mobile phones. This technology, covered under the ISO 14433 standard, allows a smartphone to function similarly to an RFID smart card in conjunction with contactless readers at station turnstiles. It offers great flexibility, since the money pocket can be added to in several ways, including SMS or internet. An example of an NFC solution is the Google Wallet, an application that can store credit and debit account information securely on a phone, and then use the NFC capability to pay at enabled payment readers. At present, the biggest obstacle to more widespread use of NFC is the limited availability of NFC-ready phones, especially in developing countries. However, with increasing market penetration of smartphones, this technology may become viable for transport applications in the near future.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/182-fare-collection-media.src: lines 221-230: code points 1-60

\section{3}{Gates and Turnstiles}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:gates-and-turnstiles}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 1-281: code points 1-9

\quotation{The world is all gates, all opportunities, strings of tension waiting to be struck.}{Ralph Waldo Emerson, poet, 1803-82}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 3-4: code points 1-36

Off-board fare collection systems generally employ physical barriers to prevent passengers from entering the system without paying. Most early entry control systems made use of rotating turnstiles. Later developments have resulted in improved and more efficient access control mechanisms with retractable wing gates. Gate arms that pivot horizontally are inexpensive but are generally avoided because they allow entry of more than one person before the arms close.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 6-10: code points 1-38

The turnstile, or tripod gate, is probably the most common access control mechanism used in BRT systems across the world. Once the fare reader authorizes a passage, the tripod is released from a fixed position to rotate a third of a revolution and ensure passage for one person. The TransMilenio BRT system in Bogotá, the Trolebús and Ecovía lines in Quito, Ecuador, and many other systems in South America make use of tripod gates. Tripod gates are not universally accessible to persons with disabilities and users with strollers and suitcases. Alternative access may be provided through manual gates operated by a station attendant. Despite these accessibility challenges, tripod gates are common because of their low maintenance and operating costs.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 12-19: code points 1-20

Retractable wing gates have become standard on many large rapid transit systems such as the London Underground, Hong Kong Metro, and Washington, DC Metro. They also have started to appear in BRT systems, including the Janmarg system in Ahmedabad, India, and the Beijing BRT. The wings are manufactured from durable plastics, glass, or stainless steel. They automatically fold back once the fare reader completes a successful fee transaction. Wing barriers provide a professional appearance while simultaneously preventing fare evasion. They also have advanced detection systems that prevent the flaps from closing while a person or other object—such as a suitcase or stroller—is still passing through. The barriers can also stay open if a second legal passage is detected. The clear opening between the wings can be designed to meet customers’ requirements, including wider gates that permit the passage of wheelchairs.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 21-29: code points 1-75

One consideration in the design of retractable-flap systems is the height of the gate. Most systems utilize waist-high gates, but higher gates are used where there is little oversight and\slash{}or a high incidence of fare evasion. The higher the gate, the heavier it becomes, ultimately placing more restrictions on the type of mechanism, flap material, and the speed of opening and closing. Some systems use gates with both heights, with waist-high systems at entrances where there are fare agents and full-height systems where there is less oversight. For example, Quito employs a half-body height turnstile at the entrances that also include the presence of a fare agent.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 31-37: code points 1-47

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/4c27eb5cb06a8f00785208385193a7f9874a8265.jpeg}
		\fignote{5}{The BRT system in Chengdu, China, utilizes wing gates to control access to the system.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:the-brt-system-in-chengdu-china-utilizes-wing-gates-to-control-access-to-the-system}}{Karl Fjellstrom.}
	}
\fi

The typical dimensions and capacities of the different gates are summarized in Table 18.2 (turnstile dimensions are also often customized). The space limitations for BRT stations constructed in road medians pose a challenge in terms of providing sufficient capacity for peak demand at fare gates. Many systems stagger gates or employ bidirectional gates that can be used in any direction, allowing the system to set the orientation of the gates to match the direction of peak passenger flows.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 44-48: code points 1-80

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/2f063ab63b53f887e742ee6b48e2e118875709da.jpeg}
		\fignote{6}{Urumqi, China, streamlines customer flow by offsetting the gates and making them unidirectional. Image\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:urumqi-china-streamlines-customer-flow-by-offsetting-the-gates-and-making-them-unidirectional-image}}{Karl Fjellstrom.}
	}
\fi

\tabletitle{2}{Turnstile Widths}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:turnstile-widths}
\halign to 30\tablemodule{%
	\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\cr
	\color{gray75}\bfseries Category& \color{gray75}\bfseries Type& \color{gray75}\bfseries Height (mm)& \color{gray75}\bfseries Opening Width (mm)& \color{gray75}\bfseries Installation Width (mm)& \color{gray75}\bfseries Capacity \cr
	\noalign{\vskip 1mm} \hline \noalign{\vskip 2mm} 
	\color{gray50}Waist Height&
	\color{gray50}Retractable&
	\color{gray50}960–1095&
	\color{gray50}500–990&
	\color{gray50}820–1580&
	\color{gray50}60 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}Angle Wing&
	\color{gray50}1060–1200&
	\color{gray50}650–700&
	\color{gray50}760–1250&
	\color{gray50}60 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}Rotating Arm (Tripod)&
	\color{gray50}950–1090&
	\color{gray50}430–520&
	\color{gray50}750–820&
	\color{gray50}25–40 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}Swinging Arm&
	\color{gray50}965–1100&
	\color{gray50}600–1200&
	\color{gray50}720–1400&
	\color{gray50}30 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Full Height&
	\color{gray50}Angle Wing&
	\color{gray50}1200–1829&
	\color{gray50}500–950&
	\color{gray50}760–1690&
	\color{gray50}30–60 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}Rotating Tripod&
	\color{gray50}2200&
	\color{gray50}600–700&
	\color{gray50}1450&
	\color{gray50}20 persons\slash{}min\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 53-103: code points 1-9

A few BRT systems with onboard fare collection employ onboard physical barriers. Passengers board the bus into a holding area and must tap in to pass by a turnstile. Some other systems, such as the Rea Vaya BRT in Johannesburg, South Africa, also employ fare gates on feeder buses to facilitate the use of an integrated, distance-based fare on the entire BRT network. Rea Vaya feeder buses have tripod gates at the exit doors of buses. The passenger must tap to exit the bus, allowing the system to calculate the distance traveled and the appropriate fare.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 105-110: code points 1-43

\tabletitle{3}{Different Fare Collections Systems in Place in BRT Systems around the World.}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:different-fare-collections-systems-in-place-in-brt-systems-around-the-world}
\halign to 46\tablemodule{%% requires the ifoddpage package
\relax\checkoddpage\ifoddpage\else%
	\kern -16\tablemodule%
\fi%
	\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=10\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\cr
	\color{gray75}\bfseries City& \color{gray75}\bfseries BRT Standard Level& \color{gray75}\bfseries Name of System& \color{gray75}\bfseries Type of Collection& \color{gray75}\bfseries Barrier Control& \color{gray75}\bfseries Fare Collection Media& \color{gray75}\bfseries Fare Type \cr
	\noalign{\vskip 1mm} \hline \noalign{\vskip 2mm} 
	\color{gray50}\highlight{US}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Cleveland, Ohio&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}RTA Healthline&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Machine for validation before boarding&
	\color{gray50}Magnetic card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Los Angeles&
	\color{gray50}Bronze&
	\color{gray50}LA Metro Orange Line&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}TAP card must be tapped before boarding at validating stations&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Eugene, Oregon&
	\color{gray50}Bronze&
	\color{gray50}Emerald Express (EmX)&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Off-board fare machines&
	\color{gray50}Proof-of-payment, random inspection&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}\highlight{South America}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Lima, Peru&
	\color{gray50}Gold&
	\color{gray50}El Metrobolitano&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Electronic readers\slash{}turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Electronic pre-paid card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Buenos Aires, Argentina&
	\color{gray50}Bronze&
	\color{gray50}Metrobus&
	\color{gray50}Onboard&
	\color{gray50}-&
	\color{gray50}Coins\slash{} SUBE smart card&
	\color{gray50}Zonal rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Curitiba, Brazil&
	\color{gray50}Gold&
	\color{gray50}Green Line&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Pre-pay station, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Rio de Janeiro, Brazil&
	\color{gray50}Gold&
	\color{gray50}Transoeste&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Pre-pay station, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Electronic prepaid card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Barranquilla, Colombia&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}Transmetro&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Electronic readers\slash{}turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Electronic prepaid card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Cali, Colombia&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}MIO (Masivo Integrado de Occidente)&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Contact-free magnetic ticketing&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Perreira, Colombia&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}Megabus&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Contact-free magnetic ticketing, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Medellín, Colombia&
	\color{gray50}Gold&
	\color{gray50}Metroplus&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Contact-free magnetic ticketing&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}\highlight{Asia}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Guangzhou, China&
	\color{gray50}Gold&
	\color{gray50}Guangzhou BRT&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Fare verification, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Jakarta, Indonesia&
	\color{gray50}Bronze&
	\color{gray50}TransJakarta&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Fare verification, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Tickets, prepaid card&
	\color{gray50}Flat rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Ahmedabad, India&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}Janmarg&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Fare verification, wing gates, turnstiles&
	\color{gray50}Smart card, tokens&
	\color{gray50}Zonal rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}\highlight{Africa}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}&
	\color{gray50}\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Johannesburg, South Africa&
	\color{gray50}Silver&
	\color{gray50}Rea Vaya&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Fare verification, wing gates, TAP card entering and exiting stations&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Zonal rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Cape Town, South Africa&
	\color{gray50}Bronze&
	\color{gray50}MyCity&
	\color{gray50}Off board&
	\color{gray50}Fare verification, wing gates, TAP card entering and exiting stations&
	\color{gray50}Smart card&
	\color{gray50}Zonal rate\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/183-gates-and-turnstiles.src: lines 112-281: code points 1-9

\section{4}{Back-End Components}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:back-end-components}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/184-back-end-components.src: lines 1-18: code points 1-28

\quotation{The way to build a complex system that works is to build it from very simple systems that work.}{Kevin Kelly, publisher, 1952–}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/184-back-end-components.src: lines 3-4: code points 1-32

Fare collection systems require a robust back-end to process fare payments, store fare data, and generate reports for system managers. Most systems incorporate a computer at each fare collection location (i.e., each station or bus). The computer compiles data from turnstiles or onboard ticket machines and sends this information via a secure data channel to a control center on a real-time basis. Control center staff can monitor system status, respond to defective or malfunctioning machines, and generate reports. All systems should have backup power to ensure that the system can continue to operate in the event of electricity outages. In addition, the stations and control center should have backup capabilities.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/184-back-end-components.src: lines 6-12: code points 1-86

During the implementation of the information system, the BRT agency should ensure that the fare collection service provider provides complete details on the data protocols used to transfer fare collection data. These details are required in the event that a future fare collection contract is given to a different provider. The BRT agency should develop an in-house team of experts who conduct regular monitoring of the fare collection system.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/184-back-end-components.src: lines 14-18: code points 1-28

\section{5}{Institutional Structure}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:institutional-structure}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 1-84: code points 1-23

\quotation{Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.}{Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights leader, 1929-68}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 3-4: code points 1-54

Institutional arrangements for the fare collection and verification system vary widely from system to system, with different benefits and risks. Most successful BRT systems have adopted a public-private partnership model to handle fare collection. These systems involve the following parties:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 6-8: code points 1-89

\begin{itemize}
\item The manager of the money (usually a bank or money manager);% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 10-11: code points 1-0
\item The equipment provider;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 11-12: code points 1-0
\item The fare provider;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 12-13: code points 1-0
\item The fare system operator;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 13-14: code points 1-0
\item The public transport authority or its parent agency.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 14-14: code points 1-58
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 10-14: code points 1-58

How these functions are related institutionally depends on the technical competence of the public transport authority or its parent agency, the level of concern about corruption, the type of system desired, and the need for financing it with private money.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 16-18: code points 1-45

It is fairly standard for the manager of the money, the equipment provider, and the fare provider to be closely associated, while the fare system operator is separate. This allows the equipment provider\slash{}financial manager to monitor the fare system operator in order to avoid corruption. Figure 18.7 outlines a typical system structure.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 20-23: code points 1-17

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/42acb22d33bc1b2e3a6a87e2b61ec89fc45917a1.jpeg}
		\fignote{7}{Institutional relationships in a typical fare system. Graphic\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:institutional-relationships-in-a-typical-fare-system-graphic}}{Fabio Gordillo.}
	}
\fi

In the case of TransJakarta, splitting the responsibility for operating the fare system and procuring the fare system equipment led to major problems. When problems with the equipment technology emerged, the fare-system operator was unable to fix them, and claimed to have no legal responsibility for fixing the problem. The fare system equipment supplier should have been liable, but the contract signed with TransJakarta did not provide for this eventuality. There was nothing inherently wrong with the structure, but any structure not backed by solid legal contracts outlining financial liability for service failures can lead to disaster.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 27-33: code points 1-21

In the case of TransMilenio in Bogotá, the fare system was implemented through a unique build-operate-transfer (BOT) model. In this case, there was a competitive tender for a single company to both procure the fare system equipment and operate the fare system. The company that won this tender, Angelcom SA, both selected and paid for the fare equipment and operates the system (Figure 18.8). The contract signed was between the public operating company (i.e., TransMilenio SA) and the private firm, not between the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works and the private firm. The private company in turn receives a fixed percentage of the revenues from TransMilenio. A third company was contracted by TransMilenio to be responsible for managing the revenue once collected. All fare revenue in TransMilenio is placed by the operator into a trust fund, and this company manages the TransMilenio Trust Fund on behalf of all the parties with a vested interest in the fair and accurate division of this revenue: TransMilenio SA, the trunk line operators, the feeder bus operators, and the fare collection company.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 35-45: code points 1-88

\ifxetex
	% disabled for now
\else
	{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
		\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/1d8bc4b65f6f0a719c0618e76465e172ea7cde1a.jpeg}
		\fignote{8}{In Bogotá, the contract for purchasing and operating the fare collection equipment was awarded to a single private firm.\label{chapter:fare-systems:figure:in-bogot-the-contract-for-purchasing-and-operating-the-fare-collection-equipment-was-awarded-to-a-single-private-firm}}{Lloyd Wright.}
	}
\fi

This build-operate-transfer institutional model for the fare system had some advantages and disadvantages. The system was eventually able to attract private investment for the fare system equipment in a country where private investment was difficult to secure due to political risk. This private financing reduced the initial capital cost of the TransMilenio BRT system. However, the fare system operator receives 10 percent of TransMilenio’s total revenue, whereas its operating costs are probably much lower. As such, it puts an unnecessary financial burden on system operations. It would have been less costly if the fare system were simply purchased outright by TransMilenio.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 50-56: code points 1-54

This structure did assure that the fare system functioned on a basic level. Because Angelcom SA’s profits are determined by the success of the system, the company has a vested interest in making sure the system operates properly. Because it is also responsible for operating the system, the company has a vested interest in getting equipment that functioned properly. Because Angelcom SA was a fare system operating company, it also knew more about the appropriate technology than the government, and was able to negotiate better equipment contracts with subcontractors and receive lower prices. By privatizing the procurement contract, the risk of corruption in the procurement process is lessened.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 58-64: code points 1-72

On the other hand, Angelcom SA bought relatively cheap equipment in an attempt to save money. The company complied with its contractual obligations but the quality standards were reasonably poor, the design was inflexible and of poor quality, implementation was slow, and there were a host of technical problems in the first month of operation. These problems could have been solved within the current structure by imposing harsher penalties for poor performance, and by having TransMilenio specify in the tender a higher technical standard for the fare equipment. TransMilenio could even have handled the procurement independently and then awarded the contract to the winning fare system operator. In this way, the operating system bidder becomes the owner of the new equipment, and can be required to pay for the investment, but the government would retain tighter control over the equipment selection process.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 66-74: code points 1-77

It is fairly common in the public transport industry to separate initial equipment procurement from operations. This practice is usually done when there is a public transport authority that directly collects the fare-box revenue, and where there is no expectation that the operating company will invest in the system. Technology providers such as Ascom Monetel, ERG, INDRA, or Scheidt and Bachmann have focused their attention on the technology development and integration tasks, leaving the fare system operation to the public transport agencies. This structure can reduce the on-going financial burden that a BOT would impose. However, if equipment procurement and operations are separated, contracts will have to be structured carefully to ensure that the equipment providers are responsible to the operating company for system maintenance.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/185-institutional-structure.src: lines 76-84: code points 1-23

\section{6}{Tendering Process}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:tendering-process}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/186-tendering-process.src: lines 3-24: code points 1-68

\quotation{If you cannot be on the project each day to check on things, then you should not try and be your own contractor.}{Robert Metcalfe, inventor, 1946–}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/186-tendering-process.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-35

The contract for fare collection systems is often integrated with that for passenger information (i.e., in-station and in-vehicle audio and visual announcements) because the two systems utilize the same communications infrastructure. Passenger information systems are discussed further in Chapter 11: Marketing and Customer Service.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/186-tendering-process.src: lines 8-11: code points 1-8

The tendering documents should state the technology protocols that the service provider is expected to follow as well as quantitative service levels to be monitored over the course of the contract. The initial contract term should be limited to five years so that the BRT agency can switch to a different provider if the initial operator does not perform well. As discussed above, the tender should explicitly state that the service provider must provide data transfer protocols to the BRT agency for compatibility in the future. The evaluation process should take into account both technical and financial criteria.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/186-tendering-process.src: lines 13-18: code points 1-101

The tender process for implementation of fare collection systems should begin as soon as general BRT infrastructure construction is initiated. Considering the time span required in pre-tender (planning, RFP documentation, amendments, publishing) and post-tender (pre-bid meetings, bid submission, bid scrutiny, negotiation, bid award, mobilizing resources) processes, the BRT agency should start the process accordingly as soon as the work order for infrastructure construction is given.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/186-tendering-process.src: lines 20-24: code points 1-68

\section{7}{Costs}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:costs}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 3-71: code points 1-9

\quotation{The price is what you pay; the value is what you receive.}{Anonymous}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-11

Calculation of various costs involved in planning, implementing, and maintaining intelligent transport systems is a critical component for the transit agency. The BRT agency should estimate the probable capital and operating costs of the fare collection system during the planning stage, before the tendering process begins. Capital costs depend on the fare collection technology and the system scope—the number of buses, stations, depots, and terminals and expected passenger volumes. Keeping the system operational requires regular upgrades of software systems to update security and communication protocols. In addition, regular maintenance is required to ensure the proper functioning of fare gates and other hardware components.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 8-14: code points 1-101

Fare collection for BRT systems typically accounts for 7–12 percent of total operating costs, but has varied from 5 to 15 percent. In Bogotá’s TransMilenio, the fare collection operator receives between 7.56–9.1 percent of system revenue.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 16-18: code points 1-35


			\ifxetex
				% disabled for now
			\else
				{  % group required to avoid fignote settings escaping
					\tabletitle{4}{Fare and ITS costs (Phase I Project of 50 kilometers)}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:fare-and-its-costs-phase-i-project-of-50-kilometers}

					\img{\hsize}{technology/assets/f5e1dd1a026046a60be614f084d822525cbe66b8.png}
				}
			\fi

\tabletitle{5}{Capital Cost Components}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:capital-cost-components}
\halign to 30\tablemodule{%
	\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=24\tablemodule#}\cr
	\color{gray75}\bfseries Fare Collection& \color{gray75}\bfseries Card validators; Ticket printers; POS (point of sales) machines; Computers; Access control barriers; Station servers; UPS; Communication network; Smart cards; \cr
	\noalign{\vskip 1mm} \hline \noalign{\vskip 2mm} 
	\color{gray50}Control Center&
	\color{gray50}Servers; UPS backup; Communications network; Bulk Initialization Machine (BIM); Printers; Computers; Biometric readers; Screens;\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Software&
	\color{gray50}Automatic vehicle location, fare collection, financial management, PIS, depot management, vehicle scheduling and dispatching, asset management and inventory, POS, BIM, card validators, web portal, servers, dashboard module, antivirus and cybersecurity, accounting, data transfer, data backup, report generation\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 24-34: code points 1-9

\tabletitle{6}{Operating cost components}
\label{chapter:fare-systems:table:operating-cost-components}
\halign to 30\tablemodule{%
	\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=5\tablemodule#}\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}&
	\hbox to 0.5\tablemodule{}\vtop{\sffamily\footnotesize\noindent\hsize=24\tablemodule#}\cr
	\color{gray75}\bfseries Manpower& \color{gray75}\bfseries Perks, benefits, salaries, fines \cr
	\noalign{\vskip 1mm} \hline \noalign{\vskip 2mm} 
	\color{gray50}Transportation costs&
	\color{gray50}Fuel, vehicles used by staff\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Software&
	\color{gray50}Upgrade and calibration, license and renewal fees, copyrights\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Hardware&
	\color{gray50}Regular equipment check, software calibration, life cycle analysis\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Electricity&
	\color{gray50}Power consumed by all hardware at stations, terminals, depots, interchange stations, transfer stations, central control center and administrative office\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Communication costs&
	\color{gray50}Telephone, mobile phones, and internet usage charges\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Administrative costs&
	\color{gray50}Stationery, printing, auditors’ fees, consultancy fees, advertisement and marketing, insurance, accident claims, legal matters, and other administrative work costs\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Infrastructure costs&
	\color{gray50}Maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation works\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Security&
	\color{gray50}Stations, corridors, control center\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Housekeeping&
	\color{gray50}Cleaning of infrastructure (stations, terminals, depots)\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}	\color{gray50}Landscaping&
	\color{gray50}Costs toward maintenance and planting of landscaping along corridor\cr
	\noalign{\vskip 2mm 
}}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/187-costs.src: lines 37-71: code points 1-9

\section{8}{Case Studies}
\label{volume:technology:chapter:fare-systems:section:case-studies}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 3-104: code points 1-40

\quotation{No rules exist, and examples are simply life-savers answering the appeals of rules making vain attempts to exist.}{André Breton, poet, 1896–1966}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 5-6: code points 1-31

Fare collection and fare validation are critical for quality of service and financial stability of the BRT system. Nevertheless, less effort is often assigned for its preparation, procurement, and supervision than the effort given for trunk-vehicle operations. Both Bogotá, Colombia, and Jakarta, Indonesia had troubles in the fare collection system at the beginning of their operation, which were gradually solved throughout the first years of operation.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 8-12: code points 1-40

In both cities, there were initial operational difficulties with the fare collection systems, such as long queues for card acquisition, low throughput at the turnstiles, and loss of trips stored in the cards. There were also problems with the quality and integrity of the data (sales, validation). These problems resulted in some loss of confidence among customers in the system. These problems could have been avoided with better planning, procurement design, and supervision.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 14-18: code points 1-71

Bogotá and Jakarta wanted their systems to have up-to-date electronic fare collection systems using contactless cards. In both cases they allocated relatively little time for system design, testing, and implementation. Both systems also had contractors without previous experience in public transport operations.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 20-22: code points 2-109

The main differences between Bogotá and Jakarta were the institutional setup and the contracting procedures. Bogotá procured and supervised the firm through a single organization, the public company known as TransMilenio SA. By contrast, Jakarta split equipment and operation between two different agencies. The equipment was procured by the Department of Transportation (Dinas Perhubungan or DisHub). The system supervision and operation was managed by the newly created operational entity known as TransJakarta. There was an apparent lack of coordination between these agencies. Furthermore, equipment and software procurement was separated from day-to-day operations, contracted afterward directly by TransJakarta.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 24-30: code points 1-88

In terms of contracting procedures, TransMilenio SA conducted an open bidding process, while the Department of Transportation in Jakarta apparently selected the provider directly. Later in the process TransJakarta selected the operator from a short list using an accelerated contracting process. Both companies operating the systems in Bogotá and Jakarta were visionary and entrepreneurial, but lacked the capacity to timely comply with the contract requirements. They were able to sort out the difficulties, but solutions only came after many months of problems.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 32-37: code points 1-35

Initial operations in both cases were not smooth. Bogotá initiated with paper tickets that were replaced in the first four months of operations by contactless smart cards. Despite the requirement in the contract of using Edmondson tickets for one or two customer trips, and contactless cards for multiple trips only (three or more), the local contractor asked for contactless cards only, which was accepted by TransMilenio SA under the operator’s own risk. Cards were not charged to the users, and hence the required card stock was, and still is, very large. Initial operation of the validation (check-in and check-out) was not reliable, and customers lost confidence in multiple fares, which in turn increased queues at fare booths.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 39-45: code points 1-95

Problems with Bogotá’s validation process resulted in an important change in the operational scheme: exit validation was eliminated due to numerous complaints from customers. Additionally, part of the stock of cards was unreliable and needed to be retired. Finally, some turnstiles using local integration were below the required standards and were replaced by more reliable equipment at the operator’s expense.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 47-50: code points 1-100

In the case of Jakarta, most of the problems were the result of implementing a fare collection system without careful adaptation to the local conditions by a contractor without enough expertise to comply with the system requirements. Reliability of the power supply also caused problems, as did the wireless communication scheme. There were even disputes on the property of the software rights. TransJakarta was reluctant to use the system procured by the Department of Transportation, and the contracted fare collection operator was also concerned.\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 52-57: code points 1-28

Both cities found ways to improve the operations and quality of service of the fare collection component through their contractors. Current operations do not exhibit the problems reported in the first year of operation. Nevertheless Bogota’s and Jakarta’s experiences provide lessons on some recommended practices:\par
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 59-61: code points 1-108

\begin{itemize}
\item There are no “off-the-shelf” systems ready for “plug-and-play.” Time is required to adapt the system to local conditions and requirements (e.g., reduced fares for certain populations such as students, zone- and time-based rather than flat fares, level of integration with the feeders). It is unlikely that a system could be adapted, developed, deployed, and tested in fewer than six months. Hence, fare collection often becomes the critical step in system implementation;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 63-67: code points 1-57
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 63-67: code points 1-57

\begin{itemize}
\item Open and competitive bidding is preferred to direct contracting, even if it takes more time and introduces relatively high transaction costs. In an open bidding process, competition forces prices down (for the benefit of the customers) while keeping the quality and service standards at a high level;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 69-71: code points 1-99
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 69-71: code points 1-99

\begin{itemize}
\item Selection criteria for a contractor should include experience implementing and operating fare collection systems. It is important that experience is verified and that the contractor (in case of consortiums) has an important share of the responsibility of ensuring contract compliance;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 73-75: code points 1-77
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 73-75: code points 1-77

\begin{itemize}
\item Integration of installation and operation is recommended, as the operator is part of the decisions on system design and equipment and software acquisition. If contracts are separated, it is likely that the operator may claim that problems are the result of design and installation, not their own inability to perform according to the standards set forth;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 77-80: code points 1-48
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 77-80: code points 1-48

\begin{itemize}
\item Performance-based contracts are preferred over standard procurement contracts. The concept behind this is that the BRT system is acquiring a service, rather than the hardware and software of the fare collection system. What is important is the throughput and reliability of the solution provided. Which solution is finally provided is the operator’s decision;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 82-85: code points 1-56
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 82-85: code points 1-56

\begin{itemize}
\item It is necessary to test each component and its integration, hopefully well in advance of commissioning the system;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 87-88: code points 1-11
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 87-88: code points 1-11

\begin{itemize}
\item Supervision of fare collection is as important, if not more so, than bus operations. This should be taken into account when organizing the agency in charge of planning, developing, and supervising BRT system operations;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 90-92: code points 1-18
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 90-92: code points 1-18

\begin{itemize}
\item Having one agency running the entire system is better than trying to coordinate efforts by several agencies;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 94-95: code points 1-9
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 94-95: code points 1-9

\begin{itemize}
\item Provide for contracting arrangements that promote system growth (additional sales). It is advised that remuneration for the fare collection provision and operation grows with passenger ridership. Current formulas in Bogotá’s contracts do not promote increased sales, at least from the perspective of the operator;% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 97-99: code points 1-109
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 97-99: code points 1-109

\begin{itemize}
\item Charging the reusable fare cards (e.g., contactless cards) through, for instance, a returnable deposit can be better than providing them for free. Users may take responsibility for the cards and this reduces damages and required stock. However, charging for cards adds considerable administrative complexity and it can discourage use of the system.% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 101-104: code points 1-40
\end{itemize}
% @ guide/18-fare_systems/188-case-studies.src: lines 101-104: code points 1-40

