utffs_sacog_07-042

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

1/180

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

2/180

BOARD

MEMBERS

Rusty Dupray (Chair)

El Dorado County

Tom Cosgrove (Vice-Chair)

City of Lincoln

Harold AndersonCity of Winters

Ruth AsmundsonCity of Davis

James BarringtonCity of Wheatland

Christina Billeci

City of Marysville

Sherrie BlackmunCity of Colfax

Jeannie BruinsCity of Citrus Heights

Linda BudgeCity of Rancho Cordova

Christopher Cabaldon

City of West Sacramento

Darryl ClareCity of Galt

Robby ColvinCity of Placerville

Jim CooperCity of Elk Grove

Jim Corsaut

City of IsletonRoger DickinsonSacramento County

Heather FargoCity of Sacramento

David FloryCity of Woodland

Alfred Fortino

City of Live Oak

Jim GrayCity of Roseville

Lauren HammondCity of Sacramento

Kevin Hanley

City of Auburn

Peter Hill

City of Rocklin

Roberta MacGlashanSacramento County

Leslie McBrideCity of Yuba City

Steve Miklos

City of Folsom

Susan Peters

Sacramento County

Rocky RockholmPlacer County

Walt SchererTown of Loomis

Donald Schrader

Yuba County

Dan Silva

Sutter County

Helen ThomsonYolo County

Jody Jones(Ex-Officio Member)

Caltrans District 3

MEMBER

COUNTIES &

CITIES

El Dorado CountyPlacer County

Sacramento CountySutter County

Yolo CountyYuba CountyCity of Auburn

City of Citrus HeightsCity of Colfax

City of DavisCity of Elk Grove

City of FolsomCity of Galt

City of IsletonCity of LincolnCity of Live Oak

Town of LoomisCity of Marysville

City of PlacervilleCity of Rancho Cordova

City of Rocklin

City of RosevilleCity of Sacramento

City of West SacramentoCity of Wheatland

City of WintersCity of Woodland

City of Yuba City

SACOG

MISSION

Delivering

transportation

projects;

providing public

information

and serving

as a dynamic forum

for regional

planning and

collaboration in the

greater Sacramento

Metropolitan Area.

1415 L Street,

Suite 300

Sacramento, CA

95814

tel: 916.321.9000

fax: 916.321.9551

tdd: 916.321.9550

www.sacog.org

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

3/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study

LTK Engineering Services - i - 12/13/2007

Executive Summary

The Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study examines available fare system technologies,and evaluates the benefits and costs of their application to the Sacramento region, which isserved by fourteen transit service providers. The purpose of the study is to assist SACOGand its partner transit agencies in determining if investment in one of these technologies ispractical for the Sacramento region. The study also examines alternative strategies forsystem implementation.

The objective of implementing new fare system technology is to provide a fare card that isaccepted by all transit operators in the region, thus providing seamless travel among theirtransit services. This initiative is an important element in the overall goal of rationalizing thefourteen transit operators into a single regional transit system that expands customer optionsand convenience, while retaining policy-setting authority for each agency.

Study Scope: LTK Engineering Services, in association with TranSystems, Inc. and TheHoyt Company, performed this study on behalf of SACOG. During the course of thisstudy, the project team did the following:

Interviewed each transit service provider to identify their objectives, priorities andconcerns;

Examined the ridership, service and fare system characteristics of each transitoperator in the region;

Visited agency facilities to review bus fleet and revenue processing characteristics;

Conducted workshops with the participating agencies and transportation

management associations (TMAs) to describe and get feedback regarding - theavailable technologies, their pros and cons and the requirements for implementation;

Conducted focus group sessions with transit customers and with transit benefitscoordinators at state offices, local corporations and universities to get their feedbackon regional fare system strategies;

Evaluated regional transit farecard strategies and options for the region;

Developed an interactive cost model to analyze capital and operating andmaintenance costs for each system strategy;

Prepared system recommendations and identified key decisions to address if

SACOG and its partners opt to move forward.As the study progressed, SACOG and the participating agencies reached a consensus tofocus on contactless smart card technology, which a number of transit systems in otherregions have either implemented or are in the process of implementing. They concludedthat smart card technology held the most promise in meeting stated objectives.

Contactless smart card: The contactless smart card is a credit card-sized card with amicrochip and antenna embedded inside. It has the data storage capacity and processing

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

4/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyExecutive Summary

LTK Engineering Services - ii - 12/13/2007

power to electronically accommodate the different fares of each transit agency. This giveseach transit user the convenience of using a single fare card for travel on any transit servicein the region. The user can purchase and encode on that one card any fare or fares suitedfor his or her travel needs. The smart card is plastic, like a credit card, and is durable enough

to last up to five years. Rather than discarding the card when the encoded fare expires or isused up, the user simply purchases more fare, which is then encoded onto the card. Astravel plans change during the year, the user can adjust his or her purchases.1 Payment andvalidation of fare is as simple as briefly touching the card to a target on a toaster-sized devicenear the farebox or on the light rail platform. Fare can be purchased and loaded onto thesmart card at the ticket vending machines and at terminals installed at customer servicecenters and selected retail outlets. Based on feedback at the focus groups, both theindividual user and the benefits coordinator will appreciate the ability to manage the farecardvalue purchases online. The user will have the flexibility of linking the farecard to a bankaccount to ensure that the card is always loaded to pay the fare. The benefits coordinatorwill no longer need to place monthly orders for printed passes and ticket books to distributeto employees. The transit agencies will be able to end the tedious process of reconciliationof consignment sales. Each agency also gets a better record of transit use, providing a moreaccurate basis for allocating revenue among transit operators for transfers on linked trips,and for calculating transit use by students.

System Requirements and Cost: A smart card fare system would require theprocurement and installation of smart card readers on each bus, in ticket vending machinesand on light rail platforms.2 Computers and communications system networks wouldretrieve and process transaction data from each unit on a daily basis. A regional centerwould be equipped to retrieve and process the transaction data from each transit agency,from online fare purchases and from retail outlets equipped with smart card readers Thecomputer system at this center will maintain a complete database of all transactions and

calculate the revenue to be allocated to each agency. The system will also maintain adatabase of all registered smart cards so that lost or misused cards can be deactivated. Lostor damaged cards that are registered can be replaced with remaining fare value restored.3

The cost of procuring and installing a regional smart card system will be $5.6-8.3 million,depending upon the number and size of the transit agencies opting to participate. Theestimated capital cost (in 2006 $$) is shown in the table on the following page. All estimatesinclude a 20% contingency to cover any unforeseen costs not identified at this earlyconceptual phase.

The decisions made on a number of policy issues will affect the cost impacts of operatingand maintaining the regional system when it is in place. Overall, with any scenario,implementing a regional smart card system will increase the cost of collecting fares in the

region. This is because the costs of operating the regional center are greater than the

1Just as a transit commuter today might forego a monthly pass in August, due to vacation plans, and purchasea 10-ride ticket book instead.2 The system would not require an upgrade of an agencys farebox, although the smart card reader can beincorporated into the electronic fareboxes available today.3 Registering a card will not be a requirement for use, as a matter of privacy policy, although certain features linked account purchases, lost card replacement require registration.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

5/180


LTK Engineering Services - iii - 12/13/2007

reductions in cost and improvements in revenue capture experienced by the individualagencies.

The percentage of users shifting to a regional smart card will have a considerable effect oncosts. Eliminating a particular type of fare and fare medium cash fare transfers, monthly

passes eliminates costs associated with its printing, distribution, sales and revenue countingand reconciliation, and destruction of unused expired media. Replacing printed transfers andpasses with electronic fare media can also reduce loss of revenue, which occurs throughfraudulent use of expired transfers or student photo IDs and altered monthly passes.Outsourcing some or all of the centralized functions will also affect costs.

The cost impact of implementing a regional smart card system is estimated to be in the rangeof $1.3-2.0 million annually. The low end of the cost increase is defined by participation byall fourteen agencies and a strong shift to smart cards by transit users. The high end isdefined by participation by only three agencies and very poor acceptance of smart cards bytransit riders.

Issues to address if the project moves forward include the following: Agencies participating in the initial system

Organizing procuring and then operating the system: lead firm for projectmanagement, intergovernmental agreement (IGA) defining governance process,funding, allocation of expected regional costs, and revenue reconciliation; terms andconditions for joining at a later date.

Scope of system procurement: incorporating fareboxes into the procurement vs.separate procurement of fareboxes; assignment of centralized duties to theprocurement contractor, a separate firm or to a lead agency (e.g., SACOG or RT).

Business rules and fare policy: fare incentives to encourage smart card use by riders(e.g., discontinuing legacy fare media; fare discounts)

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

6/180


LTK Engineering Services - iv - 12/13/2007

Capital Cost Estimates for Different Participation Scenarios

All 14 8 of 14 3 of 14

Agency Equipment 4,334,055$ 3,090,505$ 2,213,255$

RT 1,833,150$ 1,833,150$ 1,833,150$

e-tran 202,400$ 202,400$ 202,400$

Paratransit, Inc. 670,450$ -$ -$

Folsom Stage Line 133,100$ 133,100$ -$

SCT/Link 110,000$ -$ -$

El Dorado 217,800$ 217,800$ -$

Auburn 79,200$ -$ -$

Lincoln 75,350$ -$ -$

PCT 129,250$ 129,250$ -$

Roseville 190,850$ 190,850$ -$

Davis 63,800$ -$ -$

Unitrans 244,750$ -$ -$

Yolobus 177,705$ 177,705$ 177,705$

Yuba Sutter 206,250$ 206,250$ -$

Regional Center 697,700$ 697,700$ 697,700$

Project Costs 1,374,000$ 1,287,000$ 1,226,000$

Initial Card Supply 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$

Total Capital Costs 6,905,755$ 5,575,205$ 4,636,955$

Total Capital Costswith 20% Contingency

8,287,000$ 6,690,000$ 5,564,000$

# Agencies in Initial DeploymentCost Element

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

7/180


Table of Contents

LTK Engineering Services - v - 12/13/2007

UNIVERSAL TRANSIT FARECARD FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................. 1

Project Overview ...................................................................................................... 1

Report Organization ................................................................................................2

TRANSIT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................3

Transit Service Providers .........................................................................................3

Interagency Service Connections.............................................................................3

Fare Policy and Fare Media.....................................................................................8

Interagency Transfers and Fare Media ................................................................. 13

Fare Media Sales .................................................................................................... 17

Walk-in Outlets: Agency Offices and Retail Stores.........................................................17Web Site & Mail Purchases .................................................................................................17Employers..............................................................................................................................18 Schools & Institutions .........................................................................................................19

Joint Transit/Non-Transit ID ............................................................................... 20

Summary of Study Area System Characteristics.................................................... 20

FARE SYSTEMS, PLANS AND PRIORITIES ......................................................... 22Existing Fare Collection Systems.......................................................................... 22

Other Onboard Equipment and Systems .............................................................. 23

Priorities and Concerns.......................................................................................... 26

General Views on Universal Farecard...............................................................................26Fare and Fare Media Complexity .......................................................................................26Farebox Considerations.......................................................................................................26Onboard Equipment............................................................................................................27Onboard Equipment............................................................................................................28Ridership and Revenue Data Collection ...........................................................................28Fare Abuse.............................................................................................................................28

FARE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY STATE OF THE ART..................................... 29

Fare Media Technologies ...................................................................................... 29

Printed Passes and Tickets..................................................................................................29Magnetic Fare Cards ............................................................................................................29Smart Cards ...........................................................................................................................32

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

8/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyTable of Contents

LTK Engineering Services - vi - 12/13/2007

Regional Application of Fare Media Technology ................................................. 32

Printed Passes .......................................................................................................................32Magnetic Fare Cards ............................................................................................................35Smart Cards ...........................................................................................................................36

Account-Based Systems: Read-only Smart Cards and Magnetic Fare Cards...............36Smart Card Systems in the U.S...........................................................................................37

Smart Card System Characteristics........................................................................ 40

Using a Smart Card System.................................................................................................40Smart Card Equipment........................................................................................................45Smart Card Data Characteristics ........................................................................................45

Regional Smart Card Program Network Architecture ....................................... 51

Overall Network Architecture............................................................................................51Bus Systems Network Architecture...................................................................................51

LRT Network Architecture.................................................................................................52Hand Held Terminal Network Architecture....................................................................52Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture ...............................................52Agency Customer Service Center Network Architecture...............................................53Smart Card Clearing House Architecture .........................................................................53Smart Bus Network Architecture.......................................................................................53

MARKET RESEARCH............................................................................................... 62

Roundtable Discussion with Non-Transit Institutional Partners......................... 62

Meeting Details.....................................................................................................................62Meeting Results.....................................................................................................................62

Focus Group Meetings with Transit Users ........................................................... 65

Meeting Details.....................................................................................................................65Meeting Results.....................................................................................................................65

Lessons Learned Market Applications in Other Regions .................................. 68

TransLink Metropolitan Transportation Commission................................................ 68GO Ventura Card -- Ventura County Transportation Commission ............................ 70Chicago Card/Chicago Card Plus -- Chicago Transit Authority...................................71SmarTrip Card -- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...........................73

REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND COST ANALYSIS............................................... 76

System Description ................................................................................................ 76

System Equipment ...............................................................................................................77Customer Use of the Regional Fare Card.........................................................................83Institutional Programs with Non-Transit Partners .........................................................84System Management and Program Support.....................................................................85

Cost Analysis ..........................................................................................................88

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

9/180


LTK Engineering Services - vii - 12/13/2007

Capital Costs .........................................................................................................................88Operating Costs....................................................................................................................92

System Procurement .............................................................................................104

Overall Procurement Approach.......................................................................................104Central Services Management...........................................................................................106

KEY DECISIONS IN THE NEXT PHASE.............................................................108

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables and Figures

Table 2-1.Transit Service Providers in the Study Area ................................................................... 4Table 2-2. Service Characteristics: Interagency Connections and Downtown Service.............. 7Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media.............................................................................................9Table 2-4. Discount Fares.................................................................................................................11Table 2-4. Discount Fares (continued) ...........................................................................................12Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT .................................... 14Table 2-6. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements between Agencies, excluding

RT .................................................................................................................................................16Table 2-7. California Sate Offices with Bulk RT Fare Orders ....................................................19Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment ...............................................24Table 4-1. Fare Media Characteristics ............................................................................................31Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies.................................................... 33Table 4-3. Smart Card Programs in Place in the U.S. ..................................................................38

Table 4-4. Purchasing Fare on a Smart Card System................................................................... 42Table 4-5. Smart Card Equipment in US Market .........................................................................46Table 4-6. Smart Card Data Fields Conceptual Approach .......................................................48Figure 4-1: Conceptual Overall Network Functional Architecture ...........................................54Figure 4-2: Conceptual Bus Systems Network Architectures .................................................... 55Figure 4-3: Conceptual LRT Station Networking Architecture.................................................56Figure 4-4: Conceptual Handheld Terminal Networking Architecture ....................................57Figure 4-5: Conceptual Merchant Point of Sale Terminal Network Architecture ..................58Table 6-2. Using a Smart Card ........................................................................................................84Table 6-3. Nominal Division of Responsibilities .........................................................................87Table 6-4. Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates: Three Scenarios...............................................89

Table 6-5. Capital Cost Estimate Detail ........................................................................................90Table 6-6. Additional Program Funding Items ............................................................................92Table 6-7. Existing Components of RT Fare Collection ............................................................94Table 6-8. Incidental Costs of Fare Collection.............................................................................96Table 6-9. Potential Components of Regional Center Activity..................................................98Table 6-10. Operating Costs by Level of Smart Card Acceptance ............................................99Table 6-11. Operating Costs by Region System Size.................................................................100Table 6-12. Cost Detail of Regional Program.............................................................................101

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

10/180


LTK Engineering Services - viii - 12/13/2007

Table 6-13. Impacts on RT Agency Operating Costs ...............................................................103Table 6-14. Procurement Approaches .........................................................................................104Table 6-15. Central Services Management Approaches .............................................................106

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

11/180

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

LTK Engineering Services - 1 - 12/13/2007

Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study

Project Overview

The SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility Study examines the potential costs andbenefits of implementing a regional transit fare instrument that can be used on all transitsystems throughout the greater Sacramento region. The study was initiated by theSacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as a step toward creating a regionaltransit network of coordinated service by the fourteen transit service providers in theSacramento area. The studys core objective was to determine if it is viable to use availabletechnology to introduce a regional transit farecard that provides seamless, convenienttransferring between these services, while continuing to meet the fare-related needs of eachof the service providers.

The study was composed of the following nine tasks (Tasks 3 through 11)4:

Task Activity Task Product

3. Study Area CurrentSystem Analysis

Examine transit system characteristics Task Report

4. State-of-the-Art SystemsAssessment

Report on existing fare systemstechnologies and applications

Task Report

5. Study Area NeedsAssessment

Interviews & site visits: Identify agencyneeds, priorities, equipment condition

Task Report

6. Interagency CoordinationRequirements

Assess reqts including transfer agreements,back-office systems, fare media control &distribution, branding

Workshoppresentation

7. Fare Cycle Cost Analysis Analyze potential for improved interagencycoordination/ regional organization of faresystem functions

Cost analyses inTask 9 report

8. Interagency ConsensusBuilding -

Conduct agency workshops to obtainownership and consensus

Workshops atproject milestones

9. Technology StrategyAlternatives -

Evaluate alternative approaches; Assesssingle-vendor approach to systemimplementation

Task Report

10. Market Research - Conduct local focus groups and round

table discussions of users

Task Report

11. Decision Requirements - Identify system details to address insubsequent phases

Presented in thisFinal Report

4 Tasks 1 and 2 were related to study initiation, focusing on organization of the study and project team

management among the participating agencies.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

12/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyIntroduction


LTK Engineering Services, in association with its project team partners, TranSystems, Inc.and The Hoyt Company, was engaged by SACOG to undertake this study effort. Theproject team interviewed all stakeholders and toured the facilities of transit service providersin the six-county study area. The team also met on a regular basis with representatives of

participating agencies and transit management association (TMA). These meeting served asworkshops to get operator input at the start of each task and later in the task to discuss teamfindings.

As the LTK project team presented information on available technologies and potentialapplication strategies, SACOG and the participating transit operators provided guidance ontheir preferred approaches and system requirements. The Hoyt Company conducted a seriesof focus groups of transit users to identify their priorities and get their insights on theapplication of new fare system technologies.

As the study progressed, SACOG and the partner agencies reached a consensus to focusprimarily on the potential of smart card technology for the region. To support its evaluationof alternative strategies for implementing a smart card fare system, the LTK team developed

a cost model for estimating both capital costs for initial system investment and annual costsfor on-going operations. The model is interactive, enabling the user to analyze a number ofwhat-if scenarios, including the effects of a varying number of agencies participating in aregional smart card system, different policies on the disposition of legacy fare media, andoutsourcing of centralized regional activities (e.g., clearinghouse activities).

Report Organization

This report is organized as follows:

Report Section Content

1. Introduction Project Overview and Report Organization

2. Transit System Characteristics Report on team review and findings of service and fare oftransit providers in the study area; based on Task 3 report.

3. Fare System Equipment Plans and Priorities

Report on team interviews & site visits of study area transitservice providers, examining existing fare collection andprocessing systems and identifying agency plans and priorities;based on Task 5 report.

4. Fare System Technology State-of-the-Art

Descriptions of technologies that are available for regionalconsideration, pros/cons of these technologies and the lessonslearned from their application; based on Task 4 report.

5. Market Research Report on findings of transit user preferences and prioritiesfrom local focus groups and roundtable discussions; based onTask 10 report.

6. Regional Strategiesand Cost Analyses

Examination of alternative approaches to implementing aregional transit farecard and associated costs of implementationand on-going operation; based on Task 9 report.

7. Key Decisions & Next Steps Identify system details to address in subsequent phases

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

13/180



Transit System Characteristics

This section describes the service and fares of transit providers in the study area. Included

in this section are descriptions of the following:

The transit agencies and system characteristics

Interagency service connections

Fare policy and fare media

Interagency agreements

Fare collection equipment

The other stakeholders: those large institutional users (i.e., state agencies,corporations, school) who routinely purchase fares for its employees or customers

Transit Service Providers

The study area for this feasibility study encompasses the region for which SACOG isorganized. Within the six counties are 14 transit service providers. These are identified inTable 2-1. As the table shows, the transit operators are organized along several lines,including city departments; county department, state-legislated special districts; non-profitcorporations; joint powers agency; and student/city partnership. The table also highlightsthe considerable differences in system size. Most transit systems have between three and 40buses. RT is the exception with over 250 buses and 76 light rail cars. RT ridership is alsoone to three orders of magnitude greater than the other service providers. Paratransit, Inc.

has a large fleet - 150 vans - primarily for ADA service under contract to RT. RT (andParatransit, Inc.) serves the Sacramento urban core; the other transit operators provide localand/or demand-responsive (i.e., dial-a-ride) service in more suburban and rural areas, with anumber also operating commuter express service to downtown Sacramento.

Interagency Service Connections

Whereas each transit operator is based in a separate part of the six-county region and servesa specific clientele, there are points at which transit services meet to accommodate transfersfor continuing travel. Several operators also provide their own commuter service todowntown Sacramento. These service characteristics are highlighted in Table 2-2.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

14/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyTransit System Characteristics

LTK Engineering Services - 4 -

Table 2-1.Transit Service Providers in the Study Area

Service Provided System Size

Transit Operator County Governance

LightRail

FixedLocal

Com-muter

Dial-A-Ride

Fleet SizeAnnualRidership(000s)

Notes

SacramentoRegional Transit(RT)

SacramentoTransitDistrict

X X76 LRVs;258 buses;17 vans

30,400

Local servicNeighborhocontracts anprovide ADA

e-tran

(Elk Grove) Sacramento City Dept X X X 39 buses 648 40% use co

Folsom StageLine

Sacramento City Dept X X 18 buses

Paratransit, Inc. SacramentoNonprofitcorp.

X 150 vansUnder contrservice; proother non-tr

South CountyTransit(SCT/Link)

SacramentoNonprofitcorp.

X X X 12 buses 131Under contrwhich bills C36% ride co

El Dorado Transit El DoradoTransit

DistrictX X X 40 buses 317 53% use co

Auburn Transit Placer City Dept X 4 buses 47Local Serviccompliance

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

15/180



Table 2-1. Transit Service Providers in the Study Area (continued)

Service Provided System Size

Transit Operator County Governance

LightRail

Fixed

Local

Com-

muter

Dial-a-

Ride Fleet Size

AnnualRidership(000s)

Notes

Lincoln Transit Placer City Dept X X 3 buses 26

Placer CountyTransit (PCT)

Placer County Dept X X 17 buses 228Contracts wprovide ADA40% use co

Roseville Transit Placer City Dept X X X 33 buses Commuter: Local: 15; D25% use co

Davis CommunityTransit

Yolo City Dept XServes pre-riders and gpermitting)

Unitrans YoloStudent/CityPartnership

X 40+ buses 3,140Serves genstudents; op

Yolo CountyTransp. District(Yolobus)

Yolo District X X X39 buses;7 vans

1,260

Yuba-SutterTransit

Yuba &Sutter

Jt. PowersAgency

X X X 40 buses 675Commuter:Local & Dia15% use co

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

16/180



With a few exceptions, the area transit operators operate commuter service to downtownSacramento, where riders either walk to their final destination or transfer to RT for the finalleg of their trip. Riders can also transfer between agencies that only connect through theircommuter service to downtown Sacramento, e.g., e-tran and Placer County Transit. Some

operators have service to RT light rail stations either in or near their service area, providingthis service either in lieu of or in addition to their direct service to downtown.Interconnecting service is also provided at transit centers for bus-to-bus transfers. Examplesinclude: the Roseville Galleria where Roseville Transit, Lincoln Transit and Placer CountyTransit meet; the Caltrans Elk Grove Blvd Park-and-Ride and Elk Grove Blvd/EmeraldVista transfer stop, both of which serve both e-tran (Elk Grove) and South County Transit(SCT/Link); and the Florin Mall, which is served by both RT and SCT/Link.

Transit operators with no direct connection to RT include: Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit,Davis Community Transit and Unitrans. These service providers do, however, interfacewith other transit operators. Those transit operators operating direct downtown expressservice and connecting with RT both downtown and at other locations include: Paratransit,

Inc., Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, e-tran, El Dorado Transit and Yolobus. Theremaining operators Folsom Stage Line and SCT/Link have local connections to RT butdo not operate their own service to downtown Sacramento.

The table also identifies those operators that have an interface with service providers inadjacent counties outside the study area, including service provided in Nevada, Amador, SanJoaquin, and Solano Counties. Capitol Corridor service, also identified as connecting serviceoutside the study area, is an Amtrak-operated service that is provided using both trains andbuses. Although not among the fourteen participating agencies for this study, the serviceactually originates in Auburn and operates through Rocklin, Roseville, Sacramento and Davison its way to the Bay Area. Four trains operate in each direction daily. As this studyprogresses, interfacing with these outside services will be taken into account.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

17/180



Table 2-2. Service Characteristics: Interagency Connections and Downtown Ser

TransitServiceProvider

Sac

RT

e-tr

an

Folsom

Par

atransit

SCT/Link

ElD

orado

Auburn

Lincoln

PlaceCty

Roseville

Dav

is

Unitrans

Yol

obus

Yub

a-Sutter

Se

rvice

Downtown

RT TransferPoints (excl.Downtown)

Sac RT X X X X X X X X X X (see others)

e-tran X X X X X X X X X LRT; Transit Ctr

Folsom X Light Rail

Paratransit X X X X X X X X Systemwide

SCT/LINK X X Transit Center

El Dorado X X X X X X X X Light Rail

Auburn X

Lincoln X

Placer Cty X X X X X X X X X X Light Rail

Roseville X X X X X X X X Transit Center

Davis X X

Unitrans X X

Yolobus X X X X X X X X X X

Yuba-Sutter X X X X X X X X

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

18/180



Fare Policy and Fare Media

At the heart of this study is the complexity of having fourteen transit operators, each withtheir own fare policies and fare media, moving toward a simplified system that is easy for

riders to understand and easy for operators to apply. A summary of the fares and fare mediafor each agency is provided in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The former provides regular (adult) fares,while the latter summarizes discount fares for qualifying individuals, such as seniors, riderswith disabilities, students and children.

An examination of the fares in Table 2-3 provides the following findings:

Most transit operators have a variety of fare types, including single-ride cash fares,day passes, period flash passes, and multi-ride punch passes. Punch passes aremulti-ride fare cards that are punched by the driver when boarding a bus. Operatorsmay offer punch passes for 9, 10, 20, 30 or 40 rides. Other Period passes are goodfor unlimited use during a prescribed interval. In addition to monthly period passes,

some operators offer annual passes, semi-monthly passes and quarter (three-month)and half-quarter passes.

Most operators charge different fares for each of the types of service they provide,such as local, commuter and dial-a-ride. Among these operators, one or more chargedifferent fares for different lines or distances, for residents and non-residents,commute and reserve commute, and with or without RT transfer privileges.

For a particular fare type - local, commuter, dial-a-ride operators set different farelevels. Local fares range from $0.75 to $2.00. The lowest fare for a local monthlypass is $15 and the most expensive commuter monthly is $155.

In addition to cash fare transfers, most operators sell unlimited-ride day passes on-board their vehicles. (On-board sale of fare media becomes an important issue whenconsidering smart card systems.)

Table 2-4 shows that most operators provide half fare to seniors, riders with disabilities andstudents. Commuter service is often excluded from this discount. In some cases, dial-a-rideis excluded as well. In several cases, cash fares are discounted, but passes are not.

With regard to seniors, riders with disabilities, and students, Table 2-4 shows that thesegroups typically pay a discounted fare for transit service, although the discounts, services andages of eligibility vary. Seniors and riders with disabilities generally pay half-fare on mostservices. However, several operators offer either a lesser discount or no discount at all onpasses and/or commuter services. On the other hand, some operators provide free service

to seniors at a specific age (either 60 or 75). Most transit operators allow children under theage of five to ride for free. However, one operator also allows 5 year olds to ride withoutpaying a fare, while other operators do not explicitly include free rides in their fare tariffs.Most agencies charge students half the regular fare to ride, although some offer a smallerdiscount. Most discount passes as well as cash fares, although there are exceptions. As withthe other groups, age eligibility varies by transit operator. Student fares can be valid until age12, age 18 , or until high school (12th grade) graduation.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

19/180



Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media

Cash Fares Unlimited Ride Monthly Passes

TransitOperatorLocal Commuter Dial-A-Ride Local Commuter

Dial-Rid

Sac RT$1.00 centralcity, shuttle$1.75 local

$80

e-tran $1.50 $8.00 airport service $3.00 $60

Folsom StageLine

$1.75 $3.00 $80 $80

Paratransit,Inc.

$8 airport service $3.25 None

SCT/Link $1.00$2, $3, $5, $6 basedon trip

$3.50;$2.00 Sat.

$35 $140

El DoradoTransit

$1.10 local-$2.00 intercity

$2.50 - $4.00 Zone fare $33$144,$168 incl. RT

Auburn Transit $0.80 $18

Lincoln Transit $0.75 $2.00 $15

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

20/180



Table 2-3. Adult Fares and Fare Media (continued)

Cash Fares Unlimited Ride Monthly Passes

TransitOperator

Local Commuter Dial-a-Ride Local CommuterDial-aRide

Placer CountyTransit

$1.00 $3.50 - $5.00 $2.00-$3.00 None $110 - $155

RosevilleTransit

$1.30$2.75 residents;reverse commute;$3.80 non-resident

$3.75 $50

$95 residents orreverse commute;Incl. RT:$125 residents;

$130 non-residents

DavisCommunityTransit

$1.25 None

Unitrans $1.00 $21

Yolobus $1.50 $2.00$2.00 -$3.00

$60$80 incl. RT

$80$100 incl. RT

Yuba-SutterTransit

$1 local;$2 rural

$3.00$4.00;$3.00 eves

$30 excl rural$100$140 incl RT

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

21/180



Table 2-4. Discount Fares

Transit Operator Seniors / Riders with Disabilities Student / Youth

Sac RT Half-fare; Seniors (age 75+) are free Half-fare Und

e-tran Half-fare; Seniors (age 75+) are freeHalf-fare, or one-quarter adult cost for amonthly pass;

Und

Folsom StageLine

Half-fare on Local; no discount on Dial-a-Ride Half-fare on Local only

Paratransit, Inc. NA NA

SCT/LinkHalf-fare on Local; lower discount onCommuter and Intercity trips

75% fare on Local only

El Dorado TransitHalf-fare on all service excl CommuterService.

$25 monthly pass on Local only .

Auburn Transit Half-fare; no discounted passes Half-fare; no discounted passes Un

Lincoln Transit Half-fare on Local only; no discounted passes

Placer CountyTransit

Half-fare on all service except Commuter; nodiscounted passes

Half-fare on all service except Commuter; nodiscounted passes

Und

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

22/180



Table 2-4. Discount Fares (continued)

Transit Operator Seniors / Riders with Disabilities Student / Youth Chi

Roseville TransitHalf-fare on Local and Dial-a-Ride, incl.monthly pass monthly Commuter passes isdiscounted to $110

Half-fare on Local and Dial-a-Ride (roundedup to nearest quarter), incl. monthly passes,no discounts on Commuter

Und

Davis CommunityTransit

ADA-eligible pay $1.00 None

UnitransSeniors (age 60+) are free; Riders withDisabilities are $0.25

UCD Undergraduate students free; discountedsummer pass for youths age 17 and under

Und

Yolobus 40% fare on Local, half-fare on Commuter; nodiscount passes (discounted RT passesaccepted)

Half-fare on all services, no discount passes(discounted RT passes accepted)

Und

Yuba-SutterTransit

Half-fare on all service except peak periodCommuter Service

Half-fare on all service except peak periodCommuter service

Und

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

23/180



Interagency Transfers and Fare Media

With the many service connections that are in place between transit operators in the region,interagency fare agreements are in place to enable riders to take advantage without beingcharged a full double fare. Because most of the connections involve RT service, the majorityof interagency fare agreements are with that agency. These are identified in Table 2-5.

The table shows that, where an agreement is in place, the RT fare media are generallyaccepted for boarding the buses of the partner agency. In some instances, this transfer islimited to those lines that specifically meet RT service. Certain agencies will levy a surchargeon RT fare media used to board their commuter service (which generally has a higher farethan the local lines); this can be paid in cash upon boarding or by purchasing a sticker inadvance to place on RT monthly passes. Transferring to RT generally requires RT faremedia. Where an RT pass is honored on the connecting service of the partner agency, therider will generally have an RT pass for riding both lines. To accommodate cash fares that

are transferring to RT, drivers on e-tran, Placer County and Roseville buses are supplied withRT transfers to issue to these riders. e-tran charges for the transfer, while Placer County andRoseville issue the transfers for free. Riders on e-tran who use an e-tran pass can alsopurchase an RT transfer. RT accepts Yolobus transfers and day passes. The contractbetween e-tran and RT specifies that e-trans fare media be honored on RT buses if theparties work out an acceptable reimbursement agreement.

The interagency fare agreements with RT define formulas for reconciling revenue forinteragency travel. Because the partner agencies are accepting RT fare media for boardingriders, the reconciliation typically involves RT paying compensation based upon an estimate(or count) of riders boarding an agencys bus with RT fare media. The formula deductsrevenue in those cases where RT transfers are issued on partner agency buses. Because the

passes and transfers are not machine-read, calculation of the compensation relies onestimates derived from periodic surveys and passenger counts.

In addition to the interagency agreements with RT, a limited number of other agreementsexist, as shown in Table 2-6. These involve service providers in Placer County, including thePlacer County, Roseville and Auburn transit systems. In these cases, the county system hasagreements with each of the two city systems to honor each others transfers. In YoloCounty, Unitrans accepts Yolobus fare media. Yolobus accepts University of California atDavis student IDs as fare media (the principal fare medium used on Unitrans), but does notaccept other fare media issued by Unitrans. In southern Sacramento County, e-tran andSCT/Link honor each others transfers; a surcharge is placed on the Highway 99 commuterexpress service, due to its higher fare. In addition, many of the agencies have transfer

agreements with agencies that are not participating in this study, including Capital Corridorand San Joaquin.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

24/180



Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT

Agency with RTAgreement

To Ride Agency Service To Ride RT Service RT Reimburs

e-tran All RT fare media RT transfers or daily passes issued bye-tran drivers (fee)

$$=based on surveys re: patransfer books

Folsom Stage Line All RT fare media (excl. some RT grouppasses)

RT transfers issued by Folsom driver(free)

$$=based on surveys re: pa

El Dorado Transit All RT fare media at RT transfer points

only); surcharge or sticker reqd on ElDorado commuter service

RT transfers issued by El Dorado driver

(free)

$$=avg fare *

less RT transfprovides transEl Dorado payfor joint passe

Paratransit, Inc. RT-issued Eligibility ID is required toride RT-funded Paratransit, Inc.services

RT-issued Eligibility ID issued to ADA-qualified patrons

$$=cost of maarea, including

SCT/Link RT monthly pass w/SCT sticker (excl.RT group pass);RT transfer

RT transfers issued by SCT driver $$=avg fare *RT transfers iRT provides tcost);

Auburn Transit No RT fare media accepted No Auburn fare media accepted No revenue e

Lincoln Transit No RT fare media accepted No Lincoln fare media accepted No revenue e

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

25/180



Table 2-5. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements with RT (continue

Agency with RTAgreement

To Ride Agency Service To Ride RT Service RT R

Placer County Transit(PCT)

All RT fare media (on connectingservice only);surcharge on PCT commuter service

RT transfers issued by PCT driver(free)

$$=avg fare *RT transfers itransfer books

Roseville Transit Joint pass valid on all service;All RT fare media excl. RT grouppasses (at RT transfer points only)

RT transfers issued by Roseville driver(free)

$$=avg fare * less RT transf

Davis Community

Transit

No RT fare media accepted No Davis Community fare media

accepted

No revenue e

Unitrans All RT fare media No Unitrans fare media accepted No revenue e

Yolobus All RT fare media;surcharge for Yolo commuter service

Transfers issued by Yolobus driver($0.50 charge, $0.25 for seniors)

$$=based on surveys re: pa

Yuba-Sutter Transit RT basic pass w/ Yuba-Sutter sticker RT basic pass w/Yuba-Sutter sticker Yuba-Sutter sresidents who& at full price revenue paid

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

26/180



Table 2-6. Interagency Transfer and Fare Media Agreements between Agencies, excludin

Agencies under Agreement To Ride Each Operators Service Re

Placer County / Auburn Accept each others transfers No revenue ex

Placer County / Roseville Accept each others transfers No revenue ex

South County Transit / e-tran Transferring between SCT Hwy 99 Express and e-tran:Free transfer to e-tran service;Upgrade charge to SCT Hwy 99 Express

No revenue ex

Yolobus / Unitrans Unitrans accepts all Yolobus fare media

No Unitrans-issued fare media accepted on Yolobus(UC Davis undergraduate student ID is accepted on both Unitransand Yolobus)

No revenue ex

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

27/180



Fare Media Sales

As this study examines methods of providing a regional transit farecard, the means ofdistributing the cards and, as appropriate, purchasing and adding fare value on the card,

becomes a key issue. As Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show, each transit operator in the region offersfare media unlimited-ride period passes, multi-ride punch passes, multi-ride coupon books- that can be purchased in advance. Pre-paid passes and ticket books can be purchased byseveral methods:

Walk-in Sales Outlets: Agency Offices & Service Centers, Retail Outlets

Web Sites & Mail Purchases

Employers

Schools & Institutions

Walk-in Outlets: Agency Offices and Retail StoresEach of the agencies sells its passes and ticket books at its offices. Most agencies haveadditional outlets at local city halls and civic centers, retail merchants, and satellite customerservice centers. Some agencies offices and outlets sell the passes of other agencies underinteragency agreements. Passes and tickets are typically distributed to sales outlets onconsignment, with sales revenue and unsold stock reconciled on a monthly basis.

As the largest system in the region, RT has the largest number of outlets for walk-incustomers to purchase passes and tickets. Its web site lists over 50 locations both withinSacramento County and in adjacent counties. The locations include check-cashing stores,grocery stores, municipal offices and the offices of other transit agencies.

In addition to RT: Yolobus lists four locations for walk-in purchases, including its offices, two city halls

and a check-cashing store.

e-tran has nine sale locations, including retail stores, the high school, city hall and adowntown RT outlet.

Yuba-Sutter has seven locations in its service area.

Auburn Transit sells its passes onboard or at its service desk at City Hall.

Roseville Transit lists four sales locations, including its service desk at City Hall.

Web Site & Mail PurchasesAt this time, no agency offers its riders a means of purchasing a pass or ticket book throughits web site. Several do accommodate purchases through the mail. Order forms areprovided on their web sites for printing out, complete and mail in with payment. Someinclude order forms in printed Riders Guide books, which include service schedule, routeand fare information as well.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

28/180



Employers

Employers and other organizations act as satellite sales outlets. The agreements betweenemployers and agencies generally allow the employers to sell passes and tickets to the generalpublic (i.e. to serve as a walk-in sales location) but most employers choose to limit their sales

to employees or organization members. Employers are able to take advantage of federalpayroll tax incentives to offer the fare media at a discount to their employees. Typically, anEmployee Transit Coordinator (ETC) administering the program for an employer places anorder (or has a standing order) for bulk quantities of passes and ticket books, which are thensold to employees at the office. Currently, without a common regional fare card, anemployer must deal with each transit agency separately. Some employers who provide passesas an employee benefit prefer to issue transit vouchers to their employees; the vouchers canbe used as scrip to purchase the pass they need from the appropriate transit service provider.Others contract an outside benefits coordinator, such as WageWorks, to coordinate orderingand distributing fare media to their employees.

Because the State government is the largest employer in the region and with many of its

departments having offices located in downtown Sacramento, several transit agencies receiveorders from these State offices. Whereas the State General Services Administrationstandardized the employee benefit amounts several years ago, each state office still acts as anindependent outlet when ordering and distributing passes to its employees. RT lists nearly40 State offices to which it distributes bulk orders of fare media, as shown in Table 2-7.

A number of offices of the Sacramento County government also place bulk orders on an on-

going basis. Other existing or potential major purchasers identified by a number of agencies

include the following:

California Public Employees Retirement System [CalPERS] (Sacramento)

Intel (Folsom) Folsom State Prison (Folsom)

Folsom High School (Folsom)

Folsom Community College (Folsom)

Elk Grove School District (Elk Grove)

Cash Creek Casino (Yolo)

University of California at Davis (Davis) {for employees]

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

29/180



Table 2-7. California Sate Offices with Bulk RT Fare Orders

Dept of Managed Health Care Dept of Corporations

Dept of Human Assistance Dept of Personnel Admin

CA Post-Secondary Education Dept of Motor Vehicles

Bureau of State Audits Dept of Mental Health

Board of Equalization CA Bay-Delta Authority

Franchise Tax Board CA Housing Finance Agency

CA State Teachers Retirement System CA Victim Compensation Board

Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development Dept of Consumer Affairs

CA State Library Commission of Teacher Credentials

CA Controller Office CA Community Colleges

Dept of Justice Treasurers Office

State Personnel Board Health & Welfare Data Center

Division of Law / Enforcement (Justice) Assembly Rules Committee

Dept of Finance Court of Appeals / 3rd Appellate

Dept of Food & Agriculture Employment Development Dept

Dept of Rehabilitation Water Resources Dept

Dept of Education CA Environmental Protection Agency

Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board Office of Administrative Law

Secy of State

Schools & Institutions

A number of transit operators sell fare media in bulk to schools, school districts andcharitable organizations (as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3)). For charitable organizations,RT provides a discount of up to 50%, if at least 1,000 tickets or daily passes are purchasedper month for at least 12 consecutive months. RT has these agreements with Francis Houseof Sacramento and Volunteers of America. It also allows school entities (including theSacramento County Office of Education) to purchase student semi-monthly stickers foreconomically-disadvantaged students for up to 75% off the regular price.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

30/180



Joint Transit/Non-Transit ID

Several transit operators honor ID cards that have been issued by non-transit organizations,including several of the colleges and universities. These ID cards are typically valid for a

period longer than a single month. Examples of this type of agreement include:

California State University Sacramento the student ID can be used as an RT transitpass; the employee ID plus a monthly RT sticker can be used as an RT pass

Los Rios Community College the college can issue a card that states it is a Los Rios/ RT transit pass; the card is valid for a specific semester

South Natomas Transportation Management Association RT provides a photo IDcard with a valid period of between 6 months and 3 years

Sacramento City Unified School District which provides a student ID card towhich RTs semi-monthly sticker can be applied

Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (SCDHA) the Countypurchases RT passes at a discount ($25 per monthly pass) in the form of stickers tobe attached to SCDHA ID cards, provided that SCDHA buys these for at least 85%of its case load each month

RT mentioned a considerable concern with the lack of control of college student IDs, withthe lack of an expiration date on the ID and continued use of the ID for transit travel wellafter a student has ended school.

Summary of Study Area System Characteristics

As a data gathering and analysis task, Task 3 was a critical first step for the feasibility study.In conjunction with Task 5 (Study Area Needs Assessment), which involved interviews andsite visits of region transit agencies, the task provided a means of getting an understandingand appreciation of both the diverse and similar aspects of the systems. As such, these tasksprovide a framework for addressing those issues that are of concern to the participatingagencies as potential approaches to implementing a regional fare card system are examined.

Among the key findings of this task are the following:

The study area itself six counties is a large region which includes an urban coresurrounded by small communities, growing suburban centers, and vast exurban andrural areas.

The transit operators providing service within this region vary considerably in size,services provided, and fare levels.

Most transit operators provide commuter express service to downtown Sacramento,with a sizable number of riders being employees of the several State offices there.

Most transit operators have a complex fare structure that reflects the variety ofservices that are provided, including local, commuter express, and dial-a-ride. Faresvary considerably among operators for similar types of service.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

31/180



Most operators have service connections with RT and have interagency agreementswith RT to enable riders to conveniently transfer without paying a second full fare.In most cases, this involves honoring RT fare media and issuing RT transfers onthese services, with RT paying agencies a reimbursement for carrying riders with RT

fare media. Unique restrictions exist in several interagency agreements. On severallines, drivers are responsible for recognizing and honoring the numerous types offare media issued by the agency and by RT; this is an expressed concern of manyagencies.

Several operators issue or sell several types of fare media onboard buses. In additionto their own transfers, RT transfers are issued on certain lines. In addition, mostoperators issue day passes onboard. Another fare collection duty of the driver ishand-punching multi-ride punch passes to deduct a trip.

Transit operators have varying age eligibility requirements for those who qualify fordiscounted fares (i.e., seniors, riders with disabilities, students, young children)

Passes and ticket books can be pre-purchased by mail and at agency and municipaloffices. No agency sells over the internet, although mail order forms can beobtained at their web sites in several cases.

Most agencies issue passes and tickets in bulk on consignment to large employerswho then sell or distribute them to their employees. The majority of employersreceiving bulk distribution of passes and tickets are State offices.

RT and a few other agencies also issue passes and tickets in bulk to partner agencies,merchants, transit management associations, schools, and charitable organizations (inmost cases on consignment) for sale or distribution to individuals. RT has the mostoutlets by far which cover Sacramento County and include locations in neighboring

counties as well.

Transit operators honor student IDs issued at certain colleges and universities in thearea. Other photo IDs are honored by RT when displayed with an affixed RTsticker. Loose controls on these ID cards by the issuing institution can result infraudulent use on transit

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

32/180



Fare Systems, Plans and Priorities

At the start of its data gathering effort, the project team conducted interviews and site visits

of study area transit service providers (with the exception of Davis Community transit andUnitrans, due to scheduling constraints). During these visits, agency management wasinterviewed to obtain a good understanding of system characteristics and agency prioritiesand concerns. While at each site, the team examined vehicles, equipment and facilities asthese will have a bearing on decisions and costs associated with implementing a regionaltransit fare card system. This section documents the findings of the project team, includingthe following for each agency:

Fare collection equipment and facilities existing and planned

Other onboard equipment and systems that may affect new farecard equipment

Agency management priorities and concerns regarding a regional fare card.

Existing Fare Collection Systems

A summary of the fare collection system in use on each participating transit operator in theSACOG region is provided in Table 3-1. The table also identifies other onboard equipmentin the driver area that may need to be considered in any plans to implement a regional faresystem. In addition, the table indicates any plans the agency may have regarding its existingfare collection system.

As the table shows, only Sacramento RT and Yolobus have electronic registering fareboxes.These are also the only agencies that can process magnetic fare cards. The RT fareboxincludes a swipe reader for magnetic farecards. The Yolobus farebox includes an attachedunit that reads, encodes and prints on inserted magnetic farecards and also issues newmagnetic fare cards.

RT has applied for funding to replace its fareboxes systemwide. At a minimum, RT willprocure new fareboxes to equip the 90+ buses that it will be adding to its fleet later this year.Yolobus refurbished its fareboxes eight years ago and is not contemplating replacement inthe near term.

With the exception of Paratransit, Inc., the remaining transit operators have simple non-registering mechanical fareboxes. These boxes consist of money slot, window-enclosedinspection plate, and cashbox. Of these operators, Placer County Transit (PCT) and e-tranare considering a future upgrade to electronic fareboxes.

Paratransit, Inc. has no farebox, using instead a cash pouch kept by the driver an off-boardelectronic payment system and flash passes. The driver remits the cash at the end of shiftwhich is reconciled with the dispatch records. All riders must be registered and reserve theservice in advance; this provides a record of the trips taken and revenue that is due.

RT also operates a light rail service. Whereas the bus system involves bus driver monitoringof fare payment at the farebox, the light rail system utilizes a proof-of-payment approach.All riders are advised to have a valid ticket or pass prior to boarding the train. Riderswithout this valid proof-of-payment are committing an infraction and risk a court-enforced

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

33/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyFare Systems, Plans and Priorities


fine during routine visual inspection by RT fare inspectors. Ticket vending machines(TVMs) are placed at every RT light rail station for those riders who have not alreadypurchased a pass or ticket and do not have a valid transfer. Those with pre-purchasedtickets can validate them in the TVM; this process prints and encodes time, date and location

on the ticket.

Other Onboard Equipment and Systems

The project team identified any equipment on the buses that might affect plans for installingequipment for an electronic farecard system. There were several reasons for this, including:

Determining the availability of space in the driver area for new equipment;

Identifying any onboard systems with which the new farecard system might share data; as anexample, tying the farecard reader to an AVL system can record where each fare transactionoccurred, enabling the agency to track the linked trips of rider.

Identifying any existing data communications capability between vehicle and facility; a meansof exchanging pertinent data between the onboard farecard equipment and wayside (facility)computers is a typical requirement for electronic farecard systems.

Two transit operators RT and Paratransit, Inc. - have mobile data terminals (MDTs)installed for driver use. These MDTs have selection buttons surrounding an LCD displayfor driver control of one or more functions on the vehicle. On the RT buses, the MDTcontrols radio, PA and driver log-in. On Paratransit, Inc., the MDT provides dispatch andpayment communications between driver and central dispatch. Yolobus is installing MDTson its buses next year. These MDTs will have the means of reading an inserted contactsmart card and can be upgraded to read a contactless smart card.

With the exception of Paratransit, Inc., no agency has wireless (i.e., radio or Wi-Fi) data

communications on its buses. RT and Yolobus use standard hand-held infrared probingdevices to retrieve farebox data when the farebox cashbox is being emptied at the serviceisland. Yuba-Sutter Transit digitally records video images from onboard cameras which areuploaded via USB cable when the vehicle returns to the garage at the end of the day.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

34/180



Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment

Transit Agency Fare Media System Size System Equipment Agenc

SacramentoRegional Transit(RT)

Magnetic periodpasses;Paper ticket books;Printed stickers forIDs & other passes;Magnetic tickets(issued by TVM);Paper transfers &day- passes (issuedon buses)

Bus:Buses: 258Vans: 17Divisions: 3

Rail:Lt Rail Veh: 76Stations: 44TVMs: 90Yards: 1

Bus:Registering farebox with read-only magneticswipe readerMobile Data Terminal (MDT) for AutomaticVehicle Location (AVL)Vaulting at Service IslandsCentral Cash Counting Facility

Rail :Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) with magneticticket validator at stations (2003)

Bus:PurchafareboxSeptemcard pr

Rail:TVMs acable csmart c

e-tran(Elk Grove)

Paper Tickets &Passes

Buses: 36Vans: 9

Non-registering fareboxUpgradconside

Folsom StageLine


Buses: 18 Non-registering farebox No pla

Paratransit, Inc.Paper Tickets &Passes; Electronicpre-payment

Vans: 150No fareboxMobile Data Terminal (MDT) for ComputerAssisted Dispatching (CAD) and AutomatedVehicle Location (AVL)

ContraADA seMaintawho arriders o

South CountyTransit(SCT/Link)


Buses: 12Non-registering farebox No pla

El Dorado TransitPaper Tickets &

Passes


Auburn TransitPaper Tickets &Passes


7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

35/180



Table 3-1. Transit Operator Fare Collection System Equipment (continued)

Transit Agency Fare Media System Size System Equipment Agenc

Lincoln Transit Paper Tickets &Passes Buses: 3 Non-registering farebox No planforesee

Placer CountyTransit (PCT)


Buses: 17Non-registering farebox

Joint punder cTahoe

Roseville TransitPaper Tickets &Passes


DavisCommunityTransit


Vans: 3Non-registering farebox

Registeonly; A

Unitrans Paper Tickets &Passes / Student IDs

Buses: 47Vans: 3 Non-registering farebox

No planMajoritemploy

Yolo CountyTransp. District(Yolobus)

Paper Tickets;Magnetic Passes;Magnetic transfers

Buses: 39Vans: 7

Bus:Registering farebox (refurbished 1998) ;TRiM unit (reads/writes/issues/printsmagnetic farecards) (installed 1998)

Paratransit Vans:Non-registering farebox

No planInstallinAutoma

Yuba-SutterTransit



7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

36/180

SACOG Universal Transit Farecard Feasibility StudyFare System Technology State-of-the-Art


Priorities and Concerns

Overall the interviews and site visits of twelve of the fourteen transit agencies revealed acommon interest in a regional approach to fare system issues, particularly for addressing the

complexity of interagency fares and the variety of fare media. Those common threads ofinterest as well as differing views are summarized below:

General Views on Universal Farecard

Most agencies interviewed expressed an interest in proceeding with the feasibility study,believing the program to be a potentially positive step for both their agency and for theregion.

Agencies believe that passengers will benefit by making the system easier to use.

Most agencies stressed the need to keep costs down.

Agencies with few interagency connections and predominantly senior and/or student ridersquestioned the value of an electronic regional fare card system to their agency.

Fare and Fare Media Complexity

Most agencies indicated that the number of fare instruments is unwieldy, especially where itis necessary to accept fares from other agencies. They are looking to regional fare media toconsolidate the number of fare instruments that a driver or fare inspector must recognize.This issue was the most often stated motivating interest in a regional farecard system.

RT has indicated that its objective is to establish an electronic regional farecard as the basisfor transferring to/from RT buses and trains. This would enable it to eliminate printing anddistribution of RT transfers to partner agencies.

At least one agency Placer County Transit expressed an interest in implementing astored-value farecard.

Lincoln Transit believes that a regional fare card will be of little value to its system. Itsservice has limited interagency connections and its primarily senior ridership taking localtrips and generally eschewing fare cards in lieu of cash.

Farebox Considerations

RT is planning to replace its registering fareboxes with validating units. It has applied forfunding for a system-wide replacement, and will at a minimum install validating fareboxes onthe new 90+ buses it is purchasing this year and next. A key objective is to incorporatefarecard readers into the new fareboxes.

Yolobus has no near-term plans to replace its refurbished registering fareboxes and TRiMunits.

Most agencies with non-registering fareboxes are uninterested in investing in electronicregistering fareboxes:

The non-registering fareboxes are adequate for the modest amount of cash processed

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

37/180



The higher cost of maintaining electronic registering fareboxes was often expressed as areason in favor of remaining with the non-registering units.

Only Placer County Transit and e-tran of Elk Grove mentioned consideration of upgradingto electronic registering or validating units.

Auburnnon-registering farebox

Yolobusregistering farebox

(TRiM unit on far side)

Folsom Stage Linenon-registering farebox

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

38/180

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

39/180



Fare System Technology State of the Art

This section describes the technology that is in use today in regions with multiple agencieswith universal transit farecard programs. It is intended to provide a foundation for furtherdevelopment of alternatives for the Sacramento region. Beginning with a general descriptionof the basic technologies printed media, magnetic fare cards and smart cards this sectiondescribes how each fare media technology has been applied to regional systems. It thenfocuses more on the aspects of smart card technology, describing the programs in place or inthe implementation phase in the US, the elements of a regional program and how all theelements can fit together.

Fare Media Technologies

Todays transit systems use one or more of the following forms of fare payment:

Cash

Tokens

Printed passes and tickets

Magnetic fare cards

Smart cards

Cash will continue to be a means of payment for those without pre-paid fare media. Tokensare in declining use as the fare cards printed and electronic have gained popularity fortheir ability to adapt to more complex fare structures.

Table 4-1 shows the various forms of each type of fare card, their distinguishingcharacteristics and general application.

Printed Passes and Tickets

Printed passes and tickets are the least expensive form of media, with corresponding limitson the types of fare for which they can be used. Validation involves visual inspection of theprinting. Deducting a trip on a multi-trip ticket (or punch pass) can require either amechanical ticket validator to print-cancel a ride or a hand-held punch for driver use.Printed tickets are typically of paper stock. Passes can also be of paper stock, althoughplastic is used for those fares requiring durability for a longer life, typically one month to one

year.Magnetic Fare Cards

Magnetically-encoded fare media have a limited amount of data encoded on a magneticstripe on one side of the card. The fare card encoding is read and re-encoded as the stripe ismoved across a succession of magnetic heads in a slot or transport device. Devices needingto only read the encoding are considerably simpler and less expensive than those that read

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

40/180



and encode data. Depending upon the specific need, the cards may be produced on eitherpaper or plastic, the former being less expensive and the latter more durable.

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

41/180



Table 4-1. Fare Media Characteristics

Media Type Typical Use Unit CostData

CapacityExpected

LifeInterface

Printed Passes and Tickets

Printed Paper Ticket TransferSingle rideMulti-rideFlash pass

$0.0025 to$0.05

None up to1 month

Ticket Validator:(only for multi-ride orpre-purchased singleride tickets)

Magnetic Fare Cards

Paper Read-WriteMagnetic Stripe

TransferSingle rideStored valueStored rideDay passFloating period pass

$0.01 to$0.10

16 bytes to64 bytes

up to1 month

Electro-mechanicalmagnetic read/write

Plastic Read-OnlyMagnetic Stripe

Fixed calendar pass(weekly, monthly,annual)

$0.05 to$0.50

16 bytes to64 bytes

up to1 year

Swipe reader orElectro-mechanicalmagnetic read/write

Plastic Read-WriteMagnetic Swipe

Stored valueStored rideFloating period pass

$0.05 to$0.50

16 bytes to64 bytes

up to1 year

Electro-mechanicalmagnetic read/write

Smart Cards

Personal PlasticContactless Smart Card(memory-only ormicroprocessor)

Stored valueStored rideFloating period passFixed calendar passAccount cardMultiple applications

$1.50 to$5.00

1 kbyte to5+ kbytes

up to3+ years

Radio carrier

Disposable PaperContactless Smart Card

Single tripDay passLimited stored value

$0.40 to$1.00

32 bytes to256 bytes

up to1 week

Radio carrier

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

42/180



Smart Cards

Smart cards have an embedded microchip which can hold far more data than the magneticfare card. The cards in use on transit systems communicate with a reading device via radiofrequency when held to within one-half inch, eliminating physical wear and tear (andreducing maintenance costs); thus they are referred to as contactless smart cards 5.Depending upon the specific need, the cards may be produced with either paper (disposable)or plastic (long-life) laminate stock.

The costs of the smart cards are considerably higher than those of the magnetic fare cards,although they have a considerably longer life. Even the paper disposable cards are nottypically considered economical for single-use purposes on a regular basis. The long-lifeplastic smart cards are marketed as personal cards that are intended to be kept and reloadedand reused for up to three or more years. The plastic smart card can also be issued as amulti-function card in addition to transit use, to serve as an employee, student or seniorphoto ID and/or building access card and/or (in the future) to pay for parking or a latte.

Regional Application of Fare Media Technology

Each of the fare card technologies printed passes, magnetic fare cards, and smart cards are being used in regional transit fare card programs today. The approaches to applying thefare media to a regional program are described in Table 4-2 and are discussed below:

Printed Passes

Printed passes and tickets are the most prevalent form of pre-purchased fare media in thecountry. The printed pass is typically a period pass good for unlimited travel during thespecified period printed on the face. They are displayed to the driver or fare inspector forvisual inspection. No equipment is required on the vehicle or station platform. They havebeen applied for multi-agency use in many locations. Two programs are described asexamples.

Transit systems in Los Angeles County and in the Seattle areacurrently have regional flash passes that are accepted by allparticipating agencies. In Los Angeles, the EZ Transit Pass is amonthly unlimited-ride flash pass that is accepted on the localservice of twenty transit operators in the County. Zone stickers canbe purchased for those services having a higher fare; alternatively,riders without the necessary sticker can pay the zone surcharge incash.

5 These cards are sometimes referred to as proximity cards and follow an ISO14443 standard. Other

contactless smart cards vicinity cards allow communication at greater distances but have not been

successfully applied to the US transit environment.

LAs EZ Transit PassLAs EZ Transit Pass

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

43/180



Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies

Farecard

Technology

Approach Transaction Processing Revenue Reconciliation Pros/Cons

Printed Pass

Can also apply toMagnetic Card(Read only) Pass

Fare card is sold as aperiod pass which is validon all local service in aregion;Stickers or higher-valuefare cards are available forservices with higher fares(e.g., commuter, zones,dial-a-ride)

Rider purchases pass(plus sticker) for desiredservice.Rider pays additional cashwhen fare for serviceexceeds pass value.

Periodic surveys are usedto estimate rider travelpatterns. Results are usedto allocate revenue.

One fare card all transit serviregion.Unlimited-ride usefulness somRevenue reconamong agencieimprecise with periodic surveyrevenue formu

Magnetic Card(Read/Write)

Fare card is programmedwith either:

Desired cash value (fare isdeducted for each trip leg),orPeriod pass (rolling orfixed) good for unlimitedregional travel

Rider purchases desiredvalue which is encoded on

card.Rider inserts card intoread/encode unit whichdetermines validity,deducts fare, encodes tripdataIf remaining value is notprinted on card, handheldunit is used to displayencoded info for fareinspection under proof-of-payment system

With records of all linkedtrips, revenue for trip is

allocated among agenciesvia predetermined businessrules.

Limits in card mregional fare co

Equipment is cpurchase and m

7/31/2019 UTFFS_SACOG_07-042

44/180



Table 4-2. Regional Applications of Fare Card Technologies

Farecard

Technology

Approach Transaction Processing Revenue Reconciliation Pros/Cons

Smart Card(Read/Write)

Card-basedSystem

Fare card can beprogrammed with desiredfare(s) and/or cash purse.

Rider purchases desiredfare which is encoded oncard;Rider touches card toreader which determinesvalidity, deducts fare (ifnecessary), encodes tripdataFor proof-of-payment: fareinspector uses handheldunit to read/displayencoded info on smartcard.

With records of all linkedtrips, revenue for trip isallocated among agenciesvia predetermined businessrules.

Accurate trip deliminates reliaperiodic systemsurveys to detetravel habits anrevenue.Costly system Residual valuenot visible to u

Smart Card(Read-only)

Account-basedsystem

Can also apply toMagnetic Card

(Read-Only)

Fare card is notprogrammed with fareinformationSerial number on card tiesto an account linked tochecking or credit cardaccount

Rider sets up linkedaccount with rules for arecurring autoload.Card reader verifiesvalidity & records triptaken for post-processingof fare d

utffs_sacog_07-042

Documents