Multiagency Electronic Fare Payment Systems (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

76 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire Report for TCRP Synthesis Survey SA-37 TCRP Synthesis Survey SA-37 Survey results are contained in this section. Responses were edited when individual agencies were identi- fied in the narrative—an agency name was replaced with the term “AGENCY” and a program card name was replaced with “BRANDED CARD” or just “BRANDED”. The list of respondents is also included in this report. Response Statistics Count Percent Complete 22 100 Partial 0 0 Disqualified 0 0 Total 22 Please enter your contact information. Response ID Title Agency/Organization City State 11 Business Development, Fare Payment Programs Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NY) New York NY 16 Fare Systems LA Co Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles CA 17 Executive Officer TAP LA Co Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles CA 20 Fare Revenue Systems Manager Milwaukee County Transit System Milwaukee WI 21 Project Manager Bi State Development/Metro St. Louis MO 22 Director Transit Systems & PMO Capital Metro Austin TX 24 Director of Treasury Maryland Transit Administration Baltimore MD 25 Program Manager WMATA Washington DC 30 Manager, Client Management PRESTO—A division of Metrolinx Toronto ON 32 Orca Site Administrator Sound Transit Seattle WA Table

77 Response ID Title Agency/Organization City State 34 Manager—Smart Card Program Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh PA 35 Senior Manager, Revenue Operations Metro Transit Minneapolis MN 37 Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas Texas 38 Chief Information Officer Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris Co. Texas Houston TX 39 Revenue Analyst JTA Jacksonville FL 43 Manager of Revenue Processing & Merchant Services TriMet Portland OR 46 Senior Clipper Program Coordinator Metropolitan Transportation Commission Oakland CA 48 Director, Revenue and Fare Systems Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL 50 Chief, EASY Card Services Miami–Dade Transit Miami FL 51 Operations Manager, Electronic Fare Collection Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT 52 Mgr. Breeze Products MARTA Atlanta GA 53 Transit Program Administrator MassDOT Boston Massachusetts

78 What traditional transit modes are included in your Fare Payment System? 95.5%, 21 77.3%, 17 50%, 11 45.5%, 10 63.6%, 14 40.9%, 9 9.1%, 2 4.6%, 1 45.5%, 10 13.6%, 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Bus Commuter, Express, Premium Bus Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Commute Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail / Subway Ferry Vanpool / Rideshare ADA Paratransit Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Bus 95.5 21 Commuter, Express, Premium Bus 77.3 17 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 50.0 11 Commuter Rail 45.5 10 Light Rail 63.6 14 Heavy Rail/Subway 40.9 9 Ferry 9.1 2 Vanpool/Rideshare 4.5 1 ADA Paratransit 45.5 10 Other—Write in (required) 13.6 3 Other—Write in (required) Count Cable Car 1 Street Car and Water Taxi 1 Aerial Tram 1 Total 3

79 What non-traditional transit modes or services are included in your Fare Payment System? Parking, 4 Bike lockers, 1 Transportaon Network Companies (TNC); Uber/Ly, 1 Other - Write In (Required), 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Parking Bike lockers Transportaon Network Companies (TNC); Uber/Ly Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Parking 50.0 4 Bike lockers 12.5 1 Transportation Network Companies (TNC); e.g., Uber/Lyft 12.5 1 Other—Write in (required) 25.0 2 Other—Write in (required) Count Incline 1 None 1 Total 2

80 What type of fare structures (flat, zone, distance, other) are assigned to each Transit mode? Flat Zone Distance Other Bus 95.2% 20 38.1% 8 0% 0 0% 0 Commuter Bus 73.3% 11 53.3% 8 6.7% 1 0% 0 BRT 90.9% 10 27.3% 3 0% 0 0% 0 Commuter Rail 30% 3 30% 3 40% 4 0% 0 Light Rail 85.7% 12 7.1% 1 7.1% 1 0% 0 Heavy Rail/Subway 77.8% 7 0% 0 33.3% 3 0% 0 Ferry 100% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Vanpool/rideshare 100% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 ADA Paratransit 85.7% 6 28.6% 2 14.3% 1 0% 0 Other 75% 3 0% 0 25% 1 0% 0

81 What type of rider categories are supported by your system? Regular, 22 Discounted, 19 Senior, 21 Other - Write In (Required), 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Regular Discounted Senior Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Regular 100.0 22 Discounted 86.4 19 Senior* 95.5 21 Other—Write in (required) 45.5 10 *All EFPS include senior rider discounts. Some organizations classify the types as “discounted.” Other—Write in (required) Count College, student, disabled 1 DC Student Pass 1 Disability/mobility 1 Disabled, student, college 1 Free 1 Low income, youth and disabled 1 Students; ride sponsors 1 Various free rider programs; student fares 1 Employer agreements 1 Secondary student, third level student, child 1 Total 10

82 What type of products is used in your system? Single use, 19 Period pass, 22 Stored Value, 19 Fare capping, 3 Instuonal pass with restricons, 17 Other - Write In (Required), 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Single use Period pass Stored Value Fare capping Instuonal pass with restricons (school, event) Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Single use 86.4 19 Period pass 100.0 22 Stored value 86.4 19 Fare capping 13.6 3 Institutional pass with restrictions (school, event) 77.3 17 Other—Write in (required) 13.6 3 Other—Write in (required) Count Institutional PassPort (bulk pass) 1 Multi-ticket pass 1 When we launch eFare in 2017 we will have stored value and fare capping. Many of our answers will change in 2017. 1 Total 3

83 What type of media or instrument is used in your system and is it reloadable or reusable? Check if Applies Check if Reloadable/Reusable Paper card/ticket (e.g., MiFare Lite) 100% 17 29.4% 5 ISO 14443 a/b 100% 14 85.7% 12 Bank Card (credit/debit/prepaid) 100% 5 20% 1 Mobile NFC 100% 3 33.3% 1 Printed bar code 100% 1 0% 0 Mobile bar code 100% 4 0% 0 Other 100% 1 100% 1

84 How do customers purchase products? Ticket Vending Machine (TVM), 18 Sales Office, 20 Retail Outlet, 20 Web or Mobile store, 19 Monthly autoload, 14 Reload based on trigger amount through account, 16 Other - Write In (Required), 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Sales Office Retail Outlet Web or Mobile store Monthly autoload Reload based on trigger amount through account Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) 81.8 18 Sales office 90.9 20 Retail outlet 90.9 20 Web or mobile store 86.4 19 Monthly autoload 63.6 14 Reload based on trigger amount through account 72.7 16 Other—Write in (required) 31.8 7 Other—Write in (required) Count Call Center and Mobile Customer Service Terminal 1 In Bus Reloaders 1 Mobile App; Call Center 1 Self-Serve Reload Machine 1 Smart Card options still in rollout 1 Transit Benefits 1 Transit Benefits Administrators 1 Total 7

85 In the customer's account, 7 On the card through tapping the reader, 17 On the card through tapping the TVM, 13 Download to mobile app, 6 Download to web app, 3 Other - Write In (Required), 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 In the customer's account On the card through tapping the reader On the card through tapping the TVM Download to mobile app Download to web app Other - Write In (Required) How is the product provisioned to the customer? Value Percent Count In the customer's account 31.8 7 On the card through tapping the reader 77.3 17 On the card through tapping the TVM 59.1 13 Download to mobile app 27.3 6 Download to web app 13.6 3 Other—Write in (required) 13.6 3 Other—Write in (required) Count Direct product load at the Customer Service Terminals and Retailers 1 Self-Serve Reload Machine 1 Currently only using paper and mobile fare media 1 Total 3

86 What information is collected on the customer (not including institutional or transit benefit customers) and customer behavior? Name, 12 Phone, 12 Email, 12 Address, 11 Rider Profile, 3 Fare Media, 9 Product type preferences, 3 Product purchase and usage, 14 Travel history, 15 Rider Preferences - Write In (Required), 1 Other - Write In (Required), 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Name Phone Email Address Rider Profile Fare Media Product type preferences Product purchase and usage Travel history Rider Preferences - Write In (Required) Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Name 57.1 12 Phone 57.1 12 Email 57.1 12 Address 52.4 11 Rider profile 14.3 3 Fare media 42.9 9 Product type preferences 14.3 3 Product purchase and usage 66.7 14 Travel history 71.4 15 Rider Preferences—Write in (required) 4.8 1 Other—Write in (required) 23.8 5 Rider Preferences—Write in (required) Count Default trip (when requested) 1 Total 1 Other—Write in (required) Count Personal information for reduced-fare customers 1 Cell phone number 1 It depends. Typically, no information is collected. 1 None unless the customer registers their card and opts to provide information 1 Phone; purchase history 1 Total 5

87 Do you have customer opt-in benefits? Value Percent Count No 52.4 11 Yes—What are they? (required) 47.6 10 Total 21 No 52% Yes - What are they? (Required) 48% Yes—What are they? (required) Count Balance protection 1 Balance protection 1 Card cost is refunding in transit value; balance protection in case of card replacement; various enhanced account management tools 1 E-mail communications on fare payment program or transit agency news 1 Prepaid card holders can opt to register their cards giving them protection against loss/theft, and the ability to setup auto-reload. 1 Registration for Balance Protection 1 Replacement of Value for lost card (requires registration) 1 Riders can remain anonymous without signing up for web-based products of reloads 1 Web-based auto-reload program includes balance protection 1 Registered customers benefit from balance protection for lost or stolen cards, autoload/autorenew, Transaction history report for tax purposes 1 Total 10

88 If the fare system only supports your agency, select Single Agency, otherwise select Multiagency System Value Percent Count Single Agency 27.3 6 Multiagency System 72.7 16 Total 22 Single Agency 27% Mulagency System 73% How many organizations participate in the Common Payment System? Count Response 2 2 1 11 1 2 currently, with plans to expand 1 24 1 3 1 6 1 7 comprise the consortium 1 8 1 9 regional agencies 1 Six 1 Three

89 Who leads the partnership? Consorum 15% Lead Transit Agency 62% Other - Please explain (required): 23% Value Percent Count Consortium 15.4 2 Lead Transit Agency 61.5 8 Other—Please explain (required): 23.1 3 Total 13 Other—Please explain (required): Count State DOT 1 Transit agencies as partners 1 WMATA 1 Total 3

90 What types of organizations participate in the system? Number of Participants Transit agency 100% 11 Transportation Network Company (TNC) (Lyft/Uber) 100% 2 Paratransit/supplementary services 100% 4 Parking 100% 1 Retail organizations 100% 3 Institutions (e.g., university, business) 100% 4 Banks, financial organizations 100% 1 Others 100% 3 Please characterize your organization's participation in the System Development. Lead Decision Maker Recommend/ Contribute Not Applicable Feasibility Study 91.7% 11 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Capital Planning 91.7% 11 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Operational Concept 91.7% 11 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Requirements/Specification Development 91.7% 11 50% 6 16.7% 2 0% 0 Cost/Risk Analysis 83.3% 10 50% 6 16.7% 2 0% 0 Procurement Approach 91.7% 11 41.7% 5 8.3% 1 8.3% 1 Vendor Selection 91.7% 11 50% 6 25% 3 0% 0 Design Review 91.7% 11 50% 6 8.3% 1 0% 0 System Testing 83.3% 10 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Pilot Testing 83.3% 10 25% 3 16.7% 2 8.3% 1 Installation/Deployment 83.3% 10 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Revenue Operations Testing (acceptance) 83.3% 10 41.7% 5 16.7% 2 0% 0 Operations 90.9% 10 45.5% 5 18.2% 2 0% 0 Maintenance 90.9% 10 45.5% 5 18.2% 2 0% 0 Governance Rules 91.7% 11 50% 6 25% 3 0% 0

91 What services are common and shared among all system participants? Media branding, 10 Fare and transfer policies, 6 Product/ media sales (web, retail outlet), 10 System monitoring (equipment, security), 5 Transacon data / reconciliaon, 9 Performance data / analycs, 4 Customer mobile app, 3 Cash collecon (e.g., TVM, sales office), 3 Other - Write In (Required), 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Media branding Fare and transfer policies Product / media sales (web, retail outlet) System monitoring (equipment, security) Transacon data / reconciliaon Performance data / analycs Customer mobile app Cash collecon (e.g., TVM, sales office) Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Media branding 83.3 10 Fare and transfer policies 50.0 6 Product/media sales (web, retail outlets, sales office, TVM) 83.3 10 System monitoring (equipment, security) 41.7 5 Transaction data/reconciliation 75.0 9 Performance data/analytics 33.3 4 Customer mobile app 25.0 3 Cash collection (e.g., TVM, sales office) 25.0 3 Other—Write in (required) 25.0 3 Other—Write in (required) Count Regional pass and stored value and transfers 1 Customer service at call center 1 Customer website is shared for account management as well as service provider website for reporting purposes 1 Total 3

92 What services are common but private among the participating agencies? (or shared among fewer agencies) Media branding, 2 Fare and transfer policies, 4 Product/ media sales (web, retail, sale), 2 System monitoring (equipment, security), 6 Transacon data / reconciliaon, 5 Performance data / analycs, 7 Customer mobile app, 1 Cash Collecon (TVM, sales office), 7 Other - Write In (required), 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Media branding Fare and transfer policies Product / media sales (web, retail, sales office) System monitoring (equipment, security) Transacon data / reconciliaon Performance data / analycs Customer mobile app Cash Collecon (TVM, sales office) Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Count Media branding 16.7 2 Fare and transfer policies 33.3 4 Product/media sales (web, retail, sales office, TVM) 16.7 2 System monitoring (equipment, security) 50.0 6 Transaction data/reconciliation 41.7 5 Performance data/analytics 58.3 7 Customer mobile app 8.3 1 Cash Collection (TVM, sales office) 58.3 7 Other—Write in (required) 8.3 1 Other—Write in (required) Count have no idea what you are asking 1 Total 1

93 Describe the Governance Structure of the fare payment system with respect to how the partner organizations interact. Count Response 1 CTA is lead and owns the system. Decisions made by consensus of impacted parties. All agencies participate in Change Control, PMO functions. 1 Contractual relationship with DART acting as prime and other participants as partners, all accomplished through an interlocal agreement. 1 Currently in testing, Lead Agency is paying a flat fee to Partner Organization for Lead Agency Fare media used based on historical data. As systems evolve, greater granularity will be incorporated. 1 Lead transit agency coordinates all interaction of partner organizations sharing the Common Payment System pursuant to MOUs/Agreements between lead transit agency and partner organizations. Lead transit agency has overall general responsibility for governance and shared operation of fare payment system through an organizational business unit within lead transit agency. 1 MassDOT contracted the app development services to a vendor and will fund the development costs of up to seven operators that serve the state. Operators that join the project sign an agreement with MassDOT and work directly with the developers to harmonize app functions with their fare products and operations. Operators do not interact with one another at the moment. The project is intended to facilitate and encourage interlining ticketing eventually. The app developers will collect a fee per ticket sale for the life of the contract. 1 Meet as a group, must go through Metro Board and City Councils of participating agencies 1 Metro Transit is generally the lead in fare collection system decisions while receiving input from the suburban transit providers as part of the regional fare committee. 1 Miami–Dade Transit manages the fare payment system for all agencies. 1 Only stored value is shared between agencies 1 Our Joint Board is comprised of the CEO or designee from each of the 7 agencies. There is no weighted vote and each decision must be unanimous. 1 PRESTO is an agency model where Transit Agencies participate as partners. The Executive Client Committee is the highest form of external governance and is supported by a number of sub committees. 1 The transit operators in the National Capital Region created and adopted the SmarTrip Regional Operating Agreement which sets the framework and rules structure for participation in the program.

94 Please summarize the reconciliation and settlement rules including authority, audit, timing, etc. Count Response 1 1. Daily—Clearing and Settlement: happens daily (business days) for settlement to/from Service Providers for fare payments and ePurse loads done at SPOS. FinOps back-office process: a preparer reconciles the payment journal and once prepared, sends it to a reviewer. An independent reviewer reviews and approves the payment journal, which triggers the EFT file to be sent to the bank. In the afternoon, a different area of the FinOps team monitors the bank to ensure the EFT file cleared. Everything above (such as who reviewed and who approved the payment files) is documented and available for internal or external audit review. 2. Monthly—financial reconciliation. This team performs monthly reconciliation on the general ledger lines. Each reconciliation has three levels: a preparer, a reviewer, and an overall approval. All of the month end work is documented and available for internal or external audit review. 3. External Audits—various. 1 Apportionment is done by the system based on apportionment rules. The ORCA Fiscal Agent approves the systematic daily and monthly settlement and apportionment. Stored value apportions daily, regional monthly passes apportion 30 days after last pass date, Institutional PassPort apportions 60 days after the last day of each month. 1 Back-office reports are designed by the developers to each of the operators' preferences. Since interlining agreements are not yet in place, there are no reconciliation or settlement rules. 1 Details are in the enclosed agreement. 1 Each independent transit authority is responsible for the collection, reconciliation, and settlement of its own cash fares. Metro Transit collects all information for electronic fares (primarily smart card with some magnetics) and reimburses the optout providers on a monthly basis based on information both parties have access to regarding fare payments. 1 Each party receives its cash and credit transactions directly. DART bill an administrative fee as program manager. DART only researches and reconciles matter tied to the mobile vendor. 1 Monthly clearinghouse reports are run and either RTA accounts are credited or debited for sales and ride use. 1 Monthly reconciliation, no change from pre-AFC. 1 All revenue must be settled to CTA within three days of sale. CTA reviews and reconciles daily.

95 Count Response 1 80 5 90 4 100 How well do the governance policies work? [where 0 is poor and 100 is excellent] 80 , 1 90 , 5 100 , 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 80 90 100

96 Describe the top five (5) challenges to the multi-agency payment system. Count Response 1 1) Finding time to meet and discuss payment system concepts and rules 2) establishing funding principles for shared capital investments and operating costs 1 1) Lack of homogeneity in fare payment and structure when the systemwas launched 2) getting consensus on any contentious issues 3) prioritizing the implementation activities of one agency over another 4) fare integration (defining concession parameters, fare payment types, transfer/co-fare rules, etc.) 5) apportionment of costing 1 1) Maintenance of the system 2) Enhancements/upgrades to the system. 1 1. Maintenance and operations of active system 2. Complexity of business rules 3. Account-based nature of system and its impact on transaction timing. 1 1. Building consensus among providers on the best approach to fare policy due to different types of primary customers (i.e. inner-city, local route focused at AGENCY versus primarily serving the express/suburban commuter at the optout providers). 2. Differences in technologies that support the fare collection system that help collect GPS information for fare transactions (AGENCY uses SOFTWARE1 while one of the optouts uses SOFTWARE2 and has yet to implement). 1 At this stage in the development the biggest challenge has been in designing a customer interface that accommodates different types of fare products, as well as reserved seating and non-reserved seating. We expect interlining to become a significant challenge from governance and technical perspectives. 1 Decisions can take longer than with a single entity. One entity can veto an issue regardless of the size of the agency 1 Pilot testing roll out customer training employee training marketing 1 Process is lengthy to gain agreement across all operators and multiple jurisdictions. 1 Test as you go, requires trust and willingness to try strategies out. 1 Trust, transparency, communication Describe the top five (5) Policies (e.g., governance, integrated fare) that were easy to implement. Count Response 1 1) Basic agreement that for regional fare whoever sells the pass keeps the entire amount 2) For mobile ticketing, all transactions were direct to named agency and cash funding is direct through their own gateway 1 1) AGENCY being equal to or lowest fare 2) One electronic fare payment available in the region 3) Minor operational issues not covered in the original operating agreements (such as billing back of customer gestures, repair/maintenance changes) 4) Best practice policies for settlement and reconciliation 1 1) Tariff 2) ADA Compliance 3) Title VI; Civil Rights Act 4) Regional integration of Transit Agencies 1 1. Incorporating smart card/the BRAND card as the automated fare collection system in 2002. 2. All hardware and system updates related to system enhancements and expansion. 1 Most issues are relatively easy to implement, but take time based on our structure. 1 New fare structure Branding Discounted Fare Media Replacement Policy Refund Policy 1 None 1 None are easy but commitment to concepts and finding funding is key 1 See agreement 1 Use of stored value how it is reconciled

97 What did you try to implement but could not? Why? (consider technical, institutional, policy/legal services or agreements) Count Response 1 1) Real time loading on cards—cost prohibitive to implement a wireless infrastructure for buses 2) Additional convenience fees at specific customer service outlets—was not approved by all the transit systems executive client members 1 1) Upgrade customer display at turnstiles: cost prohibitive. 1 Considered but waived further discussion of total elimination of cash on buses 1 Hand-held operator device for on-board ticket sales has been pushed to a later stage in the project due to difficulties in finding the right hardware. 1 Nothing comes to mind at this time. 1 Shared Sales Office Terminals. Business policy was more complex than we wanted to deal with. 1 We have implemented most initiatives, although some took longer than others. How many partners delayed their participation in the initial deployment? What were their reasons? Count Response 2 None 1 1. AGENCY delayed their participation in order to find the right equipment and the right AFC strategy for themselves. 1 9 original partners. 15 additional joined but only when we found a low cost solution—mobile validators, parent org paid for the solution 1 Most inter-city bus operators have delayed their participation, opting to wait for the app to be live and tested by smaller operators of commuter service and its functionality demonstrated for a few months. 1 Of the original group, none were delayed. There was a staggered roll out based on the implementation plan. Several have been on-boarded at a later date because they wanted to understand how the technology would work prior to participation. 1 Two partners were cautions of the initial deployment while we worked out the reporting and communication bugs. Their hesitation resulted in additional testing that further validated the accuracy of the system and resulted in them having confidence in the information collected and reported, resulting in a smooth reimbursement process. 1 We launched first with each following as they were ready. 1 N/A

98 What are the strengths of your approach? Count Response 1 1) Ubiquitous fare payment across the region 2) Simple to use 3) Stored value on a card that can be used seamlessly across all participating agencies 4) The technology can support other payment types (i.e.,open payment) 1 Collaboration and working toward common goals 1 Ease of managing issues and customer training 1 Inclusion—We tried to be as up front and as transparent as possible with our partners on what our goals were and ultimately what the direction choses was. 1 Open, transparent, inform, build trust, facilitate, listen, support, provide excellent customer/agency service 1 Puts control and general responsibility for fare payment system with the transit agency (Program Management business unit having the contractual relationship with the vendor/supplier of the system. A singular coordinating agency acting pursuant to formal MOUs/Agreements acts as a unifying force and simplifies/clarifies governance. 1 Simplicity to implement and oversee, limited reason for disputes 1 The app developers have a significant incentive to recruit more participants in order to increase their revenue pool in the long term. Initial deployment with smaller agencies has allowed for the product to be tested and redesigned without major cost or schedule implications. 1 Trusting partnership with a small agency. The smaller Agency got to see the pitfalls of the Lead Agency's design and pursued a separate design and strategy. 1 When one agency experiences issues, we all pull together to help out. At the end of the day, most decisions, even if they took a while to reach, tend to be good decisions. What are the weaknesses of your approach? What would change if you had another chance? Count Response 1 1) the greatest weakness is that the rules were not set in the very beginning for a unified fare payment structure across all transit agencies 2) High cost (due to customization across agencies) 3) Allowing individual transit agency period passes (should all be electronic value on the card combined with AGENCY loyalty discount) 4) Technological architecture—did not use modular design for the central system/object oriented design 5) As a fare payment system we should have started out as a scheme operator (manage the fare payment aspect only) and not been as intimately involved in devices or other operational items. 1 Little enforcement mechanisms, all decisions are voluntary and require total consensus to implement so change can be slow 1 The LEAD ORGANIZATION would launch on a unified schedule that our agency created. 1 Things take longer. Having said that, it's a matter of picking your poison. We rarely have disputes because they ultimately get worked out. 1 User uptake will be significantly delayed until a major bus operator joins the app. 1 While we were good about communicating the process with our partners, we did not necessarily give them a voice in the decision making process. It could have gone smoother and created more investment on their part if we had given them more of a voice, if even a small one, in the decisions related to the selection and implementation of our smart card system. 1 Would look closer at a joint powers authority; state should get involved and administer one back office for all to keep costs low. Add other vendors to create competition, do not accept proprietary solution.

99 Did you implement discounts between modes? Value Percent Count No 52.9 9 Yes 47.1 8 Total 17 No 53% Yes 47% If yes, what types of rules are implemented? Count Response 1 Bus is discounted; however, intermodal transfers will cap at the same amount. 1 Co-fares and fare integration credits—but as per the individual transit agencies agreements 1 Discount to seniors only and ADA customers. 1 Discounts are embedded in the smart card 1 Free or reduced transfers between express bus, bus,and subway 1 If you transfer from one mode to another, a transfer credit is applied to subsequent legs of your journey. 1 Senior, veterans, youth 1 Transfers; bus to rail and rail to bus.

100 Is there a common set of rules for all modes and/or agencies in the fare system? Value Percent Count No 37.5 6 Yes 62.5 10 Total 16 No 37% Yes 63%

101 Can pairs of modes and/or agencies create their own transfer rules? Value Percent Count No 70.6 12 Yes 29.4 5 Total 17 No 71% Yes 29% If yes, please describe the various rules that are allowed and modes/organizations participating in the transfer policies. Count Response 1 Different pricing for transfers. Our system allows different fares and reduced fare rules for each agency. 1 Each agency has its own passes and rules on how it is used. 1 Transfers are determined by the individual agencies. Ex: Low Income fare transfers are allowed between three agencies. There is a 2 hour transfer window between agencies with the exception of Washington State ferries. There are no transfers to or from AGENCY. 1 Transfers between agencies; for example, customers using BRANDED CARD on AGENCY Bus can get a transfer to OTHER AGENCY system. 1 Co-fare, time-based transfers, directional transfers

102 Value Percent Count No 94.4 17 Yes 5.6 1 Total 18 Did you implement discounts for transfers between transit and non-typical transportation services (e.g., tolling, parking, Transportation Network Company, bike share, etc.) ? No 94% Yes 6% If yes, please describe the mode pairs and transfer rules that are implemented? Count Response 1 At three AGENCY parking lots there are non-rider fees attached; must have a rail transaction to pay the base fee otherwise charged a higher fee; practice is designed to discourage using lot for other commercial parking

103 For what purposes may the fare media and applicable products be used? Describe typical conditions for media and product usage (for example, does the customer need to opt-in, register, input reservations on-demand or in advance;are services restricted by time or location). Count Response 1 Cash or smart card 1 No registration or reservations 1 None 1 Single Ride, Transfer, Passes, Capping 1 Use at farebox when boarding 1 Used to pay fares 1 customer buys or presents valid fare 1 no 1 period pass 1 register 1 riding/transfer 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare 1 tap and ride Bus Commuter/Express Bus Count Response 1 Cash or smart card 1 No registration or reservations 1 None 1 Register, services restricted by time and location, ticket purchase and activation in advance. Ticket activation window depends on operator. 1 Same 1 Use at farebox when boarding 1 Used to pay fares 1 customer buys or presents valid fare 1 no 1 period pass 1 register 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare 1 tap and ride

104 BRT Count Response 1 No registration or reservations 1 None 1 Use at wayside devices before boarding 1 customer buys or presents valid fare 1 no 1 register 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare 1 tap and ride Light rail Count Response 1 Cash or smart card 1 No registration or reservations 1 None 1 Same 1 Used to pay fares 1 no 1 period pass 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare 1 tap and ride Subway/heavy rail Count Response 1 Swipe at turnstile 1 customer buys or presents valid fare 1 no 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare

105 Ferry Count Response 1 N/A 1 No registration. They do have reservations on some routes but that's outside of BRANDED CARD Parking Count Response Paratransit Count Response 1 Registration, tickets or smart card 1 Single scheduled ride, transfer, transfer discount from fixed route 1 customer buys before boarding 1 tap BRANDED card/pay fare 1 yes Van pool/rideshare Count Response 1 N/A 1 Registration 1 monthly subscription 1 period pass Transportation Network Company (e.g., Lyft, Uber) Count Response 1 N/A 1 mobile digital link, no fee

106 Bikeshare Count Response 1 N/A 1 buys prior to use Tolls (bridge/road) Count Response 1 N/A Retail Count Response 1 no 1 purchase, load Other Count Response 1 None 1 Swipe at turnstile Use this space to elaborate on your response to previous Question. Count Response 1 Customers simply purchase a BRANDED card, with our without registering their card, and tap it at the reader on the bus or rail platform to pay their fare. 1 Customers use their BRANDED card by tapping on to a fare payment device. The fare is deducted from their balance or a pass is detected. The reader also writes transfers to the card 1 N/A 1 Registration is not required for mobile or paper ticket use 1 N/A

107 How long has the program been in operation (in years)? Count Response 2 12 1 0.3 1 0 1 1 1 10 1 15 1 16 1 21 1 5 1 50 1 7 years 1 8 1 Since April 2009 1 nine years (from pilot start to current date) 1 since Sept. 2013 1 two years

What types of procurement strategies were used? Pre-qualificaon, 6 Design, 6 Build, 6 Operate, 7 Maintain, 7 System Integraon (mulple systems pro), 5 System Integraon (mulple systems pro), 2 Turnkey (single vendor equipment, so­ware), 8 Public/Private Partnership, 3 Pilot Demonstraon--Please describe, 4 Addional comments, 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sy ste m Int eg ra on (m ul ple sy ste ms pr oc ur ed ) Sy ste m Int eg ra on (m ul ple sy ste ms pr oc ur ed ) Tu rn ke y ( sin gle ve nd or eq uip me nt , s o­ wa re ) Pil ot D em on str a on - Ple as e d es cri be sc op e o f d em o Value Percent Count Pre-qualification 37.5 6 Design 37.5 6 Build 37.5 6 Operate 43.8 7 Maintain 43.8 7 System Integration (multiple systems procured separately) 31.3 5 System Integration (multiple systems procured by integrator) 12.5 2 Turnkey (single vendor equipment, software, services) 50.0 8 Public/Private Partnership 18.8 3 Pilot Demonstration—Please describe scope of demo 25.0 4 Additional comments 6.3 1 Pilot Demonstration—Please describe scope of demo Count 2 week demo of mobile app 1 Hardware demonstration 1 Started as a FTA demonstration program 1 Total 3 Additional comments Count We built the mobile application with a local startup. 1 Total 1

109 How was the procurement staged? Please identify the contract type in the order of procurement. First Procurement Second Procurement Third Procurement Additional Project Management 100% 11 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Field equipment (TVM, readers, etc.) 75% 9 25% 3 25% 3 0% 0 Back Office/Data Center services 76.9% 10 15.4% 2 15.4% 2 0% 0 Agency mobile device/app (inspection, sales) developer 77.8% 7 11.1% 1 11.1% 1 0% 0 Customer mobile ticket or service apps developers 66.7% 4 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 0% 0 Retail network and distribution 50% 3 33.3% 2 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 System integrator 66.7% 4 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 0% 0 Operator (including financial settlement) 100% 6 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Maintenance (equipment, software and/or servers) 77.8% 7 11.1% 1 22.2% 2 0% 0 Customer service center/media inventory & distribution 60% 3 20% 1 20% 1 0% 0 Other 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 1 If you selected "Additional" or "other" in the previous questions, please explain: Count Response 1 We had back end and rail systems, as well as an open API for integration provided by VENDOR, then Farebox hardware, Bus back end software and integration to VENDOR services provided by VENDOR. Additionally, we contracted with VENDOR to integrate with the Farebox on board the bus. We also have an independent contract with VENDOR to get an IVR system in place as well.

110 Please describe the reason(s) for your approach? Count Response 1 10 year contract with a one stop solution with expertise to execute the complexity of a fare system across multiple transit agencies. 1 Deployment of BRANDED CARD was accomplished under a broader, existing contract. 1 Existing rail systems and the desire for replacement equipment made us go with independent contracts. 1 First procurement was focused on scope, schedule and cost considerations to permit evaluation of options. Elected to go with mobile ticketing next due to ease of procurement and deployment. Elected to go with account-based fare collection with established systems integrator once we were satisfied this was a viable approach 1 It was how fare collection systems were procured at the time in 1990. 1 Metro Transit used a contractor to help gather requirements and facilitate the RFP. AGENCY then contracted with VENDOR to provide the hardware and software to operate the system. AGENCY does all system maintenance and customer service internally. 1 There was 1 procurement with change orders as needed. 1 This contract was a DBOM and deemed to be the most secure for the agencies. 1 We had multiple procurements of different fare types, e.g. farebox, TVM, mobile app that were procured similarly but different times. 1 Convenience and safe time. 1 Easier to manage with only one vendor 1 x Please describe the challenges encountered using your approach. Count Response 1 Biggest challenge is managing a multi-stage procurement in a technology environment that is rapidly changing and with new vendors emerging. 1 Integrating various vendors with different agendas and timelines fell to the Agency and has been a monumental challenge. Also, no liquidated damages in the contract means that accountability reduced and delays increased. 1 No one to push the vendor to meet the deadlines imposed 1 Non-competitive procurement. 1 Not having done it before made it difficult to know what you do not know. 1 The ability to over time reduce the responsibility of the contractor was not built into the original contract. 1 The contract was heavily weighted in favor of the agencies. After the system was deployed, costs went up. 1 The vendor provided the software, equipment, and media. Any changes to the system could only be made the vendor; a non-competitive environment 1 Available and accessible to all TVMs, retails, and mobile apps. 1 We have disparate systems and that creates a problem with ongoing support. 1 x

111 Value Percent Count Yes 40.0 6 No 60.0 9 Total 15 Did you perform a Post Implementation Analysis or Return on Investment study? Yes 40% No 60%

112 Please share any lessons learned or concerns about your approach to deploying and/or implementing your system? For example, what would you do differently and why? Count Response 1 Design of the system (use of modular architecture)—Getting agreement on a unified fare structure prior to development and deployment (i.e., make the system rules less complex)—single source for hardware. Thales owned hardware interface meaning any changes were high cost and time 1 Engage employees first! 1 Hire an outside project manager 1 If using the same approach of the Agency being the integration facilitator, we should have co-located the parties for several months until design, development and testing was complete. 1 Lessons Learned: Challenges/issues are not all related to technology, Management and people issues remain key.... Project management capabilities: intra- and inter-agency coordination, spell out all details of operating/governance agreements, robust pilots and test phases, customer input into design, external alliances (law enforcement, financial institutions, payment processors, transit benefit providers, other transit properties and retailers with similar operating needs). Training and new skill requirements for in-house teams: Employee buy-in, training tools for increased effectiveness, know rules/protocols of the business you're getting into, understand service providers' business perspective. Customer focus: Benefits to customers, enhanced customer experience, commercial and customer marketing. We would have benefited from having deeper understanding of banking, electronic payments, credit/debit operations earlier in our deployment. We needed to gain this understanding very quickly. 1 One vendor to some extent holds you hostage. Conversely, multiple vendors create finger pointing. 1 Pilot any system first to avoid a long implementation. Other customers may not have your unique challenges so like the system, but it may not work for you. Get Title 6 out of the way before award. 1 The biggest opportunity for AGENCY on this project was to have a dedicated and qualified project manager on the agency side for this implementation. AGENCY used one of their own engineers but he was a Civil engineer and did not have the experience and knowledge necessary from a software and technology standpoint to be as effective as could have been within the agency in identifying the challenges and helping the agency plan ahead for their post-implementation needs. 1 Try to get everyone to agree to senior age, use many vendors, non-proprietary, have contractor move in house for better oversight, management and skin in the game, bring engineers in earlier to take over most if not all of the work and software development, change notices are very expensive 1 WIP 1 We have interim results linked to the mobile deployment. We are currently in the midst of the account-based deployment with revenue service scheduled for 2017, after which a post deployment assessment will be completed. 1 We underestimated the cost and time required to deploy our system. We launched the system prematurely, before base functionality was fully delivered. We did not give enough attention to requirements management throughout the system development life cycle. 1 Would have used a different consulting firm.

113 What performance metrics do you collect? Count Response 1 Availability, reliability, and accuracy metrics. 1 For the vendor? They provide all maintenance metrics and are fined if they do not meet them 1 MCBF—Mean Cycle Between Failure MTTR—Mean Time To Repair 1 Mean failures between transactions usage errors bill jams # of bills rejected system read errors 1 Origin and destination ridership and revenue statistics to assist in operations planning. 1 See attached samples for details: 1) Public Facing Customer Service Metrics (Customer Service Report) 2) Internal Operations reporting (Monthly Operations Report Sample) 3) Internal Card Use Reporting (SAMPLE—Month End Update) 1 Still in progress 1 WIP 1 We have defined several performance metrics: 1) Card Validation Accuracy 2) Validation Response Time 3) Validator Availability 4) Correct Fare Accuracy 5) Back-office Web Interfaces Response Time 6) Data Store Availability 7) Data Store Completeness 8) Availability of Electronic Fare Inspection Solution 9) Electronic Fare Inspection Response Time 10) Electronic Fare Inspection Accuracy 11) Card Load/Reload Accuracy 12) Customer Web Interface Response Time 1 failure rates, frequency 1 just ticket sales across channels 1 total number of downloads per day, cumulative downloads, average transaction price, utilization by Apple vs Android, composition of tickets purchased, percentage of mobile sales as compared to total credit card sales, and total pass sales.