City of Joburg experience Results of internal review and considerations Commentary on Transport Functional Study views

Transcription

1 City of Joburg

2 City of Joburg experience Results of internal review and considerations Commentary on Transport Functional Study views

3 Due to the long lead times for procurement and development, the City began with a paper ticket system from August Features of this system included: 3 flat fares for Feeder, Trunk and a combination of the two (R4.50, 87.50, R12.00 in 2012) No access control to stations used marshals Validation machines at stations and on buses System vulnerable to fare evasion but safe guards included marshals, inspectors, 3D foil logo on ticket and distribution checks and balances Timelines for smart card: Went out for tender in 2008 for Mifare system with EMV pilot Awarded in 2010 Initially planned to implement in 2011, implemented in July 2013 after significant changes to system due to publishing of NDOT regulations in June 2011 which led to converting pilot into full blown EMV system. 3

4 SMART CARD Most public transport systems worldwide make use of smart cards Reduced fare evasion can be cashless Easier administration Accessible Blind spots: First distance based EMV in world Most BRTS are flat fare Developmental risks EMV Be a world leader Reduce need for back office Integration with other modes Additional advantages to commuters to have a low value card without FICA requirements Were told that soon all major banks will make their own cards and they will be acceptable at all registered merchants. Normal debit cards could also be used (??) 4

5 Authority Acquiring bank $ Issuing bank $ Level 3 Operator Integrated FMS BO X BO Y Issuing Bank Back Office Rea Vaya Back Office Process Application Database Issuing Bank Reporting Revenue Manageme nt Level 2 Communication Fare Data Payment Domain Update Transaction Information Level 1 Front Office Fare Rules On/Off-Board Card Readers TVM ATM Check Out Travel Level 0 Fare Media Transit Domain Driver Display On Board Equipment Kiosk Through Ticket Check In Buy Through Ticket 5

6 Passengers would buy cards at: RV Stations (cashiers or vending machines), Bankappointed Low Value Agents or Vendors, RV Walk In Centres and card issuing bank Money or Value has to be loaded onto card. Passenger pays highest of R1.50 or 2.5% of value loaded to cover bank expenses First card media will initially be issued free by RV to passengers with the proviso that an amount equal to maximum fare must be retained on card at all times and that card is registered with RV. Allows for RV database info and card to be stopped when lost, plus transfer of balance on card to new card Subsequent cards will be purchased. Personalised cards for concession users (e.g. pensioners) 6

7 Passenger pays by tapping in to open station gate or bus turnstile and tapping out when leaving the system Once a passenger is in the system, he can travel until he gets off without making an additional payment. Time limitations apply A minimum fare is deducted at tap in and the balance is deducted when passenger taps out to leave the system based on distance travelled Single trip cards will be available but will be relatively expensive to cover the cost of the card medium A passenger may be liable to be charged under City bylaws if found to be guilty of defrauding Rea Vaya The system will levy a fine equal to the maximum fare should a passenger fraudulently enter or exit the system automatically at next use 7

8 Fares Fares will are be calculated calculated in approximately in intervals with a 5km capped intervals fares with for longer a capped distances fare for as follows longer distances for current as fares: follows for current fares: Min Min Fare Fare 5 km R5.50 R km R km R km R km R12.50 > 35 km R14.20 This will result in passengers from shorter distance feeders eg. Mofolo receiving equal treatment and will lead to more passengers 8

9 Our passenger numbers dropped by about 50% due to: Increase in fares (distance based) as well as annual increase Introduction of loading fees Need to have a minimum amount on the card (difficult for poor users) Lack of an accessible single/return ticket Technical problems (down time) Lack of adequate communication on how the system works. Very expensive for occasional users (one trip card and using smart card) Our revenue dropped due to: Patronage drop Fare evasion not reduced could be increased as commuters tap off at first stop on feeders. Fare lost due to technical losses: 7%

10 Not achieving BRT promise: safe, reliable, affordable, accessible, convenient public transport Safe: YES but some issues on pedestrian safety and vehicles who infringe routes Affordable: NO Fare price of mini bus taxis more competitive Accessible: NO Not able to board buses and travel from all stops, lack of vendor network, single cards in accessible, lack of adequate communication and passenger information, especially as we want to grow the system Convenient: YES frequencies, hours of operation, brand identification Fast and reliable: NOT ALWAYS traffic signals, encroachment of lanes, IT down time and technical problems, Innovation: FAILING: Lack of responsiveness by banking system to AFC EMV cards, no local benchmarks, ABSA monopoly This leads to low patronage, low revenue (not cover operational cost leading to lack of compliance to grant conditions), lack of sustainability for City and reputational risk

11 Problem statement Accessibility: For regular commuters ( feeder to feeder and feeder to trunk) Solutions 1. AVMs to be deployed in secure places along feeder routes especially where is potential high demand; will have cost implications, esp. cash collection (BH) 2. Increase vendor footprint: Work with ABSA 3. New model for customer care agents and distribution of cards and single tickets: Increase customer care agents /roving to AVMs at regional offices 4. Card distribution: First, damaged due to no fault of passenger and expired cards to be free. BUT recording and tracking of cards to prevent people getting more than one card. People to pay only if want a second card. 5. Reduced minimum amount on card (see later re affordability) Accessible: for new users 1. Communication and communication - where are the customer care centres; 2. Register on inter net for card and collect at certain designated points (to investigate increase customer care agents)

12 WHAT WE HAVE DONE 1. Reduced fares for longer distance routes by approx 12% middle of year (highest fare is R12.50) 2. Absorbed loading fee until July Absorbed cost of cards until we can find a cheaper card 4. Proposing introduction of simple products which will not attract a loading fee Off peak: 10% reduction Multiple journey trips: 10 5%, 40 10% Pensioners: Off peak only 50%, personalised, normal hours they pay 5. WHERE WE WANT TO GO 1. Data driven interventions going forward 2. Consider flat fare (see next slide) but with due regard to overall policy considerations 3. Source cheaper cards which meet revised requirements (smaller, thinner, less security etc.)

13 PROS Will address apartheid legacy that people living further have to pay more Will increase patronage Will reduce fare evasion and people will be more determined to get a card without increased accessibility measures Will eliminate the need to tap out will simplify system, reduce need for number of inspectors, less abuse Can use cheaper cards (and Mifare going forward if decide to drop banking partner after three years) CONS Long term sustainability especially when routes get longer Not a targeted poverty intervention Resistance and opposition from taxi industry Buses overcrowded and service goes down less incentive for operational excellence and keep BRT brand Will get less information from system

14 We are going to do an extensive review of implementation of AFC and APTMS (hopefully by new /independent service provider) before drafting 1C specifications Some of questions we will be addressing will include: Costs of fare collection New areas of fare evasion and can these be mitigated Ways of integration with other modes and areas (especially Ekurhuleni) Whether the promises made by NDOT and banking system that integrated ticketing will be universal within years will materialise and thus what future relationship with banking partner should be Possibility of reverting to Mifare or have dual system (Mifare and banking partners) and need to engage NDOT and legislature on regulatory review.

15

16 What seems certain is that a commuter-side subsidy can only be implemented if all forms of public transport adopt a common ticketing system. There is a national standard for such systems (it has been adopted in both Rea Vaya and MyCiTi, and will be used in other IRPTNs as they are introduced); the challenge in the case of existing services and operators is (a) to persuade those who now have a ticketing system to convert to a standard one, and (b) to get the minibus-taxi industry to implement a ticketing system to replace their current cash payment. The system would almost certainly use what we can call generically a smartcard.., it is strongly recommended that cities try to get as many operators as possible to adopt a common ticketing system. It would very probably prove to be one of the most effective actions in an incremental approach to improvements in existing services.

17 A common ticketing system would offer a number of opportunities to promote public transport among those who are currently non-users. Without any change at all to the type or level of service being offered by any individual operator, being able to use a pre-paid ticket on any service would remove one of the uncertainties that inhibit a non-user from trying out a public transport service. If a resident possesses the relevant smartcard and has loaded even a quite modest amount on to it, he or she can feel that they might try out public transport without the threat of being embarrassed.

18 Our comment is that: Smart cards are INACCESSIBLE Modest amounts are UNAFFORDABLE Smart cards have sent people back to POORER QUALITY public transport However we can t go backward - we need to go forward with enhanced realism and maximise the opportunities of smart cards and minimise the disadvantages. Tools to do this are: Affordable fares Improved accessibility Use smart cards to reduce transfer fees Ongoing developmental opportunities: More memory in LPV cards, lease arrangements vs purchase