Transit
WMATA presents options for SmarTrip negative balances
WMATA raised the hackles of many riders when it announced SmarTrips would no longer go negative. Responding to the outcry, CFO Carol Kissal and her team developed six alternatives for handing the issue, which they presented to the Riders' Advisory Council last night.
Photo by MattHurst on Flickr.
RAC members complimented Kissal and her team on presenting a number of options and seeking rider feedback. While it would have been better to get more feedback before the initial announcement, the followup garnered more praise. The WMATA Board will discuss the issue on September 16th.
To recap, right now SmarTrip cards cost $5. In most places you can buy them, including vending machines at stations with parking and most CVS, Giant and other stores, they cost $10 and come with $5 of stored value. At commuter stores and Metro sales offices as well as some private stores, they go for $5 and a zero balance.
A rider who buys a zero balance card can immediately get on rail or bus and take a trip, going negative. They just have to fill the card up to or above zero before they can get onto transit again using the card. The SmarTrip negative balance option doesn't apply to parking garages; people have to have the parking charge on the card.
Compare this to the paper farecards, which you can't use to get on a bus or train unless it has the minimum fare, and can't exit without adequate fare. If you don't have enough, you have to go to the Exitfare machine, which only take cash and are limited in number.
The WMATA Board asked for the SmarTrip price to go down to $2.50 to make them more affordable for poorer riders. However, officials started to worry. Someone could buy a SmarTrip for $2.50 (at a commuter store or sales office) with $0 value, immediately take a $4.95 long-distance ride or $6 airport bus trip, and throw away the card, basically cheating Metro out of up to $3.50.
Their best guess was that this could cost $1 million a month in lost fare revenue, plus quickly deplete the existing stock of SmarTrips. In my earlier post, I expressed skepticism that there would really be so much cheating, and they wait and see whether there is indeed abuse. They told the RAC last night that this would be an option, and they do have the ability to track how many SmarTrips go negative and then don't get used any more.
Or, they could modify the plan. They devised six options:
A: Wait and see. Drop SmarTrips to $2.50 but don't change the way any systems work. Track whether there is widespread abuse.
B: Rebate. Charge $5 for the card, but automatically give a $2.50 fare credit to the rider after they complete 2 trips. Basically, it's like paying $5 and getting $2.50 of fare on the card, but you have to ride a couple of times first.. This would require some small programming changes which they are researching.
C: No negative. This is the plan they suggested last week. It will require delaying until October so the Exitfare machines can be modified. They actually already have the SmarTrip technology installed, and won't cost WMATA much to reconfigure, but it will take a little time.
D: Don't reduce the price. Keep everything the way it is today, with $5 SmarTrips.
E: Require a minimum fare to enter. Instead of letting a rider enter with $0 on their SmarTrip, require $1.10 or more. That way, it's much harder to cheat. Since $1.10 plus $2.50 card cost is $3.60, only trips over $3.60 could result in a negative balance that costs WMATA if the rider throws away the card. Plus, someone who buys a card would have to put $1.10 on it to maximize cheating, which takes time and effort for little reward.
They estimate that lost revenue would be only $75,000 per month. This option would require some programming change and mean a small delay, probably until December.
F: Cap the negative balance at $2.50. The system could still let people go negative, but only to $2.50 in the hole. More than that and they'd need to use Exitfare. This means nobody can cheat, and most riders won't get stuck because many trips are less than $2.50 and most people who go negative start with some balance on their cards already. However, some people would need to use Exitfare. This would also require a delay until about December.
While I'm not sure I would pick this one, I suggested an option G: Sell all cards with minimum value. As it is, many cards at stores cost $10 for $5 of value, and many stores will simply start selling $7.50 cards for $10 instead. WMATA's old vending machines at stations with parking also can't handle different prices, so they plan to simply load them up with $7.50 cards and keep charging $10.
If all cards cost $5 and came with $2.50 of value, it would be difficult to cheat. If you purchased a card and then took a long trip, the most you could cheat is $1 on an airport bus, which is also possible under today's system. To cheat more, you would need to take more than one trip. This is very similar to option B, except you don't have to wait or take two trips first.
However, the primary purpose of the change was to reduce the barriers for riders with low incomes to get SmarTrips, since some apparently find the initial outlay of $5 to be an obstacle. Paying $5 but getting $2.50 in value could be better, since even if they got a $2.50 card with no value those riders would still have to load some money on at least before the second trip. But it still means that you need $5 right then and there to get a card.
I therefore lean toward options A (just drop the price), E (require some fare to enter), or F (only allow negative up to $2.50). If A, WMATA should pick a backup plan and know how quickly they can implement it. That way, if A does create excessive cheating, they could go right to the backup.
If I had to pick one, I'd say F. It's strictly better than C (no negative), except for the extra two-month delay and unless there's a substantially larger cost to modify the software to disallow negatives over $2.50 versus modifying it to disallow all negatives. But it eliminates the cheating opportunity while still allowing most riders to go negative in most circumstances.
What do you think? I'll compile your suggestions and send them to Ms. Kissal.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
by Jenny on Sep 2, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report
Can you even go negative on an airport bus? I though bus fares didn't go negative.
Tracking it, and if it a problem, your option G is better. Requiring a minimum balance to enter sounds good, but the reason you don't want that it reduces lines at SmartTrip machines.
ANd it clear from reading between the lines they don't have a line of the number of cards that went negative and then disappeared. far far less than the thousands of paper cards with .15 cents sitting around of them caught in laundry machines.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 1:12 pm • link • report
I think the lengths to which people will go to save money is being underestimated here. If my commute cost me $5.00 and I could reduce the price by a little less than half, I'd definitely go for it even if it meant hoarding a few smart trips.
by Max D. on Sep 2, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
I think the biggest barrier to card use is trying to find a vending machine, or thinking of buying one when you're in a select retail store. The biggest problem for myself is putting money on my card because I rarely use the Metrorail system. I'm sure there are better uses of SmarTrip programmers than this non-issue.
If $5 is a material barrier to entry, $2.50 will be as well to some people. We could give away free cards to select groups (seniors, teens) and then they would gain more popularity with the overall market.
Letting the cards go negative, in my opinion, is a nice, safety-net benefit of using the card, I like to think I paid $5 for that privilege, and peace of mind...
by S.A.M. on Sep 2, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
by Edward on Sep 2, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
by George on Sep 2, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report
I do love Jenny's comment about the faregate somehow letting you know you have a low balance, the way EZPass flashes yellow when you're low. That wouldn't happen any time soon though.
by Christine on Sep 2, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
Every plan other than D, do nothing, has an associated cost.
While "wait and see" is a marginal improvement it still moves forward with the 2M/yr loss on selling $3.40 SmarTrips for $2.50.
Rebates keep the 2M/yr loss and adds some programming cost.
No negative, the current plan, has the 2M loss and adds the undisclosed charge necessary to retrofit ExitFare machines and reprogram turnstiles... then potentially costs more to make changes again later.
Minimum fare to enter is certainly a sensible standard (and it's somewhat amazing that at least $0.01 wasn't already required) but it also demands turnstile reprogramming.
Attached to that is this $75,000 estimate of losses which seems to have been made up. We've been told before there's no statistics on how many people go negative. Absent that how can they have anything resembling a number? This smells of fiction.
The $2.50 minimum negative still has turnstile reprogramming and ExitFare modifications necessary, again making it a bad monetary plan. It marginally reduces the number of people who will need to turn around and clog up the system while adding a fare but why spend that much money for a half-assed solution?
The only sensible solution for a system that had to add "peak of the peak" fares in order to close a budget gap is to not implement a plan that will cost millions.
I'd be hard pressed to support the plan if it cost only $1 considering this is to "increase adoption" of a platform that already has 85% acceptance on rail and 69% on the bus. Where's the evidence that it's this $2.50 difference that is keeping people from adopting the system?
by Don on Sep 2, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
by Amanda Michelle Jones on Sep 2, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report
I am all for option E. It is a single, ubiquitous rule, equally applied to every user of the system at all times (avoiding seemingly arbitrary rebates or negative balance limits). And, it allows for correction at the proper time - when people are trickling into the station, instead of at the exit rush.
by Ben on Sep 2, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report
@Don; I tend to agree that option D is the best, but the decision to reprice SmartTrips is already done.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report
1) Don't allow entrance without minimum fare. This is a shocking no-brainer and would not impact customer experience at all. You already can't enter if you are negative, what's the difference? You have to fill up just as often.
2) Leave the price at $5 if you really think this is going to cause widespread fraud. Who cares? 75% of metro users already use SmartTrip. The ones that don't are almost certainly infrequent users. I seriously doubt changing the price will have any real effect on adoption.
Now, you don't need to cap the negative balance at antyhing in particular, it will be capped at the maximum fare minus the minimum fare by defintion. Easy.
I am astounded that we are trying so hard to solve a problem that really did not exist in the first place.
I didn't even realize you COULD enter now without the minimum fare, that seems silly too, and I doubt anyone would notice if you changed that.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
by Pachacutec on Sep 2, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
B - I'm not against it, but the costs of implementation might be excessive compared to other options.
C - My third choice. I'd prefer to be held up adding fare at the *end* of my trip rather than the beginning (as E would require) -- particularly if I'm running for the train. However, I'm concerned that the cost of updating exit fare machines (and possibly providing more) may not justify it
D - My preference. It may sound harsh & its rare that I find myself on the side of the status quo, but I maintain that one-time $5 is not a hardship, especially in light of the increased fares -- are we to assume that higher fares, paid daily, *aren't* a hardship? Or if it is a hardship to afford a sunk cost of $5 (and I'm willing to concede it may be; in addition to fares), then there are a number of options to provide low-income users with free or discounted cards which I'd previously raised back when the $2.50 cost was first announced.
E - This *was* my preference until I wrote my thoughts on C... when it occurred to me I'd rather be able to run & catch my train whilst low on fare, filling up at the end of my trip rather than the beginning. In light of that, I'm not sure I like this option anymore.
F - Apart from D, this might be my 2nd choice. A bit more leniency if I'm in a rush to catch a train. But just like C: exitfare machine costs could be hefty.
G - For the longest time I actually thought this was how they all were. I'm not against this, but agree with your comments in that if $5 is really a hardship, then more $$$ will be moreso (though as per my D comments, I'm still rather skeptical of the hardship concern).
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report
by Lisa on Sep 2, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report
Nobody is seriously going to check their balance using a machine or going online before taking a metro trip. That would make it less convenient and more time consuming than using paper. This is supposed to be easier, not harder.
You don't add a step to a process that a million people use every day unless there is a damn good reason to do it- and there just isn't one here.
Furthermore, metro is not "footing the bill" for anyone. Quite the opposite, Metro is floating millions and millions of dollars in prepaid trips, for which they earn real money - whenever anyone has a positive smart trip balance or an unused fare card.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report
by Tim on Sep 2, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
Now, under the new plan whereby smart trips cost $2.50, that person could save $2.70 each trip if they never put money onto their smart trip! Doing that every day would cost WMATA $27 per week. Personally, I would love to use that $27 on something else. Afterall, that comes out to $1404 per year. And even if WMATA put some sort of restrictions on how many fareless smart trip cards you could buy at one time, you would still save something between $0-$27.
If you cap the negative balance at $2.50, that person could simply at $0.20 to their fare and save $2.50 per trip, or $25 per week.
Now, if you adjust the gates to require $1.60 before you can enter, you're still saving money - $1.10 per trip, or $11 per week. While this isn't as much as some of the other options, it's still not a decent amount of money to save if you're working at an entry level job.
Again, people will devise ways to save money if you do nothing about it. Yeah, maybe they'll get tired of stopping at metro center on there way home to get a new card, but even if they do it for a few weeks, it burns a hole in WMATA's pocket.
by Max D. on Sep 2, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report
Hell, even I would probably go to CVS and buy 20 of them at a time if I had a $5 daily metro trip that I could make for $2.50 just like that! That's just idiotic and asking for trouble.
So my mistake for being so naive as to assume that metro were not complete idiots - I had assumed that every SmartTrip card purchase came with some prepaid amount, and that you could not board with less than the minimum possible fare.
So I'll reiterate what I am still astounded seems so obvious.
1) Don't let people board with less than the minimum fare.
2) Don't sell zero-balance cards in the first place (though this doesn't matter so much if you have done #1)
3) Don't drop the price if you are still paranoid, or alternatively just monitor the usage for a couple months and change it back if there is actually any fraud.
The best part of all this is you save the millions of dollars needed to upgrade those exitfare machines you didn't really need.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report
by Dan Miller on Sep 2, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 2:02 pm • link • report
I'd also love to see an EZ-Pass type of system that automatically grabs $20 from my credit card whenever my balance approaches the minimum fare (possibly set up with a corresponding email-alert).
NYCT had a pilot program up a few years ago that did something like this, although they have yet to implement it (or SmartTrip-style proximity cards) throughout their system. Interestingly, NYC's system allowed you to use an RFID-enabled credit card in lieu of a proprietary card.
by andrew on Sep 2, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report
Also, I believe the $5 cards with no stored value are only available at Metrorail stations in vending machines, all others are $10 with 5 stored value, you wouldn't use these for the hypothetical $5.20 ride from Vienna to Union Station)
I seriously doubt the previous comment that 75% of Metro system users use the SmarTrip card option, not from what I've seen in the system.
The best reason to let me continue going negative occasionally is because I use the bus, can't whip out my FSA or SmartBenefits debit card and put more money on it when it's closing time at my local watering hole and I'm trying to get home...
Any clue on the % of riders who are shunning SmarTrip because they don't want to be "tracked" in the system?
On that note, I was just registering my card online, and I was really surprised, put off by the amount of information they wanted...
by S.A.M. on Sep 2, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report
First, adding peak-of-the-peak fares somehow required adding a two-second delay to the check-in process, which used to be instantaneous. Despite the system not having any idea what your fare will be until you check out before or after the change.
Now, preventing boarding when you're below some fixed number other than zero (as it is now) seems to require a major software change, too. Probably will also add another second.
What is the deal here? Are there gnomes inside each faregate that must attend an expensive training seminar every time we need to change something that ought to be very simple?
Americans have managed to get the Mars rovers to do unbelievable things it was never intended to do from millions of miles away with barely functioning transceivers, and yet changing the minimum fare required to enter with a smartrip card, using a system that was actually developed more recently than the Mars landers, is a bafflingly impossible task?
Something is seriously wrong here.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 2:17 pm • link • report
Actually Mars Rovers have a 10-20 minute lag... but apart from that, I actually kind of agree with your mini-rant :)
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report
I'm not going to lie, I have three different SmarTrip cards, two of which are sitting negative right now. but one is way in the positive (net benefit?) Might sound dumb, but I have one for me, one for my business, and one for friends when they come in town, (I bought it while a previous one was lost...)
by S.A.M. on Sep 2, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report
This is a a non-issue. Why are we debating this? Another example of WMATA's incompetence. If they can't figure out this, what else can't they figure out?
Finally, what is that k$75 based on?
by Jasper on Sep 2, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report
As others have pointed out, how are you going to buy that many SmartTrip cards-- without having to take a trip? You stop at MetroCenter during rush hour commutes to get off your train, buy you cards, and then get back on. The low cost answer isn't don't sell more than 1 card at a time per person.
I don't doubt people will take a lot of shortcuts, but compare these losses to:
1) the cutting up paper cards and trading them in losses
2) people sneaking on to buses
3) the number of times faremachines just don't work
4) people standing just outside the station until 1 minute past peak of peak
5) using fake coins/dollar bills in the fare machines
I'm sure the number of smarttrips abuses is far far lower than any of the above 5.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report
I really don't buy this "additional information must be transferred" load of garbage we are being fed. My SmartTrip card wasn't upgraded when the faregates were, so I am pretty sure it has exactly the same information that it used to: a single ID number that used to be read instantly and now takes two seconds.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
I'd really like to see some actual data on people not being able to afford SmarTrip cards, necessitating the need to drop the price in half. The cards have been around for so long that if people aren't buying the cards, it's probably due more to preference than affordability.
There are rail discounts, bus transfer discounts, and bus fare discounts that would essentially cover the cost of the card for any regular bus riders or bus-metro riders by moving from paper to SmarTrip.
There's no real justification for lowering the price of SmarTrips other than speculation.
by Janel on Sep 2, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report
That being said, you basic point is $5 is not a lot and given the benefits a regular rider should get one. That is doubly true after buses starting using them.
But the reason the price was lowered was the fiction that it would make a difference when fares were raised, and paper fares, which primarily hit tourists rather than residents, went up far more. So they threw in lowered smarttrip card prices w/o looking at their production costs.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 3:05 pm • link • report
So I vote to keep it the way it is, $5 to buy the card and let it go negative. To help out people who can't afford a card, the WMTA can give away cards at its office to anyone who says they can't afford one, but that would be limited to one card per person, and they have to present an ID.
by Alan on Sep 2, 2010 3:13 pm • link • report
But again, I really don't think this is a big problem for WMATA.
Under's Max D's example, you would have be taking the airport bus or commuting daily from Vienna. If you are commuting daily, you are probably earning some cash, and the two cheeseburgers (and pie!) example isn't so valid.
You idea of getting a free card once a year (with id) is also fine, although the record-keeping might be a pain.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 3:20 pm • link • report
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report
It's one (double) burger and two pies. Clearly you're not living on the McDonald's Dollar Menu.
The idea that people who have some income don't care about $2 per day is really strange.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report
I could go to CVS and buy a $10 one -- with $5 of value -- but I really don't see how that is going to help me.
Yeah, I am more of a Wendy's guy myself.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 3:34 pm • link • report
This whole process seems to have been a solution looking for a problem. First trying to accommodate riders for whom $5 is a burden, then taking away negative fares which inconveniences riders and requires some work on WMATA's part, to prevent rather specific and esoteric fraud.
by Steven Yates on Sep 2, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
Didn't Alpert already ask you to refrain from personal attacks?
I don't see what the perceived difficulty of buying cards has to do with anything. If anything, that encourages fraud, since if someone's going to have to go out of their way and stand in line, they might as well buy 10 or 20 cards at a time, instead of one. Conversely, if people are going far out of their way to buy their one single SmarTrip card, then the difference between $2.50 or $5.00 for that one-time purchase seems far less significant than the $2/day that you dismiss as irrelevant.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report
However, assuming that they didn't actually go out of their way to make it so astoundingly easy to perpetrate this fraud, there's a fundamental problem with the notion that people will go an buy lots of cards at a time.
People who are willing to go to extreme measures to squeeze a buck from the system are probably not likely the same people who are willing to front $100 or $200 to save about 10 or 20 bucks over a few weeks. It just doesn't make sense.
I think you'd eliminate 99% of potential fraud just by preventing people from boarding with a balance below the minimum fare. I can't think of any reason why the system ever allowed this in the first place!
Nor can I think of a reason to sell a zero balance card, either. Unless you actually WANT people to defraud you, they will have to go and pay something to charge it the first time they use it, so what's the benefit to the consumer?
Metro is so stupid sometimes.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report
You point that transaction costs might encourage buying more at one time are valid, although if you are cash-strapped I don't see you dropping $40 at once for cards. However, the answer to that is only sell a few cards at a time.
Also, if you lived here, you'd realize:
1. ALmost nobody who rides in from the more distant part of the metrorail system pays for their own fare -- the feds cover it for them.
2. Likewise, if you work at Dulles (as opposed to taking a flight), the 5A (with a $6 fare) has long since ceased to be a workable option, and you are more likely to take the employee discounted Washington Flyer.
3. You'd know the better scam is to get on a bus, scan you card, and when it shows negative balance pretend to have to money, and the driver will probably wave you on.
My point about $2 a day, is that while it is a significant saving, for anyone employed the transaction costs of acquiring Metro cards isn't likely to be worth it. But that would require facts, and I keep on forgetting what to call people who argue without knowing, or caring, about facts.
Now that would be a personal attack.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report
by Max D. on Sep 2, 2010 4:05 pm • link • report
Because it's not true. You say that I would agree with your opinions if I lived elsewhere, but you're wrong. Rather than saying what you think I would believe if I lived somewhere else, you should just state your own opinions, I can state my opinions, and then everyone else can form their own conclusions.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 4:08 pm • link • report
by JAC on Sep 2, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report
@MaxD; again, facts. Average household income of metro rail rider: over $100K a year. If you're coming in from Vienna or further out on peak of peak fares you are likely a fed. Your savings, while impressive on paper, don't work when you deal with the hassle of getting the cards, and you're dealing with commuters from that far out.
As I said to David, the real case for getting a good deal is on the bus system when you just board, swipe your (dead) card, and shrug when the drivers asks money. I see that about 5x a week.
SO for rail riders, I think this problem is overblown, and the answer is 1) limit sales at Commuter Store/MetroSales office to x amount and 2) as DDJ suggested give them away to poor people (with some sort of ID check)
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 4:18 pm • link • report
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with almost every business that sells services which have a cost that is not fixed at the time of purchase, or that sells services using a subscription-type arrangement.
You go "negative" on your electric bill, your phone bill, you cable bill, your credit card bill, indeed, a great many things, every single day.
Metro, actually, operates quite unlike most such business models: they force you to pay in advance for services with an unknown cost, almost guaranteeing you will overpay and end up with a credit that they will float for some time, earning interest.
Do you send Pepco a check for $100 at the beginning of the month in anticipation of your electric bill? Would you want to? How come you think that's just fine for Metro, then, but it's not OK to go below zero every now and then?
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 4:25 pm • link • report
I'm not going to debate the details, especially with you, but your opinion would be stronger if you would just say, "I think X because of A, B, and C," rather than try to create some argument over how uninformed I am. If my opinions are really so obviously uninformed to everyone who lives in the DC area, then they will all just dismiss them on their own, and there's no need for you to make it personal.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 4:27 pm • link • report
Because Pepco knows who you are and can collect the balance due. Metro has no way to track who you are (and as a matter of public policy we don't want to create one, even if it were economically feasible), so it has to used stored-value systems.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 4:28 pm • link • report
I guess I need to change my name to "almost nobody". Perhaps, I should also stick a sucker stamp on my forehead. Any other almost nobodies around?
by Jasper on Sep 2, 2010 4:32 pm • link • report
I hope Carol Kissal is reading these comments :)
by wr on Sep 2, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report
I agree. I was simply pointing out that the argument that other businesses do not let you go negative is not a good one, because many do, and in fact (like with Metro) it's an important aspect of how we expect pay for a service with an unknown cost.
However, the way to ensure that Metro does not set itself up for widespread abuse is not to eliminate the negative balance on SmartTrip, since that is actually one of the primary benefits to its users. The solution is to make it impractical or not cost effective, and there are several reasonable ways that have been discussed to do this without eliminating the negative balance.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report
Allow a negative balance if you register your card online!
I'm sure that would take nineteen months plus forty thousand pounds of gnome rations to implement, though. And a "conditional" thing like that is probably outside the capability of the UNIVAC based system anyway.
Given that this entire discussion would be effectively moot if you could just link your SmartTrip to a credit card (as 90% of users surely would), and that seems to be stunningly difficult for Metro to manage, this is really just a pie-in-the-sky idea.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report
by Max D. on Sep 2, 2010 4:46 pm • link • report
It works great. Let it be.
by JJJJJ on Sep 2, 2010 5:13 pm • link • report
I APPROVE:
1) D
I APPROVE, BUT FIND SLIGHTLY SILLY:
2) E
I AM APPREHENSIVE ABOUT:
3) F
I FIND UNACCEPTABLE:
4) C
I FIND UNWORKABLE:
5) G
6) B
7) A
The long version:
D is clearly best. In fact, if there are journeys that cost $6, the price should probably head up from $5 to at least $6 plus the actual unit cost to WMATA of the farecard (probably in the region of $8 total).
E is next best. It's essentially the same thing, but it shifts the $0.00 point and calls it $1.10 (with farecards costing $3.90) or $2.50 (with farecards costing $2.50). It's less conceptually simple, but it is still fair.
G is superficially attractive, but open to abuse. One could buy $5 cards in bulk and run them negative in turn, costing WMATA money. The only way to avoid this problem is by combining this idea with D. Otherwise it becomes equivalent to A.
B sounds worse than A: it involves a complex reprogramming job to delay the point at which the obvious scam under A works. There would still be ways of scamming the system.
C is just gratuitously seeking unpopularity. It's a way of annoying core repeat customers. It is just dumb. The notion that $2.50 is meaningfully more socially equitable than $5 seems only to benefit a very small constituency, and this is more than offset by it not fitting with the fare structure.
F is just a way of achieving C by salami tactics. Yes, it would irritate people at a slower rate, but if anything that would just make the individual occasions when someone ended up $2.55 down worse. It wouldn't be a particularly bad option in general, but it would make things more complex, both to understand and to implement (and the implementation issues would be ongoing, as it would have to be adjusted every time the other fares were to maintain a similar level of fairness), and I do not think that this would represent an overall increase in fairness over the status quo.
by James D on Sep 2, 2010 5:21 pm • link • report
Your ideas are great
The smartrip already seems like it is losing the benefits described in the begining and your just giving WMATA a free loan as you do in a bank when you deposit money but no benefits. The time could be days, months or years from when you add money to the smartrip card to when you use it and during that time wmata is holding your money which you can get back.
Refund program it is done with other services/programs. You buy the smartrip/something for $5, $10 etc when you are in no need of it you can return it for the cash value providing you can prove it is yours easy, so why not here.
How about just adding a screen to the smartrip cards so you can see the balance all the time like with a farecard.
This can be done I saw a prototype of something like this about 4-5 years ago. It can be done with E-Ink just like the rfid when it touches the circle it gets charged and could display the value left for the next 10 or 20 days before running out of juice or touching another target.
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 5:47 pm • link • report
Stored-value cards are subject to tampering. It's dangerous to create cash refunds for balances as this can create a new kind of fraud by raising the stakes for criminals. I think an organized fraud program is unlikely to arise, but it's a risk that providers don't like to take. And it's sort of unnecessary---if you really don't want your SmarTrip card with a $10 balance, you could just sell it to someone else for ~$10.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 5:52 pm • link • report
Making the cards more complicated by adding display functionality seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction, of driving down the cost as much as possible to accommodate low-income users.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 5:55 pm • link • report
You mean $15 or 12.50 provided someone will buy it.
What if the card is registered to you can you transfer registration ?
Other transit systems around the world already do this and they haven't had wide spread tampering.
With WMATA I add XX amount to a smartip card I dont use the amount.
1 I have to find someone to sell it to while could be hard depending on if everyone you know has a card already or if the card is registered.
2 Trash it/give it away/drop it somewhere for someone to find.
With a bank I'am giving you a loan but I can get my money back at any time (provided its not some small bank or in the middle of nowhere)
The point im trying to make is that WMATA should not get a free loan. You are also giving them money when there stuff breaks due to them.
Take a non working smartrip card you are paying for something that is not your fault.
1 you cant take it to the sales office, station manager or HQ and have it fixed/replace that instant.
2 it stops working but I need to go somewhere I have to pay a higher non smartrip fare price or buy a new one which will cost me but its their fault the card does not work.
3 They only give you the resulting balance of the card back not other charges like having to pay 20 cents more for the paper farecard trip or 20 cents more for the cash bus trip cause the card is broken due to their part or the $5 for a replacement card if you need one now.
They nickel and dime people in ways that people dont think of.
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 6:11 pm • link • report
by varun on Sep 2, 2010 6:21 pm • link • report
And the discrimination claim or lawsuit starts in 3 2 1
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 6:28 pm • link • report
The whole point of the Smartrip is to let you board quickly and easily and not worry about cash. If they'd just implement auto-reloading (how long have they been putting that off?) tied to a debit or credit I wouldn't really care what they do for exit fare.
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of WMATA to come up with insanely expensive and complicated solutions to simple problems. It makes me miss the CTA more and more; one fare, auto-reloading cards, monthly passes.
by aaron on Sep 2, 2010 6:53 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 7:01 pm • link • report
Based on that methodology, I think that option E makes the most sense. It's not unreasonable to say that you need to have the money for your Metro trips already paid before you start using the system, and identifying the minimum possible fare for a particular station makes sense as a requirement to enter the system.
by Douglas Bell on Sep 2, 2010 7:12 pm • link • report
TransLink/Clipper is almost identical to SmarTrip. That's not a difference in the systems. It's just that the Bay Area has focused on autoloading (which isn't yet available in DC, but will be), while DC has focused on machines in stations (BART hasn't bothered to put the machines in most of their stations, although the BART/Muni stations in SF do have Clipper devices to add value, and they could easily be in other stations too).
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 7:24 pm • link • report
Can you give me some examples? I haven't heard of stored-value systems that offer on-the-spot refunds, but I'm always willing to learn.
The point im trying to make is that WMATA should not get a free loan.
Well, bear in mind that WMATA is owned by the same people who ride it, any money that it "gets" from free loans directly reduces what you pay for fares. It's not like some private business profiting at your expense.
With interest rates way under 1%, the time value of money seems pretty negligible to me. Tiny compared to the $2 fare evasion opportunities some are calling insignificant. It's true that it's generally harder for low-income people to pay in advance. But there's no good solution to that---if you let people run up balances you'll never manage to collect them. It's not like a utility (someone's example above), where they know where you live and can cut off your service.
by David desJardins on Sep 2, 2010 7:29 pm • link • report
If this is such a major problem (does anyone have actual figures on the number of people affected?) it seems like it'd be better to simply have a low-income assistance program hand out SmarTrip cards so Metro's time & money could be spent on things like escalators & elevators - I bet there are more disabled users then people who can't afford a one-time $5 purchase.
by Chris Adams on Sep 2, 2010 8:04 pm • link • report
(Unlike many of you, I would not use a credit card to renew the card balance, if that option were available; cash only, and I'm not going to register the card with WMATA.)
I agree that the cards aren't easy to find; mine is old, and I rode out from the District to the Grosvenor station to buy it.
Out of curiosity, Charlie, what bus routes do you see people riding on without paying? (This hasn't happened to me, but a long-time friend, another District native, is often asked on the 30 buses to show the paper bus pass more than once.)
by District Native on Sep 2, 2010 8:45 pm • link • report
In Seoul you have to pay a deposit for tickets, when you are getting off you return the ticket and get your deposit back.
In Tokyo with the Pasmo card you pay a deposit of 500 yen and when you don't need it you go to a station office and they return the 500 yen deposit and all value on it except a 210 yen fee
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 9:06 pm • link • report
by anon on Sep 2, 2010 10:19 pm • link • report
It would be like buying one of those international calling cards with no value on it. Huh???
I always thought that one could not enter the system without the minimum fare, so I have learned something in the last few days. This also seems like a no-brainer.
I'm on Jamie's team re: the gnomes and other ridiculousnesses that WMATA continually subjects us to. To cite my favorite one, why can they not get the invisible tunnel done? It's like a few hours of programming, but somehow they'll figure out a way to make it take years (if ever) and cost gazillions.
Given the high usage rate now, I don't see a big advantage to lowering the cost of the card (we have 4 in our house--a couple just sitting around waiting for houseguests to visit). I agree with those who suggest subsidizing the economically disadvantaged in other ways rather than lowering the cost for all users, including "rich" ones like me.
by Steve O on Sep 3, 2010 12:44 am • link • report
First, the Metro Board made the decision to lower the cost of a SmarTrip card to $2.50 based on the idea that they cost less than $2.50 to manufacture. If I remember correctly, this turned out to have been a staff error -- in fact, they cost WMATA over $3 each, which means they'll now be taking a loss on each one. Considering that SmarTrip is supposed to SAVE WMATA money, this is pretty stupid. The Board made the decision based on bad information? Fine, mistakes happen, but revoke the decision.
Second, like some others, I really can't believe that $5.00 is a burdensome price, or that $2.50 is significantly less burdensome than $5.00. I could be wrong -- certainly, others know DC's poor better than I do -- but an additional $2.50 for something that lasts literally for years doesn't seem like much. Does anyone have any data or anecdotal evidence saying otherwise?
Third, the fare system is already FAR too complex without adding new rules to SmarTrip use. Right now, figuring out your fare requires you to consider how far you're going, whether you're using a SmarTrip, and which of THREE time-slots you're riding in. I honestly have no idea how much I'm paying, to be honest. Now I have to worry about exitfare or an entry minimum, too?!
Fourth, the added complexity of the SmarTrip system could hurt the poor just as much (or more) as paying the extra $2.50 for a SmarTrip card. Who do you think are going to be the most likely not to have the extra cash for the Exitfare machines when their balance runs low?
Finally, while affordability to the poor certainly needs to be part of the decisionmaking process, there has to be a limit. At some point it just doesn't make sense to provide a marginal benefit to the poor by removing functionality from everyone (including the poor, who ideally would be using SmarTrip).
Instead of jumping through all these hoops to lower the price of SmarTrip cards, here's a better idea: take the $1-2 profit that Metro makes on every SmarTrip card sold at the $5 price and put it in a fund to provide free or discounted SmarTrip cards to the poor through social service agencies. That would preserve an important function of SmarTrip (going negative) without adding any additional complexity, provide a dedicated funding stream to help get SmarTrip cards into the hands of low-income riders, and make every new SmarTrip sale a charitable transaction that makes riders feel like their money is being well-spent.
by JewdishoowarySquare on Sep 3, 2010 2:48 am • link • report
Is the SmartTrip card actually a "stored value" card? Are you sure? I thought these were a thing of the past. What possible reason is there to keep the amount of money you have in your card on the card itself, instead of just an account number?
I always assumed that all that was on a SmartTrip card was an ID, which linked it to your account data stored in a central system.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about getting a refund. My point is just that Metro keeps lots of our money for long periods of time, so arguments that "no other business lets you go negative" are hollow, not to mention just plain incorrect.
All I want is to be sure I will never find myself in a situation where I can get on the train, but not off. I don't think that's a lot to ask.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 7:39 am • link • report
Of course, they've now made the fare calculation so complicated that maybe the time isn't an issue any more, since the gates are clearly taking too long to calculate the fare. It's supposed to be under 300ms, and it feels closer to 1s now. Still, upgrading all the gates to talk with a DB, and building a high availability DB and communications system is expensive.
by jcm on Sep 3, 2010 9:31 am • link • report
Does history bear out that these devices are, actually, more reliable? Why would a centralized system mean a "single point of failure"? I mean, it seems to work pretty well for billions of credit cards every day. Not to mention such inventions as EZPass, the internet, telephones, and anything else that depends on an account number rather than a "purse."
It's not like we're in the dark ages where there's a single mainframe that has to do everything, and there's no possiblity of redundancy for such a system.
Anyway, it is what it is, I'm just flabbergasted.
It seems like we should be upgrading the system to work like an actual system, instead of like a dim sum menu. What a boneheaded decision that was.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 9:36 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Sep 3, 2010 9:56 am • link • report
Maybe at the corner store where they're on a dialup connection... I've never had a swipe transaction take more than a second or two at the supermarket. And, of course, credit card processing systems are not designed with transaction speed as a critical function.
EZPass is an RFID system that does not store value. Somehow that works fine, and at 50 MPH from 150 feet away!
I can think of any number of ways that you could implement a relatively failsafe system, which obviously has been done already in many other applications. But distributing the "logic" into every single faregate seems hopelessly backwards - and obviously we are starting to see the problems with this system.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 10:06 am • link • report
Even if you could find a way to replace the "stored value" approach with an account number-based system on the rail faregates, it would never work on the bus. You'd need to use a wireless connection to check every account. Can you imagine if the farebox stopped working because of lousy reception?
by JewdishoowarySquare on Sep 3, 2010 10:37 am • link • report
by Gavin on Sep 3, 2010 10:47 am • link • report
That's a good point, but I still don't think it's undoable. Wireless data coverage is pretty damn good in DC and the amount of data that would need to be transmitted is very small.
Beyond that, it would take very little effort to make the system process transactions locally and update the central system not in real time.
I don't know what a typical SmartTrip terminal costs, but I seriously doubt it's much different (if not a lot more) than a basic PC with some flash memory as would be required to keep a local copy of the database at each terminal. A couple million account numbers with a balance is honestly just not that much data these days, this is not at all a complex system.
Seriously - you could do it with an out-of-the-box iPad with whatever hardware is needed to read an RFID plugged into it. Two million records at a hundred bytes each (which ought to be plenty to handle this) is only 200 megabytes, a mere nothing for today's technology. Updates can be sent to the central system whenever possible, but certainly the bus wouldn't be disconnected for any period of time long enough to make this a problem.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 10:51 am • link • report
If we ban negatives, whether option C or F, all exitfare machines should take credit/debit, and SmarTrip must be rechargeable.
by Gavin on Sep 3, 2010 10:52 am • link • report
Having said that, the Exit fare machine needs to accept other payment options than singles or five dollar bills, given that ATMs are replete with yuppie food stamps.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 12:29 pm • link • report
copperred, I think you are missing the fundamental point here. It's not possible for the system to know the "correct fare" until your trip is over, since it depends on where you go.
It makes no sense to me that you could board with less than the minimum fare, of course. I was very surprised to learn that is currently allowed. Though, frankly, I should not be surprised about things in the category of "metro boneheaded decisions" since that seems to be the rule. But I can think of no other system on earth that could potentially permit you to board, but not leave --- especially when your boarding pass was potentially paid for with a credit card to begin with, but that can't be used to pay the overage at the end.
The up-front cost of the card should simply be designed to ensure that there is no incentive to defraud the system, as it currently is.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report
I still can't figure out why smarttrip should be treated differently in this respect than paper. With paper, you need the minimum, and you can't leave with a negative balance. Smarttrip should be the same.
And WMATA should hurry up and get auto-recharging via credit card working so we can talk about something else.
by jcm on Sep 3, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report
How much does it cost to go from Columbia Heights to East Falls Church at 8:30 AM? You have five seconds, your train is coming.
"I still can't figure out why smarttrip should be treated differently in this respect than paper."
Because you can read your balance on a paper card anytime you want, not just at the faregate after you've already passed it over. And it does not have any up-front cost, meaning abuse would be far easier.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 1:16 pm • link • report
I was also wondering how other transit systems around the world with distance-based fares dealt with this issue. kk's notes on the Seoul and Tokyo systems were interesting. When I visited Taiwan, I was impressed with Taipei's (brand-new) MRT system. Some details relevant to this discussion:
-- subway fares paid with stored-value EasyCard vary from NT$16 to NT$52
-- EasyCards purchasable at various retailers for NT$500; NT$100 is a refundable card deposit, NT$400 is stored value
-- on May 1, they introduced cards sold at NT$200: NT$100 deposit, NT$100 vaiue: yes, all cards are sold with value
-- 100% of card value, plus the card deposit, can be redeemed at any time, and...
-- card value can be used for buses, parking, gov't fees, bike rentals *and* to pay at 7-Eleven, Starbucks, & other retailers; all this makes money on your card more useful and less "stuck on the card"
-- not sure about minimum value to enter the system or whether the system allows negative balances (EasyCard site says, "When making a transaction, check the balance of your EasyCard. If it is insufficient, add value to the EasyCard before making the transaction." But a blog seems to indicate you can "go negative.")
Anyone have more details about Taipei's MRT/EasyCard system, or how other transit systems deal with exit fares & smart cards?
by CM on Sep 3, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
A deposit, rather than a fee for the card. Refundable. Can go negative (but surely not beyond the value of the deposit). Interoperation with other commonly used systems.
Wow. A system designed to minimize inconvenience, and maximize utility! Who would have thought it possible?
Wikipedia also notes that EasyCard replaced an older stored-value system, because it was problematic. That changeover took place in a year, apparently.
Us: None of the above.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
There are a number of public and private organizations which include in their services subsidize the SmartTrip card, or provide them free, so I know the argument that somehow the change is a form of "transit disenfranchisement" to be misleading. Most of the comments I have seen seem to suggest that WMATA is supposed to provide a float for riders who are more than capable of paying the fare, and WMATA's failure to provide support on Exit Fare machines for their preferred method of resolving the deficit. It's an argument over preferences, nothing more.
Now this stuff about linking it to a credit card, that is actually somewhat interesting given both the tightening of credit in the last few years and the knowledge that those who have the least amount of income often don't have access to credit cards, or credit at non-usurious rates.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 1:32 pm • link • report
If I want to know how much is on my smarttrip i can look on the website. But really, it's not much a hardship to just notice it's below $10 on my way out and refill it.
Incidentally, I spent my lunch hour researching EZ Pass. As best as I can tell, it's far too slow to use for faregates. They use active transponders that can be read as you approach the toll booth, so they get a couple of seconds to do a round trip transaction. The fast ezpass lanes that work at highway speeds (actually up to 100 mph according to the manufacturer) don't finish posting the transaction before you've passed them.
A 300ms total budget doesn't really leave time for a db hit. Latency will chew up half or all of your budget, even if you can solve the bus problem, and I don't think your idea of syncing thousands of offline databases is at all feasible.
by jcm on Sep 3, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report
But, the entire rationale behind reducing the fee from $5 to $2.50 is... because it is supposedly a barrier to using SmartTrip!!
If $20 isn't a stretch, then why is $5? If we just left the price at $5, there would be no way to scam the system by going negative.
But beyond that basic math, this isn't about charity or what people can afford.
It's about not knowing what your balance is before you get on the train, and avoiding having to stand in line when you leave.
Why would you create a system that imposes an additional burden on people, when it's extremely easy to set it up so that it doesn't?
Why not just think of the $5 up front cost as a "deposit" that allows you to go negative so you can't ever get stuck?
Or, if it satisfies your sensibility better, we could have the cards be free, but you can't board with less than the maximum fare. I think that would rankle people a lot more, even though, in practice, it would be identical.
The entire point here is to prevent a situation where you cam enter but not leave. There is no good reason for creating an electronic passcard based system, that you have to pay up front to use, that would allow this.
If credit card linking existed, honestly, this would still be irritating, but I don't think anyone would really care. Since most users would probably just link their cards.
But... ummm... we can't. And we can't even pay overage with a credit card, despite being able to buy our fare with one in the first place.
There is no defense for this, it's stupid.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report
No, but you probably have a good guess. You can look at your farecard, and if it's below 4 bucks, you'll probably add value.
How do you look at your smartrip card? Oh yeah, go wait in line at a machine? Look it up online?
Really?
Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? It's supposed to make life easier.
"300ms total budget doesn't really leave time for a db hit. "
First, have you used EZPass lately? It takes two seconds.
But that notwithstanding, you should so some basic research on databases. The demands of a system to handle the volume that Metro has are, frankly, pretty minimal. A database system running on a PC a couple years old, with a couple gigs of RAM, can handle thousands of queries per second.
Metro deals with something on the order of a million trips per day. Even at peak time, during rush hour, it can't be more than a few hundred per second.
Finally, if it was distributed, such that each metro station/bus/turnstile had a local replica of the database and updated the central system in non-real-time (which is, actually, what already happens, it's why you can check your balance online), the specifications of each terminal would be absurdly minimal.
If it was distributed such as I suggested to each point, we're talking about
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report
I design HA OLTP systems for a living, so I'm actually pretty familiar with how they work. I was trying to be polite, but your idea of keeping thousands of copies of the database in order to avoid storing the value on the card is ludicrous. You would add orders of magnitude more complexity and expense to what advantage exactly?
by jcm on Sep 3, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report
by David desJardins on Sep 3, 2010 2:17 pm • link • report
Perhaps I am one of the few people who looks when I swipe my card. If that's what the difference amounts to, I don't really know that putting additional machines on buses where people could check their balance (say somewhere in the middle) would help those people, but I would like to see such a device introduced. You could put one outside the gates but the fare machines already do that, so I'm not sure that provides any additional benefit. Maybe you want them at large bus stop interchanges? Costs do need to align with benefits. That said, if you use the bus far more than Metrorail, the advantage of the card is far less clear than a pass.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 2:25 pm • link • report
Sure, you could add machines for checking balance, but again, why add complexity and a step to a system when it's simply not necessary? What's wrong with just having a deposit, essentially the way it is now?
What most people do, in practice, is notice when their value is low or below zero, upon exit, and refill when they leave the station. That is what I do.
But you don't always have time, sometimes you are in a hurry. Maybe you forget to do it next time. But next time you try to enter, it will force you to refill if you are negative. It's impossible to get stuck.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report
I do however disagree that you can't keep track of your balance and do what's necessary. That's a choice. I don't believe WMATA owes me the luxury of not paying for a service that I will be using. We pay for lots of things upfront and don't expect to get away with not paying the full fare, so why is Metro different?
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report
Having to use exitfare is an additional step.
You think of this as "not paying full fare." I think of it as "one of the benefits of SmartTrip, which I paid up front for, anyway." It benefits end users by reducing the number of times you must visit a machine. At the same time, SmartTrip benefits Metro because they took $5 upfront from you, they hold your cash in escrow every time you recharge your SmartTrip card, you don't cause wear and tear on farecard machines with many moving parts, and they have access to all kinds of usage data about you.
If you think that an aspect of the service which is designed to reduce the number of interactions that customers have with fare machines is a "luxury," then why have SmartTrip at all? Compared to farecards, it is certainly a luxury.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 3:20 pm • link • report
Well, only because of the defective machines. If Metro had machines inside the faregates that let you pay your balance to exit, plus add value for future trips, all with a single credit card transaction or $20 bill, then it wouldn't be an extra step, right?
by David desJardins on Sep 3, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report
It would be a step in the right direction, to be sure. But no, it's still not as good as the current system, because it forces you to do that transaction AT THAT TIME.
How many exit fare machines are there? Usually one or two. The "recharges" which used to be done only at the station entrance, where many more machines are available, is now split off to the exitfare machines, too. I can't possibly imagine there will ever be a line. So now, in order to provide the same level of service that they do now, Metro must not only retrofit all these machines, they would have to add new ones to accomodate the increased demand.
To what end? Why? Because we think that lowering the price of a card to $2.50 is the only way to increase adoption? Will it even do that? I can't imagine why a one-time outlay of the cost of a single cheap metro trip would matter to someone who, presumably, uses metro often enough, and will recoup that cost from the reduced fare SmartTrip gives you in a half-dozen or so trips.
None of it makes any sense. The arguments against negative balance all seem to hinge upon it being some kind of "free ride." Yet nobody seems to care that I have a savings account with Metro that has an average daily balance of around $15, for which I earn no interest. Multiply that by 700,000.
Just keep the stupid "deposit" at $5 and move on, all right?
We're sure looking at spending a lot of real money and messing up a perfectly functional system for a very questionable benefit.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 3:32 pm • link • report
I wouldn't do that, either. But it still sounds about a million times less expensive than your proposal to eliminate stored-value cards by replacing every faregate in the system with a replicated database. Were you serious about that? Is it the same person who was proposing to completely redesign everything who is now complaining about "messing up a perfectly functional system"??
Being able to exit even if you don't have $1 or $5 bills would be a significant benefit, aside from anything else we're talking about. I agree it isn't Metro's highest priority, though.
I can't imagine why a one-time outlay of the cost of a single cheap metro trip would matter to someone who, presumably, uses metro often enough, and will recoup that cost from the reduced fare SmartTrip gives you in a half-dozen or so trips.
Do you understand that low-income people use payday loans and other services that have very high costs for current liquidity? While I personally agree with you that I wouldn't make this a priority, I think it's a fact that expenditures that seem trivial to you (and are, in fact, trivial from a long-term point of view) can serve as functional barriers to low-income people living paycheck to paycheck, who aren't in a position to pay cash in advance even if it will save them money in the long run.
by David desJardins on Sep 3, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report
That money is long, long ago spent, there is no mythic escrow account, unless there's a Metro budget that shows it in bold. I'd be shocked if it didn't go straight into the general fund. If your average balance on your SmarTrip is $15 I can see why you might have problems. I'd be curious to know what the average is, but I doubt it's that low. I just can't see faulting WMATA for one's own poor planning.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report
This is also why it helps to live in DC, to see what studies have already found to be true. The system is rather different than your own options, and particularly with regard to which populations use which systems. The bus is still more heavily traveled by those of least means and the weekly bus pass is the mode which those travelers use to pay for their travel. I was not thrilled when they eliminated many of the bus/rail monthly passes, even if I didn't use them, because I could see the impact it could have on the lower income users. The advantages of those passes were then grafted onto the existing SmarTrip system, with I think a varying degree of success. The rail system skews up the income level and is thus not as affected by the cost of the card.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report
That was a totally unrelated, hypothetical comment, that got out of control. No, I don't really expect metro to do this.
"Do you understand that low-income people use payday loans and other services that have very high costs for current liquidity..."
David, show me some evidence that the cost of a SmartTrip card is a barrier to use for any substantial number of people. In the absence of that, this is, quite simply, conjecture. Remember, here, we're talking about changing the cost by the amount of of a single ride, and not even an average-costing ride. It is highly counter-intuitive that this is the barrier to entrance, as opposed to just people who resist change, generally.
But that's still just an opinion, I'm not the one suggesting a systemic, expensive change based only on an opinion. I'm suggesting we don't do it, unless there's any evidence that it will do any good.
Even if it were not conjecture, there are other ways to solve this problem than by crippling the service for everyone.
"who aren't in a position to pay cash in advance even if it will save them money in the long run."
This is really just hilarious. So, you think that someone who is so cash-strapped that they can't afford an extra $2.50 to get a Smart Trip card, is going to actually want one at all?
Do you expect them to charge it for $2.20 or whatever, every single time they used Metro? If so, why wouldn't they just buy a paper card instead? It would sure be a lot faster.
If not, where did they miraculously find that $10 or $20 that they didn't have to buy the card in the first place?
This is so silly... the idea that someone who's getting payday loans, paying 20% interest in a month, is going to buy a Smart Trip card if only it were cheaper. What amazing logic: they want the smart trip card, because it saves 20 cents on a trip, and are willing to "charge" it on every single trip. Yet they get payday loans and pay 5% fees to cash their checks. W
How astounding that someone who can't manage their finances enough to avoid paying 10 or 20% of their income in fees, will both be unable to afford a smartrip card, and therefore couldn't afford to charge it in any substantial amount, but would nonetheless use one by charging it for every single trip (a big hassle) to save 20 cents instead of just buying a farecard.
WHO IS THIS PERSON??
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 4:18 pm • link • report
I call it a "deposit" to simplify the analysis from a fraud point of view. If your investment is at least equal to the potential value you could get by going negative, then there is no incentive for end-users to not recharge that card. Any "losses" to metro would be entirely incidental, and since they would also be a loss to the card-purchaser, likely very small.
As far as the costs to Metro, you must realize that SmartTrip costs metro LESS per rider than a paper card. That's the whole point. No moving parts, less maintenance. And, they probably get to hold on to more money on average for SmartTrip users than for paper card users.
by Jamie on Sep 3, 2010 4:23 pm • link • report
WHO IS THIS PERSON??
@Jamie: Perhaps the person who can't pay for the SmarTrip card lives right next door to the person who can't plan ahead enough to load it so as not to go negative in the first place? Poor planning all around.
by copperred on Sep 3, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report
You should be arguing with someone else. I already said that I don't think it is. I don't think that the cost of SmarTrip cards is a significant barrier to adoption (and to the extent it is, it's purely a psychological barrier, not an economic one). However, I can and do still disagree with your argument that one-time outlays don't matter to people who will quickly recoup the cost of the payment with future savings. There's lots of data that shows this is not true in general.
by David desJardins on Sep 3, 2010 4:46 pm • link • report
Whatever happen to the paper smartrip cards ? That would have been real cheap just take the current farecard and put rfid powder into the paper somewhere.
I would like to know what makes the card so expensive; what type of rfid chips are they using they can not be using cheaper versions of them. There is no reason why that plastic cost 1, 2 or 3 dollars when the plastic that cd's are made of, electronics and food comes in is thicker and cost way less. They could be using rfid power or a small/newer chip which cost less instead of the cards.
Or are they locked into buying from one supplier at whatever prices.
If wmata really needs money and wants the cards cheap why not charge based on a design on the card like they did with the Barack card costing 10 instead of 5.
They could have the current card at $2.50 and for those who want another design card $5, 10 or 20 subsidizing the $2.50 card.
by kk on Sep 3, 2010 5:39 pm • link • report
I agree.
Therefore, it is irrational to assume that someone who could potentially find $2.50 a barrier to adoption for a smart trip card, would have any use for one at all. Since the entire function of said card is to prepay for your metro fares.
Anyone who believes that the cost of SmartTrip is a barrier to use, must also fully believe that there is a class of people who would be forced to charge their card for the exact cost of a trip (assuming they could figure it out) before every single use because they are too poor to carry a balance.
It should be pretty easy to determine whether or not such people exist by looking at usage data, but it seems extraordinarily counterintuitive that anyone would do this. It is far more time consuming than simply using a farecard, and the mentality of such use would be an oxymoron.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 7:56 am • link • report
You're wrong, that's not the entire function. It's certainly not the most important function, for low-income riders. SmarTrip gives a discount on fares, and it's the only way to get free Metro transfers. Those are the main reasons to use it, for people who aren't so wealthy as you.
I don't see why loading value onto your card every trip, or as necessary, is any more onerous than loading value onto a paper ticket every trip, or as necessary.
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report
Recharging your SmartTrip card is absolutely more onerous than buying a paper card.
To buy a paper card, you put a couple bills in a slot and press a large button. It is the same as using a soda machine.
Recharging a SmartTrip card involves a half-dozen button presses, and swiping your card against the machine twice.
It also usually requires waiting in line, since not every machine works for SmartTrip, whereas every machine dispenses paper cards.
Look. I believe that, theoretically, there are people who could be both so frugal as to go to the trouble of obtaining a SmartTrip card in order to save 20 cents a trip, and so poor that they had no choice but to recharge it for every single trip.
I just don't believe that, in reality, there are many people who fall in that specific existence being penny-wise to the point of wanting to wait in line every time they use Metro, and frequent enough metro users that they would bother with a SmartTrip card at all. Your argument is based on an extreme situation which is not especially likely.
You seem to be arguing that we should make the system less functional for the vast majority of users, in order to accommodate a special situation that nobody's even demonstrated actually exists.
Given the very small number of people that are likely affected, why not just create a separate process to get discounted/free SmartTrip cards in the hands of these people and let the system work better for everyone?
If it turns out this process is overwhelmed by demand, then you've learned something, and can react to that. That seems far more prudent than implementing expensive, sweeping changes that require equipment upgrades based on nothing but a theory.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 2:42 pm • link • report
Gee, isn't that exactly what I suggested in these comments?
I don't know what you think I am arguing for, or how you got that impression, but you seem to be way off.
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 3:03 pm • link • report
I admit I don't have a SmarTrip card. I have used many similar systems elsewhere. I am surprised that adding cash value to a SmarTrip card is any harder than adding value to a paper ticket. To add value to a paper ticket, you can just put the old paper ticket in the machine, insert cash, and press a button to get the new ticket with increased balance. I would have expected that you could add value to a SmarTrip card by swiping the card, inserting cash, and swiping again. Or maybe even just inserting the cash first, and then swiping once. If it is more complicated than that, I wonder why.
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report
Umm, it's called WMATA. We love making things more complex here.
by charlie on Sep 7, 2010 3:15 pm • link • report
by copperred on Sep 7, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report
So it seems your argument with me is purely academic. That's great. But the only reason I was saying that reducing a one-time fee by $2.50, less than the cost of a Big Mac, isn't going to dramatically change matters for more than a handful of people, was in the context of making a significant change in service to accommodate it. If you agree that the exitfare change is A Bad Thing, then it really doesn't matter to me what you or anyone believes about disenfranchised poor metro users.
What I find unbelievable, is that someone at Metro actually did believe that the "ten quarter SmartTrip adoption problem" needed solving by introducing the new, "stranded credit-card payer" problem.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report
You know what is easy?
Going to a Metro station, and swiping your card over the turnstile with the knowledge that you will be able to leave at the end of your trip.
Anything, but anything, other than that, is not as good.
Why would I want to add value to my SmartTrip card at a Giant or CVS? Do you go to CVS buy credits to pay for gas at a gas station?
Every single thing that people say - you can check your balance online, you can do this thing, you can do that thing, completely misunderstands what the absolute goal, and in fact the only thing that the vast majority of Metro riders ever think about.
Getting on and off the train as quickly as possible.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report
If it's really true that the "vast majority" Metro riders don't care about the cost of their trips, why don't we just double or triple fares, and solve our budget problems immediately?
I think you've shown pretty clearly that you have a very myopic view of what most people care about. Not everyone is exactly like you.
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report
What exactly is it that you think most people are going to do with this knowledge of their Metro trip? Decide not to take the train because they're 10 cents short? How many people a day, on their commute to work, do you think really care one iota what their SmartTrip balance is? They need to get to work. They're going on that trip whether it's $3.90 or $4.30.
If my view is "myopic" then your view is "can't see the forest for the trees." Your concern over the specifics of some situations faced by a minority of users ignores the fact that the vast majority of Metro users treat it as a life function, no different than walking down the street. They want it to be as invisible as possible.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 3:54 pm • link • report
Can you post a link to your supporting data?
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 3:56 pm • link • report
1) Given a choice between easy and not as easy, how would you like [any given process] to be?
... because the answer is astoundingly obvious. To me, anyway.
If you seriously think that most people enjoy dealing with turnstiles and metro card machines, and would prefer more complexity to less complexity, and DON'T actually just want to use metro for, er, transit, then all I can say is: WMATA probably has a job for you.
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 3:59 pm • link • report
That's not the claim you made. Your claim is that the "vast majority" of Metro users care much more about convenience than other factors such as cost. Where's the data for that?
by David desJardins on Sep 7, 2010 4:11 pm • link • report
If the only "cost" factor on the table is a one-time $2.50 charge, then yes, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Metro users care more about convenience, than the presence or absence of that cost.
That is clearly evidenced by the 75% of metro users who already have a smartTrip card, and at the outrageous price of $5.00!!
by Jamie on Sep 7, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report
So rather than respond to what is actually a fact, you just go off. You made a point that wasn't true, that it was a difficult process, I proved you wrong, and then you lash out about something different.
by copperred on Sep 7, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report
It seems to me that the only potential problem here is the upstart costs, but given the fact that they're already considering overhauling the system, it seems that they've already set aside that money.
by Brady on Sep 9, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report
by Dale Earnhart on Sep 10, 2010 10:59 am • link • report
Anyway, the kind of person (e.g., financially irresponsible) who would want such a thing, would almost certainly end up going down to their maximum negative balance right away. Then they would only add money when they'd hit -100, so their balance would end up perpetually between -80 and -100. Works out the same in the end, you've just got a different bottom line.
Kind of like in the second Die Hard movie, where the terrorists moved the runway down 100 feet from the plane's perspective. That didn't end well.
by Jamie on Sep 10, 2010 11:10 am • link • report
by Brady on Sep 10, 2010 11:16 am • link • report
No, I'd just not go below $100 in balance. What's the difference... the thing is, if you start thinking as if you can go down to -100 anytime you want, then that just becomes your new zero.
by Jamie on Sep 10, 2010 11:19 am • link • report
Add a Comment