Farecards

Interesting NYT article about the MTA's MetroCard and how farecard policy shapes things. One policy idea I've never seen anyone but me propose but that I maintain would be a good idea would be for the federal government to pony up the relatively small amount of money it would cost to start constructing a nationwide transit farecard system that local rail and bus authorities could join if they were so inclined (and they should be encouraged to be inclined).

Actual fares would still be different in DC, Boston, Chicago, New York, LA, etc. but the idea would be to make it the case that over time a single card and single account could get you on the train or the bus all across America. Just like how these days EZ Pass works on highway systems all over the place. It wouldn't work for things like unlimited ride weekly passes, but it should work great for single ride trips, and would make it much easier for visitors to this place or that to take advantage of local transit offerings.

Comments

I would definitely use this if it were available.

Though I do dig the Pandas on the Metrocard that's been sitting unused in my wallet for the past six months...

Posted by bh | July 17, 2008 10:52 AM

This would be pretty sweet, actually. I have three metro cards in my wallet right now - New York (where I live), Chicago (where I used to live and still have a lot of friends), and DC (where I sometimes have to go for work). One card would make things a lot easier.

That said, there might be difficulties with getting the system to work with monthly passes. But I'm sure that problem could be solved if there was the will.

Posted by Charles | July 17, 2008 10:52 AM

Terrible idea. The best thing about visiting other cities is first figuring out the idiosyncrasies of the transit farecard system, and then whining about how inferior it is to New York's.

Why would you take that away from me?

Posted by Sam L. | July 17, 2008 10:54 AM

I'd much rather Federal, State, and Local governments to push for an elimination of fare boxes all together and have the system fully funded through taxation.

Whenever the price of a ride increases so as to provide a base percentage of operating costs ridership declines. Putting more cars on the road, taking up more valuable time -and gas- through increased congestion, and, on some occasions, actually decreasing the amount of revenues being taken in. It would also decrease the capital costs of updated turnstiles with strip readers and credit card viable ticket machines, and the operational costs of having a guy go around and empty the machines. Money which could be better spent putting more buses, trains, and/or trams on the road or replacing degraded track.

Posted by Scott | July 17, 2008 10:56 AM

This is a great idea. If only there was some kind of thinkish tank-type thing where these types of policy papers originated. Some enterprising young comic book loving gangsta wannabee with a Harvard degree could research the long rich history of fare systems in the US, document the state of affairs today, and author a policy integrating fare cards across America, and get meetings on the Hill to turn said policy into legislation!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 17, 2008 11:04 AM

Actual fares would still be different in DC, Boston, Chicago, New York, LA, etc. but the idea would be to make it the case that over time a single card and single account could get you on the train or the bus all across America.

Ate you proposing all public transit in the US, then, be agglomerated into the control of a single agency?

I suspect the "float" from unused tolls and fares on farecards is a major source of revenue for the various municipal transit authorities, which are likely to fight like cornered bobcats to avoid having that money go to some kind of national card-issuing agency instead.

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2008 11:07 AM

I think you're underestimating how complicated it would be to do this. It's not just as simple as hitting a few buttons to make it so the Metrocard Reader can read a CharlieCard. You'd have to redesign each city's fare cards, card-readers, and card-vending machines to make them uniform, which would probably mean junking a huge amount of the technology that these cities just dumped into their farecard systems.

And I also think you're overestimating how much convenience this really brings. The number of people who hop from city to city regularly enough to bemoan the incompatibility of the systems is small. I'm one of those people, and I do have an active CharlieCard and Metrocard in my wallet (and a few dusty CTA cards kicking around somewhere).

So, yeah, it would help me out, but why on earth would the Federal Government want to sink millions (and more millions than you think) into a system upgrade just to save me the occasional $2 I lose when I lose an old Metrocard, or the 2 minutes, tops, I spend standing at a MetroCard machine the next time I'm in NYC?

Also, there already is "one card to rule them all": a credit card. I would argue that these farecard systems are ALREADY universal and compatible because they have well-designed interfaces and they take Visa.

I'd be much more interested in the Federal Government dumping millions into putting in farecard systems in underfunded systems that DON'T HAVE FARECARDS AT ALL (likely this lovely transit-deprived city I live in) rather than trying to save those poor beleagured Acela regulars a couple minutes of their precious time should they happed to forget their farecard for DC.

Posted by Philly | July 17, 2008 11:16 AM

Yikes, this sounds like one of Big Bro's wet dreams.

Let's see: to be useful for a ride across several states without a "recharge" such a card ought to be able to "hold" funds in excess of several $100's. If the card system has no individual accounts (meaning that the cards work as cash for tickets), then they became a stealable commodity, maybe even something usable to launder money. Or they may be "reasonably" represented as capable of being used for such misdeeds. Voila, mandatory opening of a personal account to get a card. Ergo, the single database holder has a perfect record of your travel habits, and they may shut you off the transit system because, well, because they can: we don't want all those protesters converging to a rally, or maybe you made a face to your cop neighbor, and ended up on a "terrorist suspect" list because of that... endless possibilities for the Cheney's of this world :-)

Posted by glopk | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM

I'm not opposed to the idea, but it does sound rather expensive for cities across the country to have to redo their farecard systems just to get a minor convenience for a relatively small number of city-dwelling frequent travelers. And I'm thinking that high cost (combined with the fact that no one is clamoring for this) would make adoption of the national system low, diminishing the benefit.

I suppose sizable federal grants might mitigate the cost factor and help early adoption, but even so, I still wonder if it's a worthwhile use of funds. I'm thinking that putting the money into newer buses, expanded service, more lines, lower fares, anything that actually makes mass transit better to use for everyone would be more beneficial than just making things a teeny tiny bit easier for occasional visitors.

Also, I'd guess that confusion in knowing another cities' system lines and geography is probably a bigger barrier to visitors using local transit than dealing with the farecard system.

A plan like this might have better luck starting as a joint system between cities that have a lot of traffic between them, like NY-DC (and maybe working in Philly or Boston.)

Posted by Royko | July 17, 2008 11:21 AM

I don't think it's so much about convenience as promoting a unified transit policy. Regional transit authority often operate as little fiefdoms and absent any changes to the status quo they will continue to operate as fiefdoms -- contributing little to systemic changes in transit policy.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 17, 2008 11:23 AM

I don't think this is a good idea. You'd need to convince me that requiring people to get new systems in different cities even fractionally alters the number of people using mass transit. Cities also aren't complaining about the added income from visitors who leave cities money on their fare cards.

A nationalized system would encourage both graft (that would be a great contract for a company to get) and theft. There's one motive to hack the system of one city, but if someone could hack all cities, the motives for crime increase.

Finally, one of the benefits of regionalization is that different areas get to experiment with different hardware and toll collection methods. Until we have the unanimously agreed upon perfect system, it seems like the push to nationalize would hurt experimentation.

Posted by dd | July 17, 2008 11:34 AM

I have to agree with Philly's 11:16am comment. Sounds mighty complicated and expensive to do. And what's the benefit, eliminating the terrible burden of having to stop at ticket counter when you arrive in New York or DC?

Posted by Jasper | July 17, 2008 11:35 AM

Yeah, I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense...EZ-Pass interoperability is handy because you can drive from the NJ Turnpike to the PA Turnpike to the Ohio Turnpike and keep paying your fares the same way, but it's not like you're going to hop on a bus in Queens and transfer to the DC Metro.

But what Scott said, it should all really be free, subsidized by congestion pricing in downtown business districts.

Posted by tps12 | July 17, 2008 11:37 AM

It seems to me that the intersection of people that this helps would be so small as to make it a huge waste of money. This would basically help:
(1) A person who lives in a major city with (2) a legitimately useful transportation system which is (3) actually used by the person in question. In addition this person must (4) travel frequently to other cities with similar transportation systems, and (5) the person must use those systems when traveling. And ultimately, all of the bureaucracy put in place to administer this program would save this person some minor inconvenience.

That's a lot of hurdles for very little benefit. Myself, I take the L in Chicago every day to work, and I travel infrequently. I'm just the type of person this would help, except that (a) I don't travel enough to make it a big deal, (b) I'm not always traveling to cities where this would be useful, and (c) when I do travel, the hotel is usually really close to where the office or client that I'm visiting. I know all of zero people that would actually benefit from this.

A better idea would be to coordinate this regionally. I'm not sure about other cities, but in Chicago, you've got CTA and Metra. I don't use Metra, so I'm not sure what their fare cards are like, but it would seem to me that some coordination between these two services such that a person could buy one fare card for use both on suburban trains and CTA trains and busses would benefit a hell of a lot more people.

Posted by Seitz | July 17, 2008 11:39 AM

I will add this: the main reason no one else has suggested Matt's idea is because it's too late. The different major farecard systems are already incompatible and completely built.

However, when (or if) Philadelphia gets a farecard system, it would be great if they made it compatible with NYC's Metrocard and vice-versa. The decision has to be made BEFORE the system goes into effect.

But, I wouldn't hold my breath. This is Philadelphia, after all, so even if we do get farecards, they'll find a way to phuck it up.

Posted by Philly | July 17, 2008 11:52 AM

Why couldn't it work for unlimited ride tickets?

If part of the network was requiring the transit authorities to pool the revenue based on usage rather than purchasing, then that should eliminate the problem of people buying a pass from the cheapest distrubutor and using it in the most expensive.

Of course, here in St. Louis, ridership is on the "trust but verify" system where we don't have to provide prrof of fare to get on the MetroLink, but it can be requested at any time.

I'm not sure the benefit of a national network would justify such an infrastructure change.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 17, 2008 12:22 PM

(when you move to CAP, can you get the "remember personal info" checkbox to work? Or are you going to be using a login system like the old attackerman...

Metra uses the old school buy a ticket, get it punched on the train, system.

Posted by dbt | July 17, 2008 12:30 PM

One policy idea I've never seen anyone but me propose but that I maintain would be a good idea would be for the federal government to pony up the relatively small amount of money it would cost to start constructing a nationwide transit farecard system that local rail and bus authorities could join if they were so inclined

Doesn't make much sense. The costs would likely far exceed the benefits. It seems unlikely that there would be much demand to use single-ride transit tickets purchased in one city on the transit system in another city.

A better idea would probably be to spend the money expanding the availability of fare collection via debit card or some other form of EFT, especially on buses.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:52 PM

NYC has a single-fare system that works by swiping a magnetic strip though a slot upon entry only. DC has a multiple fare system based on distance traveled; it works through a smart chip that is passed over a reader both upon entry and exit. It's very difficult to imagine a card that would work for both systems. One city would have to adopt the other's method, and I don't see that happening.

Posted by Virginia | July 17, 2008 12:57 PM

It would be too expensive to make new readers in every city that could read a new card. What you could do is put machines in airports, train stations, and a few of the busiest stops that convert your federal pass to the local one.

Then, you could make those machines also accept credit cards. Then you could get rid of them, and just use the old machines you had that take credit cards and give you a local pass.

Seriously, this is pointless. Maybe there is use for places like Philadelphia, North Jersey and NYC to have interconvertability, but on a federal level, it is a waste.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2008 1:01 PM

But what Scott said, it should all really be free, subsidized by congestion pricing in downtown business districts.

Right. And free ponies for everyone. The New York subway just isn't crowded enough yet, so we should make it even worse by eliminating price incentives altogether. It should really look like this.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 1:01 PM

Shorter everyone: 'What's the point' and/or 'It's too hard!'

Common standards yield efficiency benefits (some of them unintended!) when adopted on wide scale. Independent private banks keep and share data in common formats on a massive scale and nobody cries about the cost of that implementation -- they just accept that portability is a given in finance. Other public aspects of our economy like medical record keeping and transit fare collection should follow the lead of banks.

If I can wire money from a bank in Illinois to a bank in Indiana with no obstacles why can't I ticket myself from Chicago to Indianapolis on overlappign public transit systems with one ticket?

Posted by joejoejoe | July 17, 2008 1:01 PM

Matt has a great idea here, and having seen hospital computer systems I can tell you why.

35 years ago hospitals were installing computers. Each hospital built their own computer with unique software, just like transit agencies today build fare systems.

That helped each individual hospital, but in the late eighties the hospitals were still using the old teletypes and multi-taking mainframes. But by then "hospitals" had become "health-care systems" with clinics and regional links to other hospitals and facilities. Keeping the old systems running meant they had larger and larger sunk investments.

In the 90s the hospitals began switching to PCs. Partly because a huge industry had grown up of supplying computer systems to health-care systems, they were still building systems on a business-by-business basis. And of course, for the past 25 years, most doctors had still been keeping records with paper and pens.

So, today, even though doctors in systems use PCs, and hospitals use PC based systems, we're only beginning to contemplate the economies of scale. The doctor should be able to access your medical records from the past, but in most cases they can't.

Now transit is going through the same learning curve. Machines are installed, systems designed, riders educated, and all of this is done as though in some mysterious way the collection of fares in your city is entirely different from the collection of fares in a city 30 miles away.

If we intend to be a big nation, sometimes we need to act like a big nation. When we built air travel, the government didn't just say that local authorities could build airports and install the radar of their choice. Instead, a system of navigation aids was built, an air traffic control system was built, federal standards were established for almost every aspect of the industry, federal money given to local agencies that complied, and every advance in civil aviation was built first and tested by the military using the public dime.

Or, we could just watch while countries like Germany and Japan keep the lead, and wonder why we can't seem to do much anymore.

Posted by serial catowner | July 17, 2008 1:13 PM

Common standards yield efficiency benefits (some of them unintended!) when adopted on wide scale. Independent private banks keep and share data in common formats on a massive scale and nobody cries about the cost of that implementation -- they just accept that portability is a given in finance. Other public aspects of our economy like medical record keeping and transit fare collection should follow the lead of banks.

The fact that common standards make sense in some contexts obviously doesn't mean they make sense in all contexts. Have you ever heard of cost-benefit analysis? The vast number of transactions between banks and other financial instititions make the benefits of common standards rather obvious. The benefits of common standards in transit fares and tickets are much less clear. Trying to retrofit a single nationwide standard on to hundreds of incompatible local and regional transit systems with different fare policies, funding sources, ticket machines, etc. would be a nightmare. It doesn't seem remotely plausible that the benefits would justify the massive costs and disruption that implementing such a system would impose.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM

Mixner - The Tokyo transit system is so successful it's revenues exceed operating costs by 70%. The excess is used to subsidize service to the rest of Japan. When you have that kind of success in America conservatives move to privatize the entity so the benefits go to their cronies and not Americans everywhere. See United States Post Office, AMTRAK, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and on and on.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM

This would also have to somehow "harmonize" systems where the farecard opens gates (New York, SF Muni) with proof-of-payment systems where anyone can get on the train at any time, but they're supposed to have a visible ticket that they can show on demand (like the light rail systems in Newark and Portland, Oregon, or Caltrain from San Francisco to San Jose)...

Posted by Charlie Dodgson | July 17, 2008 1:19 PM

Right. And free ponies for everyone. The New York subway just isn't crowded enough yet, so we should make it even worse by eliminating price incentives altogether. It should really look like this.

Increased frequency and/or capacity of existing rail, bus, and tram lines as well as construction of new, potentially parallel, lines is not mutually exclusive from decreased fare costs. Eliminating fares would also greatly improve access and mobility for entering or leaving stations due to the removal of bottlenecks at turnstiles, and permit swifter boarding of buses than currently.

Certainly more comprehensive and expansive transit systems are necessary regardless of the level of disincentives that fare costs produce. That should be done. Fares should also be eliminated. The two can occur simultaneously.

Posted by Scott | July 17, 2008 1:21 PM

Mixner - The Tokyo transit system is so successful it's revenues exceed operating costs by 70%.

The Tokyo subway has to be one of the most unpleasant transit systems in the world. Especially at rush hour. Did you watch the video I posted? People use it because they have to, not because they want to.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 1:27 PM

I believe there is at least some planning being done for Philadelphia's SEPTA system to work with New Jersey Transit and perhaps NYC. Who knows if this will come about.

Philly has a weird transit system. If you happen to live near one of the two(!) major subway lines, I think it's quite good: runs pretty frequently and the trains are fairly safe, fairly clean, nicely air conditioned in summer, etc. The bus lines are very good, although the fact that the streets in Center City are about 5 inches wide (but you can still park!) doesn't help traffic. On the other hand, there ought to be about 5 more subway lines, and Philly stupidly abandoned numerous trolley lines over the past decades. Overall, about a C.

Philly is small enough in the downtown business district that you could actually make Center City off-limits to cars: say, between South St, 20th St, Race St, and 2nd St--an area of about 1.5 square miles. Have some nice parking available at the entry points and the buses will run incredibly quickly. No chance of that, of course.

My guess is: no interoperability, and for that matter no fair cards at all for at least 3-5 years.

Posted by Zed | July 17, 2008 1:30 PM

Increased frequency and/or capacity of existing rail, bus, and tram lines as well as construction of new, potentially parallel, lines is not mutually exclusive from decreased fare costs.

It's also "not mutually exclusive" from ponies for everyone. That doesn't mean it would make sense or is politically feasible. Let's see, you're proposing to eliminate all revenue from ticket sales and increase capacity at the same time. How much is this going to cost? Where's the money going to come from (be specific)? How have you determined that there is enough demand to justify these changes? How have you determined that the benefits would outweigh the costs?

Certainly more comprehensive and expansive transit systems are necessary

If "certainly" means "it is probably not true that" then, yes, completely correct.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 1:36 PM

Seitz says:

This would basically help:
(1) A person who lives in a major city with (2) a legitimately useful transportation system which is (3) actually used by the person in question. In addition this person must (4) travel frequently to other cities with similar transportation systems, and (5) the person must use those systems when traveling. And ultimately, all of the bureaucracy put in place to administer this program would save this person some minor inconvenience.

Let's get to brass tacks: Pretty much the ONLY person in America this proposal would benefit is the one who made it.

It's a seriously ridiculous idea on many levels.

Posted by jlw | July 17, 2008 1:55 PM

Intra-city mass transit and commuter rail have posted continual increases in ridership reaching 50 year highs. Increases in fare costs also always result in a decline in ridership. Declining fare prices would bring the subsidized expense of personal transport more into parity with to cost of public transit making it more attractive. The demand is there.

The expense of modernizing and expanding public transit depends largely on the individual city. A new subway line may be great for New York, but not so much in Chicago. That is already the case and, again, the demand is self evident in the increases of ridership. Systems are at or above capacity at present and that is simply unsustainable given projected population growths for inner cities and surrounding suburbs in our now majority urban nation.

As far as funding, increased road tolls, parking costs, gas taxation, and congestion pricing would be the most readily available source of improving public transit. To get to actual specifics would largely be situational and depend on the city we're talking about and what advances in their coverage and transit system is proposed. As well as their necessary operating and capital costs.

Posted by Scott | July 17, 2008 1:56 PM

Scott,

Intra-city mass transit and commuter rail have posted continual increases in ridership reaching 50 year highs.

No, they've posted recent blips in ridership in response to the recent runup in gas prices. And while total numerical transit ridership may continue to grow in response to population growth, transit has been steadily losing transportation market share to cars for a hundred years. Cars provide almost a hundred times as many passenger-miles of transportation as transit. Even a doubling or tripling or transit's market share, which isn't remotely plausible, would have a negligible impact on overall transportation mode usage in the United States.

Increases in fare costs also always result in a decline in ridership. Declining fare prices would bring the subsidized expense of personal transport more into parity with to cost of public transit making it more attractive. The demand is there.

Incomprehensible. Reducing or eliminating price incentives to riders would distort the relationship between transit supply and demand even more than it is now. If transit were free to riders, the likely result would be massive overconsumption. Welcome to the Tokyo subway.

Systems are at or above capacity at present and that is simply unsustainable given projected population growths for inner cities

Er, most old-style, transit-oriented inner cities are losing population. This includes almost all the old cities in the northeast.

The vast majority of population growth is occurring in the sprawling, car-oriented cities of the south and west, where population and infrastructure densities are so low that even bus services struggle to attract riders. Subways would make absolutely no sense in these cities, and even light rail is competitive with cars only on a very small number of highly-travelled routes close to downtown.

As far as funding, increased road tolls, parking costs, gas taxation, and congestion pricing would be the most readily available source of improving public transit.

They would? Show me your polling data and studies indicating that it is even remotely plausible that drivers are willing to pay increased road tolls, parking costs, gas taxation, and congestion pricing in order to fund a massive expansion of transit and a 100% public subsidy of transit riders.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Ok, youse guys, listen up- now that Mixner's here, you must be specific and prove everything.

Because building transit is not at all like building the freeways, where a wink, a nod, and the guess that there was real money to be made selling suburban homes was enough to justify spending $3 trillion over thirty years building the freeways.

So all of you must prove your case beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but Mixner gets by with assertions (roads pay for themselves) that are simply false. In his mind it's all part of what makes a good comment thread a great comment thread.

Posted by serial catowner | July 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Being close to other people makes me vomit, but you knew that already.

Posted by Muxmer | July 17, 2008 2:24 PM

I am such a freaking moron.

Posted by serial dogowner | July 17, 2008 2:30 PM

Shorter Yglesias: more government spending for the upper-middle class of the Northeast Corridor!

Seriously, how many people travel to New York and Chicago and the Bay Area? How many of them really need a national farecard system rather than just buying day passes?

Or, another way to put it, how many European nations have the sort of universal Metrocard that you're talking about?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 17, 2008 2:37 PM

I have a theory that Mixner is Petey's Transit Troll alias. He completely disagrees with whatever Matt says, and whenever anyone challenges him in comments (or he decides to pick on anyone), he has the same obnoxious habit of requoting their post sentence-by-sentence just to shoot them down.

Posted by Philly | July 17, 2008 2:54 PM

The best way to implement something like this would be to come up with some sort of standard for RFID farecards that could be universally implemented. Most transit systems in the US are or should be looking to transition their fare systems to RFID cards/tokens, so now would be the time to put this out there. Even if there wasn't a nationally-linked system at first -- maybe due to cost -- the cards could at least be technologically interoperable with possibly different balances for each transit system on the same card. This could be a mess to start with, but having common standards would make a nationally integrated payment system possible in the future.

Posted by Howard | July 17, 2008 3:00 PM

This idea has alot going against it. What problem does it solve? Only helps the tiny percentageof people who regularly visit a variety of US cities and use public transit - probably a couple thousand.
As other commenters noted, public transit is generally a money losing proposition, so any unused rides sold on a farecard is cash in the piggy bank for the system. Most systems are subsidized by city or state taxpayers, so as a Nj resident/taxpayer, I'm not too interested in providing yet another subsidy for a system I will never use in some random city (I already give via my federal tax dollars).
Where it may make sense is where you do have lots of people commuting through common stations within metro areas - such as NJTransit, LIRR, MetroNorth to NYC subways/buses. Right now having to keep a bunch of different farecards is a pain. A common NJTransit to SEPTA farecard makes sense because people in the Philly area live in one state, but work in the other.
But tying SEPTA to Metro North or LIRR doesn't make sense because only a hardful of people make that kind of commute.

Posted by CParis | July 17, 2008 3:22 PM

Nicholas Beaudrot - My quick search reveals Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Dominican Republican all have unified national transit systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rapid_transit_systems

The fare sharing system that Matt describes already exists in the Trailways Bus System.

From Wikipedia: "The Trailways Transportation System is a group of 80 independent bus companies that have entered into a franchising agreement.

The company was founded February 5, 1936 by: Burlington Transportation Company, Santa Fe Trails Transportation Company, Missouri-Pacific Stages, Safeway Lines, Inc., and Frank Martz Coach Company.

The system originated with coast-to-coast service as the National Trailways Bus System (NTBS). Greyhound Lines had grown so quickly in the 1920s and 1930s that the Interstate Commerce Commission encouraged smaller independent operators to form the National Trailways Bus System (NTBS) to provide competitive markets. Unlike Greyhound which centralized ownership, Trailways member companies became a formidable competitor while staying an association of almost 100 separate companies."

The federal government already encourages standardized fare agreements and interconnected route among private bus operators. It's not a stretch to imagine them doing the same among municipal and regional transit operators.

The point of connecting these various low efficiency systems isn't to get people to travel from NY to Chicago on local routes -- it's to help the guy in Champaign, IL decide he doesn't need a car anymore to travel to see his mom just out of St. Louis, MO.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 17, 2008 3:29 PM

Reducing or eliminating price incentives to riders would distort the relationship between transit supply and demand even more than it is now. If transit were free to riders, the likely result would be massive overconsumption.

Sort of like freeways now.

Posted by Scott | July 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Some of you guys are sorta missing the point. While Matt's idea revolved around him in a different city, admittedly a subset, the virtue of the idea lies in getting the whole matter sorted.

All over the country right now transit systems are trying to implement farecard systems, and most of them aren't that great.

It's like the case with hospitals- all hospitals have computers now, many have computerized patient record systems, but only the VA has a systemwide implementation that produces real savings and improved outcomes- and has thus become a model for possible improvements in the rest of the healthcare industry.

It's the difference between balkanization and federalism. What we have is balkanization, what we could have is federalism. If we were smart enough.

Posted by serial catowner | July 17, 2008 4:12 PM

For anyone into transit porn like Matt, I would think part of the allure is to keep the farecard. Kinda of like a "yeah I rode dat".

In the past year, I've rode Chicago's El, and New Orleans streetcar. I have my farecards up on the wall here in my cube (live in NoVa) Whenever I go to New York, or manage to be in the part of Houston with the light rail (assuming Houston uses cards), I'll add those.

Posted by Kiran | July 17, 2008 4:14 PM

"All over the country right now transit systems are trying to implement farecard systems, and most of them aren't that great."

Most large transit systems already have farecard systems. Let the newbies band together and design/implement a single system or adopt one used by a large system already.
But it's highly unlikely that a transit system that processes millions of fares per month is going to change to match a system that has 5 buses that run during rush hour.

What happened with EZPass is that several states in the NE with millions of tollpayers were looking at changing their toll system around the same time (mid-90s). Also these highways are contiguous and it was extremely convenient/cost effective to convert to a common system.

But if I live/drive in the NE, it's pretty rare that I'm going to drive my car to the West Coast, so whether I can use my EZPass in California is not a major issue to me. But it's a plus if I can use my same EZPass driving from suburban CT to NYC to NJ, a distance of less than 50 miles.

Posted by CParis | July 17, 2008 4:38 PM

A more interesting approach would look at Hong Kong's Octopus card, where the farecard is also a stored-value instant payment card for small purchases. Put simply, that means you can load up your card with 'small purchase' money and use that balance to buy things other than bus/train fares.

While it's hard to imagine NYC hotdog vendors or delis using anything other than cash, there's definitely value to the concept of grabbing a paper or coffee at the station and paying for it with your farecard. Hong Kong hasn't issued new coins since 1998.

So, I'm unconvinced by the idea of a Single Unified Farecard, but I certainly think there's room to turn city/metro/regional farecards into small-purchase cards.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 17, 2008 5:04 PM

It's the difference between balkanization and federalism. What we have is balkanization, what we could have is federalism. If we were smart enough.

A lot of the money's already been sunk. If this had been done 20 years ago, maybe it would have been a smart move. Even then, it would have been a very expensive project, probably less than all the local efforts aggregated, but big enough in one lump federal sum that it would have given people pause. And it would have been a big, complicated task to get one system that would fit every local scenario. And I'd still worry about what it would take to get the locals to adopt the federal system and how long it would be before it was implemented nationwide. And then how upgrades would be handled, because if it takes 10 years to roll out, you don't necessarily want to be stuck with a decade old system.

So yes, it might have made sense then, but would have been a daunting effort. To do it now would be still be a daunting effort, would effectively toss out all the prior effort and cost, and the only real benefit would be a minor convenience for a handful of travelers. I just don't see how or why this should be a priority. Maybe before the next major fare-taking innovation it would be worth considering.

--

The point of connecting these various low efficiency systems isn't to get people to travel from NY to Chicago on local routes -- it's to help the guy in Champaign, IL decide he doesn't need a car anymore to travel to see his mom just out of St. Louis, MO.

I really don't think farecards are the obstacle here.

Posted by Royko | July 17, 2008 5:21 PM

This seems to be about as useful as having a program so that my Arlington county library card will work in Boston.

Posted by Kolohe | July 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Scott,

Sort of like freeways now.

No, not remotely like freeways. Eliminating highway subsidies would increase driving costs only by a trivial amount. Eliminating transit subsidies would require a large increase in transit fares. The distorting effect of transit subsidies on supply and demand is vastly greater than the distorting effect of highway subsidies.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 6:16 PM

I'm in Munich where you can buy a daily, three-day, weekly, monthly, or yearly pass that gives unlimited access to all public transit (tram, bus, U- and S-Bahn). You pay one fee upfront; after that all travel is unlimited. When considering whether or not to do something, the cost of public transportation is never again part of yr decision. (Rather the incentive works the other way: you are wasting a resource you've already paid for if you stay home). As far as I know every major German city has the same set-up. Result: a country with a real culture, including nightlife, and not just for adolescents. Rather than (as in the US) a population of fearful stay-at-homes, cowering before the electronic hearth, thanking their lucky stars they can get DVDs by mail without ever having to venture out into "public" space where there are people who might, you know, be *different*. When you buy a ticket to the opera here, the price includes access to all transit from 3 PM the day of the performance (or earlier if it's a matinee) through 6 AM the next morning. They really *want* you to stay in town and make a night of it.

Posted by helmling | July 18, 2008 9:18 AM

I'm in Munich where you can buy a daily, three-day, weekly, monthly, or yearly pass that gives unlimited access to all public transit (tram, bus, U- and S-Bahn). You pay one fee upfront; after that all travel is unlimited. When considering whether or not to do something, the cost of public transportation is never again part of yr decision. (Rather the incentive works the other way: you are wasting a resource you've already paid for if you stay home). As far as I know every major German city has the same set-up. Result: a country with a real culture, including nightlife, and not just for adolescents. Rather than (as in the US) a population of fearful stay-at-homes, cowering before the electronic hearth, thanking their lucky stars they can get DVDs by mail without ever having to venture out into "public" space where there are people who might, you know, be *different*. When you buy a ticket to the opera here, the price includes access to all transit from 3 PM the day of the performance (or earlier if it's a matinee) through 6 AM the next morning. They really *want* you to stay in town and make a night of it.

Posted by helmling | July 18, 2008 9:19 AM