On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:38:41 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



That's not quite as easy as it sounds - the balance is on the card,
and in your hand. You would need to at least nominate a station to
collect it.


Have smartcard travel "ticketing" schemes been as poorly implemented
in other cities? I really don't think they could have done it any
worse. Has the Hong Kong scheme got as many shortcomings as Oyster?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:05:59 +0000, k wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:38:41 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



That's not quite as easy as it sounds - the balance is on the card,
and in your hand. You would need to at least nominate a station to
collect it.


Have smartcard travel "ticketing" schemes been as poorly implemented
in other cities?

I'm biased as I was involved in the design of what become Oyster but I
don't think it has been poorly implemented. Due to the ancient physical
design of the LU network there are gaps in the validation process that
have to rely on voluntary validation instead of forcing people through
ticket gates as occurs on all other Smartcard schemes.

There are also considerable issues about historical London fares policy
issues, the impossibility of removing Travelcard and the inability to
force the TOCs to participate in the scheme. These also result in a
less than optimal system design. All things considered I think the
project team has done well.

One key aspect that everyone conveniently forgets is that TfL's fare
policy has been turned upside down since TfL was created. That has
caused massive changes to what Oyster is supposed to do. The policy on
Pre-Pay has also changed considerably from the original design
assumptions. To me it is no wonder at all that capping has been delayed
- TfL has changed the fares products and their relationships at every
fares revision for the last 3 years. No wonder no one can stabilise the
design and get it out into the wide world for people to use.

The other big changes have been in distribution channels and the push to
Telesales and Internet transactions. These have all had to be developed
from scratch alongside the main system design and these will have
impacted on what was originally specified.

I really don't think they could have done it any
worse.

On what do you base this conclusion?

Has the Hong Kong scheme got as many shortcomings as Oyster?

Define shortcomings.

There are no Travelcard or Concessionary Permits in Hong Kong.
Everything is set on the basis of deducting cash from the card.
Therefore the system design has to deal with fewer products.

Originally Octopus was a rail based system valid on the MTR and KCR East
Rail. This was easy because it was a simple switch from magnetic SVT to
Smartcard SVT. The gates needed touch pads added and they needed to
modify the old tracking system that existed for SVT. Not very difficult
to be honest.

The roll out to buses in Hong Kong took quite a long time because there
is no unified fares structure at all. You can easily pay 6 or 7
different fares between 2 points if you use different routes /
operators. The trick is to learn the cheapest route! Each operator had
its own preferences and these took a long time to deal with. You also
have some bizarre section fare issues on the routes to Stanley on Hong
Kong Island. For many months Octopus did not work on these services.
Roll out was also patchy on KMB thus depriving people in Kowloon and the
New Territories of discounted travel compared to their equivalents on
Hong Kong Island where Citybus quickly embraced Octopus. The bus
situation is now resolved and very few people pay cash now - well over
95% of transactions are Octopus based from my observations. I now use
the bus far more in HK because Octopus makes it so easy compared to
always having to have the right money to use a bus. You also get rail
to bus, rail to rail and bus to bus discounts if you change between
modes or routes at defined points.

There were also big problems in that initially all sales were via rail
stations - no good if you live in Tuen Mun that at that time did not
have a rail station. 7-Eleven shops are now agents and thus there is an
agent based network - in London that was ready from day one.

Octopus has also had problems in integrating the KCR light rail network,
the public light minibuses, ferries and various other transport
operators. It has been far from smooth but it is now very comprehensive
and has expanded to take on 3rd party applications like council services
and parking. One big step forward was to get the banks in Hong Kong on
side and that has allowed auto uploading of value to cards to take
place. Initially the banks were very worried that Octopus would supplant
cash - HK banks issue the banknotes - and thus damage their business.
There has now been a form of accommodation which has given Octopus added
legitimacy.

I think Oyster will come to rival Octopus in time but London started
from a far more difficult position with few of the advantages that
places like Hong Kong or Singapore enjoy. Now tell me I am wrong.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

k wrote:

Have smartcard travel "ticketing" schemes been as poorly implemented
in other cities? I really don't think they could have done it any
worse.

It could have been done much worse. For example, if it didn't work at all.
--
Michael Hoffman