Transit Coordination. Commission Workshop Melanie Crotty May 24, 2006. Legislative History. SB602 (Service/Fare Coordination - 1989) Required service/fare coordination between adjoining operators. MTC may withhold funds to enforce; has done so once with BART
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
May 24, 2006
SB602 (Service/Fare Coordination - 1989)
SB1474 (Transit Coordination - 1996)
SB916 (RM2, including Transit Connectivity - 2003)
Regional Information Services
MTC’s role in these services has varied…from strictly grant allocation to wholesale program management and delivery
Transit agencies hold TransLink® devices and settlement process to a higher standard than most meet today.
99.73 % accuracy for settlement
7500 hours between device failures
On average, devices have exceeded performance requirements
Many operators don’t trust other operators to collect their fares…however, few capable of taking on project delivery on behalf of the region.
An elaborate decision structure has added time and expense, even as MTC remains the sole accountable body for the TransLink® contract.
Operator interest in more system features lets the “perfect” get in the way of the “good enough.”
Result: We have one of the most complicated smart card programs in the world.
TransLink Capital Budget
1999 Budget Forecast (1999 Dollars)
Motorola Implementation Contract-Phase 1
Motorola Implementation Contract-Phase 2
Other Implementation Costs-Phase 2
*Implementation of Phase 1 was completed in 2003. This is the actual implementation cost.
Transit operator inattention makes it difficult to deliver a consistently good product.
Cost of coordinating transit agency information is more expensive than originally expected.