ABSTRACT
The numbers of smart cards are increasing year by year, for example Wikipedia lists more than 350 smart card systems all over the world covering all continents. As this book focuses on smart card systems that have their primary application payment for public transport, one needs to recognise that smart cards are in use for a wider range of applications. An important development is therefore the integration of different applications into smart card systems. Through the worldwide spread of smart cards, international standardization, which define the signal frequency and the data transmission speed, has progressed. For the contactless cards there are several standards that cover the lower levels of interface between cards and terminals and mainly three types of standard, referred to as Type A, Type B and FeliCa, are widely prevalent. For transit smart cards, either Type-A or FeliCa systems are adopted. Type-A systems are common all over the world since they could be introduced with low cost. The biggest advantage of the FeliCa system is the faster transmission speed. Due to this feature, FeliCa system cards prevail in many transit companies in Japan where it is essential to handle large amount of passengers in short time during the
rush hours. For further detailed criteria of these standards, readers can refer to Pelletier et al. (2011). Table 1 shows information on the selection of noteworthy major smart cards that are issued mainly for the purpose of transportation fare collection. For users (and data analysts) the increasing standardization further means that not only the arrangement of same card usage for different operators becomes easier but also the usage of the same card in different cities. For example, in Japan since 2013 most of the smart cards from major public operators can be used across the country. The Netherlands is one of the first countries where a single smart card can be used throughout the country for local as well as long distance travel. The important aspect for data analysis and transport demand management possibilities is whether the transactions are pre-paid (debit) or post-paid (credit). Although most of the smart card systems adopt the pre-paid system, an increasing number also offer post-payment systems, mostly not in replacement but in addition to pre-paid ones. This means, that, similar to credit cards, the total transportation fares accumulated over a month will debit from the bank account next month. The drawback of the post-payment system for the user is that it requires personal details and an application for qualification to get the cards. This means that it often takes a considerable amount of time until the cards are issued. However, the post-paid system cards also have some merits for the users. First of all, since the bank debits the fare later from the account, users do not have to worry about the remaining money on the card. Secondly, with personalized post-payment cards, loyalty schemes are more widely spread. One example is the “PiTaPa” card, which could be used for fare payment on most of the private trains and bus companies in the Kansai region of Japan. Operators utilizing PiTaPA offer different amount of discounts per journey and some set an upper limit for the fare-to-be paid for pre-registered origins and destinations by the users. For other (not preregistered) journeys PiTaPa also offers discount based on how much fare the users have paid or how often the users have used PiTaPA for public transport during the previous month. Furthermore, some of the transit companies in Japan give points for the users based on the boarding history as well as the shopping history at the designated shops. In Chapter 7 this is further discussed with the help of an example of Shizutetsu Railway Co., Ltd., a private rail operator in Shizuoka, Japan. The cardholders can use these points for fare or shopping discounts in stores associated with the transport operator. Therefore, for demand management, in general postpaid systems are preferable. For the data analyst post-paid systems further mean that travel data and socio-demographic data required for registration can be obtained, though obviously privacy issues are a major concern for this. Table 1 includes some additional observations on selected smart cards that appear noteworthy to us: The Octopus card was one of the early card schemes not only for transport but also in general promoting the usage of
the card for different purposes, which is also included in the etymology of the card’s name. Nowadays, the card could be used for a variety of shopping including online purchases. Several operators have also been promoting the uptake of smart cards by providing cheaper fares compared to paper tickets. Noteworthy are the discounts provided in London, where paper tickets can be priced double compared to the payment by Oyster card. In Japan, generally no discounts are given for the usage of smart cards. Recently though, due to an increase in the VAT, there are small price differences between paper tickets and payments by smart cards. The increase in fares due to VAT raise is reflected accurate to 1 Yen for smart cards where paper tickets are rounded to the nearest 10 Yen. Such minor price differences are though unlikely to have an impact on travel decisions. More important might be the effect of “daily caps” or, recently, “weekly caps” that have been applied in London. These caps mean that the user does not have to decide in the morning or the beginning of the week anymore whether it will be worth purchasing a daily or weekly pass. Instead the traveller has the guarantee that the smart card will stop charging the user if the equivalent prices of a daily or weekly pass has been accumulated through single fares. In how far this scheme has any impact on behaviour is not yet known to our knowledge. Finally, it should be noted that in some cities, such as Santiago, it is compulsory for
