Roughan on Integrated Ticketing
November 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am by David FarrarNational public transport officials share their Auckland counterparts’ dislike of the Snapper proposal. This I’d read before the Snapper man came to see me but I didn’t know why.
Nor, he claimed, did he know. But as he outlined the mechanics of his fare-paying system I had an “ah ha” moment, to borrow a mediator’s phrase.
He said his was the only bid offering more than a public transport ticket. Snapper’s card could be loaded to a value of $300 and used for small transactions of any kind in any place that had a card-reader.
It could be used on buses, at train station barriers, coffee kiosks, in taxis, at parking buildings … Ah ha.
Public transport planners do not want their ticket transferable to taxis and, heaven forbid, carparks. Their mission in life is to discourage private travel by any means they can and promote their fixed-route services.
This could explain a lot. Rather than go for a flexible multi-use electronic payment system, they want one you can only use on their buses and trains.
I’m a regular snapper user. Its great on Wellington buses, will be usable in taxis shortly I believe, and can also use it as various retailers.
Those suspicions were reinforced this week at the press conference to announce the terms on which the Auckland ticket can proceed. When the Transport Agency’s chief executive, Geoff Dangerfield, was open to the possibility that a transfer card could be used for other transactions, his officials were quick to step in.
“I think it’s really important that we keep to our business,” said one. “Our business is operating public transport and transit applications [by which he meant park-and-rides and cycle lockers].
“We want to think about our business first and the spin-off retail opportunities second. Fares are what it is all about. We’ve taken a particular interest in how a system will perform in the public transport real environment, not necessarily spin-off applications.”
Blah. Public transport is their business, public service is too wide a brief. For them a transfer ticket is a marketing device, giving their network a distinct image in shops, which would be fine if taxes didn’t have to pay for it.
And as taxpayers are paying for it, the wider public service angle should be taken into account.
The Snapper man said something else that accorded with my limited comprehension of computer programming. The more open a card’s applications can be the less expensive the system becomes. The cost lies, he explained, in setting up the exclusions.
It sounds expensive enough to programme a card for the buses, trains and ferries of Auckland; to make it applicable also to the routes, fare stages, discounts and subsidies of all municipalities nationwide sounds impossibly fraught unless the card has some of the convenience of cash.
I haven’t any shares in Infratil but I’m beginning to wish I did.
Same!
Tags: John Roughan, Snapper
November 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I’m all for keeping a complex, long-running project using ratepayer dollars highly focussed.
Vote:Roughan, who just hates public transport, acting as the mouthpiece for the lobbyist of a losing tender isn’t exactly the balanced voice on this.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Auckland public transport worked for me – worked big time – for four years. I don’t understand people who endlessly moan about how sh*t it is. All you have to do is sort your route out.
Integrated ticketing would have been a big improvement though. Snapper cards have fully taken off in Wellington because it is an excellent system. I really can’t understand why AKL wouldn’t even consider looking at a tried, tested and proven system.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I presume that Snapper are looking at covering small purchases where it doesn’t make much sense to stop and enter a PIN, such as newspapers and cans of drink. I’ve seen this in the Netherlands. It is a big step towards a cash free society.
Wellington has had Snapper for a while. NZTA prefers the Thales system and wants to finance it as long as it can be used nation wide. That means either ripping out Snapper and replacing it with Thales system, or developing a system where Thales cards can be used in Wellington (although presumably Snapper’s cards wouldn’t be required to be usable in Auckland). Maybe the Thales cards would have two chips on them, and the Snapper and Thales back ends would be integrated. Whichever option you go with, it looks expensive and messy.
My default position would be to roll out Snapper nation wide UNLESS there were really good reasons to do something different. At the moment, no one is telling us what those reasons are. All I can guess at is that Snapper is being run by a private company whereas I’m guessing that NZTA wants to run the service themselves using Thales’s technology.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
All I can guess at is that Snapper is being run by a private company whereas I’m guessing that NZTA wants to run the service themselves using Thales’s technology.
The issue appears to be one of scope, silos and lines in the sand.
ARTA/NZTA appear to beleive that their project scope does not extend to a micro-payment cash replacement, and from a public point of view you can understand that, it is not their core business.
Infratil (snapper) appear to be agnostic about public transport, they simply see this as the best avenue to expand their micro-payment system. Sure, owning a bus company probably swayed them, but they are playing a long game here, and bus travel is but a small first step.
I actually think that this issue would be a good change to see if government can manage “linked up inter agency thinking” and the RWC 2011 would be a good catalyst to push such a system, (sure, you will have to deal with the “number of the beast” one world government crowd who beleive this is another step to the rapture), but helping NZ move more transactions away from cash to micro-payments is a good step from a NZ Inc point of view.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Reasons not to go Snapper? Conflict – Infratil own the buses and ferrys, giving them the ticketing contract too has interest issues. Plus as I understand it, Snapper is STILL not integrated ticketing? i.e. it can’t be used on trains etc? Thales has done this in a lot of global cities.
Remember there was a full NZTA probity investigation that said the Thales win was completely above board and Infratil should stop their damn whinging – they’re worse than the Welsh rugby crowds =P
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Thales designed and implemented the fantastic octupus system in Hong Kong – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_card
Compared with Octupus, Snapper is shite.
Thales’ plan is to do the same for Auckland and New Zealand. They should be allowed to get on with the job and not stuffed around by dodgey Infratil.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
George – can you please tell us what Octopus has that Snapper hasn’t, so we can have an informed opinion? Also, why you say Infratil is dodgy. (You are not a bus driver or union official are you?)
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Just some comments in passing:
Vote:1. Snapper is being installed in Wellington taxis (all companies AFAIK) primarily to provide an automated system for dealing with subsidised taxi fares for the disabled and elderly who cannot use public transport. That eveyone else can use is a spin-off. The advantage over EFTPOS is that it does not require a continuous wireless data channel to the taxi (although this could theoretically be provided via the taxi radio system).
2. If Snapper were asked they could probably have it up and running on the Johnsonville line within a few weeks. They would only need to equip 8-10 two carriage sets (the very old British made ones). so arguments that it is not available for ‘transfer’ ticketing are not valid. The issues are more policy matters than technological issues.
3. I understand that Infratil is planning to install Snapper on Auckland buses unilaterally in the fairly near future. It they tack that order on the taxi order, they can negotiate a sharp price for the gear. This is going to throw up an almighty challenge to leftie politicians and transport bureaucrats.
4. If Snapper is ‘shite’ compared to Octopus, it is worth noting that Octopus is used for small purchases, parking, etc. This does not seem to distract from its main purpose of providing an underground railway ticketing system.
5. These sorts of ticketing systems do not need to store fare schedules or ‘replica’ information of transport networks on each ‘user’ card. All they need to store is remaining balance and information concerning ‘incomplete’ transactions (eg where and when you got on the bus).
November 9th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Let’s just reiterate – Snapper is NOT integrated ticketing. Perhaps it can be extended but there is zero demonstrated experience of them doing it. Zero. Thales has done it successfully in a number of cities.
Personally I’d like to thank my council for taking a well demonstrated, lower risk option with my money, cheers.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Why doesn’t everyone encourage EFT-Poss use for all types of transport?
It is already here and a viable system, why the need for a Snapper type system?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
@garethw
Thales did not implement the Octopus system. Quite the opposite. In the past they have deployed parts of the Octopus system in other markets in partnership with Accenture. They do not appear to be doing this anymore and are AFAIK building their own IT system from scratch for NZ.
If you listened to the briefing from NZTA last week, there is absolutely no stated intention to do anything other than transport so had to see where you would have got the idea that Thales will be implementing an Octopus type system.
Of note, in Europe, where most of their customer base is, there simply is no way that they could offer an open scheme for more than public transport. More than 6 million euro float means that a ticketing system would come under the banking regulations.
@george
As for being shite – take a look at T-Money, the system that runs Seoul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-money . Snapper is the same system. It’s as good as (if not better) than Octopus as it is based on open standards as opposed to the proprietary Japanese Felica system. Their mobile integration is amazing.
@peterwn
Spot on re: trains. We currently offer transfers and passes to the transport operators who want them. The only impediments to rail in Wellington are resolving the gating system. We have announced taxis (as you’ve stated) and also the East West ferry so there is no issue with being able to address different modes.
Our fundamental view is this – why should tax payer and ratepayer money be used for this project. We have deployed in Wellington without any tax payer or rate payer funds and can do the same in AK.
Miki Szikszai
CEO
Snapper Services Ltd
http://www.snapper.co.nz
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
MikeNZ – you want everyone getting on a bus, train or ferry to swipe their EFTPOS card, choose the account, enter their PIN and then wait for it to Accept? At every stop?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I’d prefer a globally tested robust system ( Thales ) over Infratil & I’d certainly be very wary of a salesman pulling the simplistic “The more open a card’s applications can be the less expensive the system becomes. The cost lies, he explained, in setting up the exclusions.”
Vote:The cost is in development ( how big is the developer pool, how easy to extend ), security ( what happens when it get’s cracked, how easy to crack etc ) & ongoing costs, the exlusions is one element of your costs, not the holy grail.
Unless the global system has glaring holes I’d go that way, put the effort into extending that global system & adding features, but share core technology with other cities globally is my read.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
If the objective with public transport is to encourage people out of cars into bus/train/ferry… then a card of any sort is a disincentive. “Oh, I have to buy one of those, first. Stuff it.”
However, if I already have a micro-payment card to pay for parking/coffee/newspaper/whatever AND it can also be used to pay for public transport, then the market for potential customers is suddenly much larger.
Plus the potential for embarrassment when you discover that you only have a $50 note (and bus drivers love to embarrass people in that predicament!) is gone.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Nigel: Infratil Snapper, is a globally tested and robust system,- same as the Thales offering
It is a the T-Money card used in Seoul (so does not have the security issues of regular miFare cards) and it was implemented in NZ by Charles Monheim who was employed as CEO following his overseeing of the Oyster roll out in London.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think the issue is that Snapper is not ‘integrated ticketing” rather it is stored value card system.
This explains the difference quite well
http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/2009/03/the-importance-of-integrated-ticketing/
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
$10 purchase price of the snapper card is not a major concern to anyone capable of understanding “Get 20% off the price of a cash fare” (was originally 25% off)
But TBH once you have seen other passengers using them for a while, $10 becomes worth it for the convenience alone.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
MajorB>However, if I already have a micro-payment card to pay for parking/coffee/newspaper/whatever AND it can also be used to pay for public transport, then the market for potential customers is suddenly much larger.
Good point. Do we want to end up carrying two micro-payment cards each (one for public transport and the other for everything else), or have an integrated micro-payments system?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
RRM
Your praise of Auckland public transport is not shared by me.
I used to catch a bus from near Henderson into the UNi of Auck. It would usually take 90 minutes and cost heaps, even on a concession ticket. Yes it was West Auckland but shit.. since ‘the west’ has about the population of Wellington I though a half arsed effort was in order.
I would have LOVED an alternative route but alas, there was none.
Now adays my daughter catches a train home from Mt Albert.
It is regularly late, sometimes it doesn’t turn up at all and there is no alternative transport (e.g. buses) put on in the (not infrequent) event of no trains running. BAsicly they tell the kids to fuck off.
This infrastructure is a friggin joke.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
So even though Thales has deep proven international experience of integrated ticketing (not just smart-payment) systems, why should ARTA have dumped their bid and gone Snapper? Because you can buy coffee with it if someone so chooses?
Is that it?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Infratil’s primary goal is to provide its shareholders with a consistent return of 20% per annum over the long term. Infratil invests in growth infrastructure sectors supporting excellent management and employee commitment to deliver top quartile financial, operational and service performance.”
20% return is stratospheric long term, one could argue dreaming territory.
I’d rather Thales personally 6B market cap vs 800m, technology company vs infrastructure, listed on a stock exchange with independent oversight as opposed to NZX & a long distinguished history vs young aggressive company.
There are situations where a local innovative company is brilliant, I’m just not convinced an integrated ticketing platform is that place.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@GTP
Snapper *is* an integrated ticketing system. It’s currently used in Seoul across 10,000 buses, 45,000 taxis and 6.000 metro stations by 10 million people everyday. It deals with transport operators that are private, public, mixed and on gross and net contracts.
It allows transfers, park and ride scenarios, travel passes – all the features that an integrated ticketing system needs.
The article describes the commercial issues with getting everyone on board. We are well underway with other modes (taxis and ferries), we have the ability to buy a paper ticket for Rail currently (and more under action) and we expect to have the remaining bus service in Wellington signed soon. There is absolutely no doubt that we can deal with all of the requirements of an Integrated Ticketing system for Wellington.
Miki
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Nigel>I’d rather Thales personally 6B market cap vs 800m
I’d prefer that we didn’t deal with a company with this sort of record:
“French police have raided the headquarters of French defence electronics group Thales as part of a probe into corruption allegations by a former executive of the group. The raid, mid-Tuesday, was carried out by around 10 police officers with investigating judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, sources close to the inquiry said. Michel Josserand, former head of Thales’ engineering and consulting unit, accused Thales of corrupt practices during an investigation into the attribution of contracts for a tramway system under construction in the French town of Nice.”
The article talks about how Thales has a “centralised slush fund to bribe and corrupt officials to win contracts”.
Why would you ditch a locally developed solution that is already in operation in favour of one that is developed by a multi-national armaments company with a record of corruption?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2005/12/21/afx2406475.html
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Integrated ticketing – I will repeat what I said earlier – Snapper is not at present ‘integrated ticketing’ for policy and other reasons. It is more than ‘stored value’
This is because Snapper cards has memory space to store details of ‘incomplete’ or recent transactions. As long as resaonable memory space is available on the card and as long as sufficient ‘flash’ memory is available on the bus / train computer controlling the readers, the system is capable of integrated ticketing.
Consider the case of someone wanting to go from Wilton to Island Bay. When a passenger boards at Wilton, the date, time and location are recorded. If the passenger then boards a bus anywhere along the ‘Golden Mile’ for Island Bay within (say) one hour this is noted on the snapper card. When the passenger ‘tags off’ at Island Bay, the passenger would be charged 4 zones instead of 2 + 3 zones. A slightly more difficult one would be a ‘day tripper’. This would require an aggregation of all fares for zones 1-3 and as soon as it exceeds $6 would be capped at $6 for any off peak journeys.
Hence Snapper is perfectly capable of integrated ticketing, even if it is not currently implemented.
It is not surprising that an outfit called ‘Campaign for Better Transport’ (which sounds like little more than a Green Party front) would be opposed to Snapper for idelogical reasons and hence would like to think that Snapper cannot handle integrated ticketing.
I cannot help thinking that Stephen Joyce will be doing to the Transport agency what Tony Ryall is doing to Health Boards.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
garethw and others have said that Thales have lots of experience and Snapper none.
Hate to break the bad news but the Snapper system is the one used in Seoul in South Korea and is fully integrated and proved in a huge urban sprawl city with bus, train and subway.
The SK link is why I assume the online system online supports IE as Koreans are almost a pure MS Windows country so they don’t see why using anything other than IE and ActiveX is bad.
Also Thales in NZ have (or had) two staff which have focused on Defense side of the business. Experience in NZ would be zero in this system.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
DAVIDP…………Surely you are not suggesting that NZTA and ARTA have received covert incentives to favour Thales.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
backster>Surely you are not suggesting that NZTA and ARTA have received covert incentives to favour Thales
Absolutely not. But Nigel was essentially arguing in favour of Thales on the basis of reputation (time in business, stock market valuation etc). In which case it is reasonable to point out that Thales has the sort of reputation you’d expect from a French company that is used to flogging weapons to Middle Eastern governments and selling trams to corrupt French local government.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
backster I never thought about that until you mentioned it, in other words I don’t believe for one second DavidP that was DavidP’s intention.
He raised valid point’s arguing my comment regarding Infratil vs Thales though I’m still not convinced by Infratil’s stability given the lack of believability of a 20% compound growth claim.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
NIGEL……….I am a small investor, almost a foundation shareholder with Infratil. For the first ten years under Lloyd Morrison they would have maintained 20%. The present slump hasn’t helped Air traffic but Trust Power probably has made close to 20% .I won’t be dumping my shares just yet. It seems to me there is some hostility between ARTA and Infratil and ratepayer interest may be secondary to Socialist ideology.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
One thing Miki hasn’t told you is all the fees the Snapper card has that the Thales card won’t and the high operating costs that will be passed onto the consumer…
Thales is a far superior system and that isn’t even taking into the account the conflict of interest having the largest (by far) bus company in NZ operating the integrated ticketing system… Infratil is not interested in the public and public transport quite simply it’s bottom line as made plainly clear when they locked out their drivers rather than allowing them to work to rule… After having a look at Infratil’s accounts I’m very glad a don’t own a single share…
Finally John Roughan’s position is so rabidly anti-public transport and obviously influenced by solely commercial interests linking to an article of his on the issue as credible is laughable…
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I think the biggest issue with Snapper card is that it is owned by Infratil, who also operate about 70% of Auckland’s buses through NZ Bus.
Imagine if one was Howick & Eastern buses, and having to accept that your competitor was effectively managing your income. It’s like being Telecom but having Vodafone running your billing system – and then having to trust that they will feed through to you what they should be doing.
Plus, I must say that Infratil’s actions in the past haven’t exactly made them come across as “trust-worthy”. They locked out the bus drivers for simply “working to rule”. They’ve fought against the Public Transport Management Act, the very act which makes integrated ticketing and more co-ordination of Auckland’s public transport system possible.
So, should we trust NZTA and ARTA, who have chosen Thales on three occasions now as the preferred supplier; or should we trust a company that doesn’t care about Auckland public transport users (the lockout showed that), that has fought against legislation that made integrated ticketing possible (the PTMA) and which has an enormous potential conflict of interest because it runs a big chunk of the bus system?
Gee…. I think it’s a no-brainer to avoid Snapper like the plague.
More thoughts: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/10/24/integrated-ticketing-fiasco/
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“Hate to break the bad news but the Snapper system is the one used in Seoul”
It’s been mentioned a bunch here – that is NOT integrated ticketing. It is smart card payment, but not integrated ticketing. I’m sure Snapper is a good system in that regards but it doesn’t have the specific experience that Thales does.
Given the evaluation criteria I’d expect for a system like this, I can’t see a reason where Snapper would beat Thales. Again, I’m sure it’s a good system and would have been shortlisted but what specific criteria important to this tender process would it beat Thales on? Thales would certainly win on greater demonstrable experience, a more solid corporate continuity rating, and have none of the conflict issues that Infratil does with it’s ownership of buses and ferries. Snapper wins on…? Local ownership?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6450183/bus-unions-patch-up-differences/
It is good to read this united news. Infratil has an unhealthy relationship with Wellington Council, so much so that the Council invited them along with NZ Bus to ‘route plan’ integrated in a partnership and directly influencing putting the buses through Manners Mall. This kind of commercial relationship where private influence sees buses given priority over pedestrians and those pedestrians not consulted until after the decisions have already been made effecting new budget regimes is particularly serious.
Strategy and Policy Committee – Thursday 9 October 2008
7.1 Budget Prioritisation
Officers are of the view that the integrated and transformational nature of the Taranaki to Willis / Mercer Street precinct option (with buses via Manners Mall) merit giving ‘it’ priority.
The Manners Street re-routing option is consistent with the emphasis of both the bus priority and urban development LTCCP budgets.
Work is already programmed for parts of the precinct (e.g. Willis Street) and evaluation has been undertaken of the timing of these existing budgets. Officers have identified scope to re-prioritise and alter timings to enable a Manners Street re-routing option to proceed.
This concern is bolstered for Council’s conflict of interest, compromising in general commercial significance private company discretions directly exercised over the general public when sharing a share portfolio with Infratil in the Airport – as the subject for improving and prioritising the buses.
http://www.infratil.com/content/view/1936/105
Infratil acquired its 66% interest in Wellington Airport when the Crown sold its shareholding in 1998. Wellington City Council owns 34%. The Airport is 8 kilometres from the centre of Wellington City on a 110 hectare freehold site. Wellington Airport is the hub of New Zealand’s domestic aviation network and the international airport and gateway of the Capital and the surrounding regional population of approximately 500,000 people. The Airport currently hosts about 4.7 million passengers a year and 7 million visitors in total. 4.1 million of the passengers were domestic and 0.6 million international. The main airline users of Wellington are:
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
garethw>Thales would certainly win on greater demonstrable experience, a more solid corporate continuity rating, and have none of the conflict issues that Infratil does with it’s ownership of buses and ferries. Snapper wins on…? Local ownership?
Since Snapper is already up and running then it wins on risk, reduced costs because the back end infrastructure already exists, and because there would be no need to replace the system that is already in operation in Wellington. The Snapper project team is already located in NZ and working on transport projects, whereas Thales has almost no local presence (outside the military market) and would need to form a local project team. That would either be staffed by Kiwis, therefore negating to a large extent any advantage created by Thales’s experience overseas, or would be staffed by foreigners with little commitment to NZ.
I don’t understand the conflict of interest argument. Snapper is a subsidiary of Infratil, but doesn’t operate buses or trains itself. NZTA is an arm of the NZ government, which also owns KiwiRail in a similar conflict of interest. Thales’s major shareholder is the government of France. I’d prefer an operator that was owned by a NZ listed company and subject to NZ law to one owned, largely, by the government of France and subject to French law. I can’t believe that having our transport policies subject to the veto of the French government is a good thing, no matter how you look at it.
Basically, this whole tender process is a giant mess. It creates a de facto e-cash system for NZ. Not as part of a planned process but as a byproduct of an Auckland transport project. Auckland Regional Council shouldn’t be deciding NZ’s e-cash strategy. NZTA shouldn’t be deciding NZ’s e-cash strategy. This is typical of the short term unintegrated unplanned approach to infrastructure that Labour gifted to National. I’d scrap the whole thing, and replace it with…
An approach similar to that which operates with EFTPOS. People are able to choose their EFTPOS card supplier competitively, but use that card to purchase goods and services from any vendor. For stage one: We need to plan a similar e-cash strategy which would mandate a common e-cash card standard. Since Snapper is already deployed and in use, then we might as well settle for the same Infineon standard that they have used for their cards. People would be able to “purchase” e-cash cards from any standards-complaint local supplier. Those suppliers would integrate their back end systems in a similar way to how the banks integrate their EFTPOS back ends, so that an e-cash card issued by any supplier could be used to purchase goods and services from any retailer. This strategy avoids giving a monopoly to any e-cash vendor, whether Thales or Snapper. It’s flexible and has all the normal benefits associated with competition.
For stage two: We would then implement integrated ticketing. All public transport operators would allow customers to check on and off public transport using any standards-compliant e-cash card. This might involve either a single or multiple competing integrated ticketing back end systems, which would then integrate with the e-cash back ends.
We’re going to be stuck with what ever decision is made for the next 50 years. I’d rather delay the process for another year and get it right, rather than rely on a Labour Government mess.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
There was a really good comments debate on this issue between jarbury and Tim Brown of infratil on Red Alert back in July. A good example of two people with good knowledge but different views slugging it out in an informed manner – you need to go a bit down the comments to get into it. :-http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/25/arta-falls-for-french-kiss-incis-ii/
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Jeremy Harris – I have thought about these Snapper fees, and figured that percentage wise they are not worth worrying about.
The fees I considered are:
$15 up front cost of a Snapper card. This would be the cost plus retailer’s markup. It would seem fair enough so users are responsible for cost of replacement if lost and so visitors and tourists do not buy them for a brief period of use.
$0.25 recharge fee. This would go to the retailer who feeds the card. It provides a slight inducemet to feed card less frequently but with larger helpings.
A 2 zone commuter would Snapper about $1200 per year. If recharged twice a month, the charges would be $20 for the year, about 2% and less still if the card is used for several yeard before being lost. This is not large although I admit it is psychologically irritating.
Even if the Auckland authorities do not charge up front for their card initally, they probably soon will otherwise it will be an excessive drain on revenue. The recharge fee could be ‘inverted’ into a slight discount for giving a Thales card a big ‘feed’ less often.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
@Davidp, Snapper has low set up costs because it is a rip of the Seoul system but has very high operating costs due to their ongoing involvement, they pass on the initial cost to buy ($10) and charge (CHARGE..!) 25c to top up…
The main reason to introduce an integrated ticket is to allow ease of transfer and to stop punishing users who are doing something positive for the city, travelling further on public transport, both of the above charges charge people (indirectly) for transfers something that is defeatist of the purpose and is simply to line Infratil’s pockets for ever, NZTA and ARTA are subsidising this in probably the most effective subsidy you can make for public transport…
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Firstly, thanks for the Snapper support – it’s much appreciated by the team at Snapper as we keep rolling out more services. Always interested in new ideas for how we might use Snapper better.
In response to other points
@Jeremy Harris
Jeremy – the costs are pretty clear (as mentioned above by other commentators)
$10 for the card
25 cents for a reload at a retailer (of which 20 cents goes to the retailer)
Internet reloads are free
For that you get
20% off cash prices for public transport
Ability to board multiple people on one card
Transfers
Ability to use your money in other retailers
Ability to hotlist your card to protect your cash should you lose it
I could go on….
The thing that really tells the story is the numbers. We’re in the high 90,000′s in terms of card holders. That’s about a third of the Wellington population. Usage is growing at 4-5% per month. In just over a year. With the slimmest marketing budget in NZ. Basically people are voting with their wallets.
What’s more it still hasn’t cost the ratepayer anything and there is no risk borne by them. Can’t see why that would be a bad thing.
@Jarbury
I think your focus on Infratil is clouding your judgement somewhat.
Interestingly Vodafone and Telecom undertake billing for each other – it’s pretty standard practice for Telcos – but that’s not my point…
Snapper is a limited liability company. It has its own board, management, offices and systems that are independent of NZBUS. Snapper is the entity that manages the payments system, Infratil provides governance. The two entities and functions are very different.
That’s why competing services to NZBUS are *approaching* Snapper to undertake this function- like taxis and ferries. It’s why we can provide payment services to competing retailers like Subway and Wishbone. It’s pretty simple really
- the companies have assessed Snapper
- they trust the system
- they have protection and remedies if we don’t deliver.
On top of that our model – transaction based – provides and incentive to both operators and Snapper to *increase* the use of public transport. If the operators don’t get paid then Snapper doesn’t get paid.
Finally the whole strategy that is suggested by NZTA (which we support) is that operators will always have the choice of vendor. That’s what a national standard will allow for. If an operator doesn’t want to join, they simply don’t have to.
@garethw
I’m confused – a single T-Money card in Seoul can be used across all buses, trains, taxis. Transfer discounts are applied across all modes. A traveller can choose the mode of transport that suits them and get the right price, everytime. How is that not integrated ticketing?
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Jeremy Harris>Snapper has low set up costs because it is a rip of the Seoul system
Re-use of technology is a good thing. Surely. It is one of the reasons the Thales supporters are giving in favour of picking Thales. Bespoke development almost always ends up costing a fortune. Snapper have a team in place which has taken the Korean package and implemented it successfully in NZ. Thales cannot claim the same thing. Do they have any NZ transport reference sites at all, for any of their transport products?
The fees you list don’t look unreasonable. I think my Oyster card cost me 10 quid or so. An e-cash (or e-cash only for public transport, if you prefer) card is just another payment option. My Visa card incurs an annual fee. My bank debits me a small amount each month for internet banking. A similar fee would finance the e-cash system, rather than requiring it to be paid for out of rates.
Trevor M>There was a really good comments debate on this issue between jarbury and Tim Brown of infratil on Red Alert back in July.
Thanks for the link, Trevor. Essentially jarbury’s argument was that he didn’t like Infratil, because Infratil doesn’t agree with jarbury’s vision for public transport. Therefore jarbury will oppose Infratil involvement in any infrastructure project, and will invent spurious reasons to do so. The conflict of interest excuse is particularly bogus, as Trevor and several other commenters point out, but jarbury restates it up several times rather than attempt to argue its merits. I score the exchange 1-0 to Tim Brown… but it isn’t even close.
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The thing I don’t get as well is why it has to be Thales OR Snapper. Surely if national standards are set up then Snapper could even run their cards in Auckland along with Thales’s cards, right? If we compare to EFTPOS, then it doesn’t matter whether my card is a BNZ or an ASB, I can still use it at each machine. Theoretically Thales and Snapper could co-exist quite happily.
DavidP, I think I have some quite justified reasons for being suspicious of Infratil’s actions, which I listed above. However, in the spirit of fairness I will offer some reasons why Snapper might be a good choice:
1) They are more likely to have an Auckland system complete for the Rugby World Cup.
2) They might be cheaper.
3) They’re an New Zealand based company, which is good.
Now if only Infratil would stop nagging Steven Joyce to repeal the Public Transport Management Act……
Vote:November 9th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Jarbury…
Your multi-vendor-in-competition idea is pretty much what I proposed a couple of hours ago. It means that government would be a setter of standards and a regulator, rather than an operator of e-cash (or e-cash for transport only) systems and that is, IMHO, a good thing. But so far, it is running 2:1 against in the karma department.
However I’m still not in favour of blacklisting vendors from government tenders if they oppose government policy. That is bad on so many levels… it’s a sort of Putin approach to government procurement.
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Ha ha, in place for the RWC.
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 7:38 am
I’m a believer in defence in depth. I wonder rather idly — not knowing anywhere near as much as Peter Gutmann or other experts on smart cards — about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the back-end auditing processes and red-flagging processes of the Thales and Snapper systems. When (and I believe it’s only a question of when, not if) the frontline security of a smart card system becomes weak enough that cloning and modding attacks become feasible for tens of dollars per card, then the previously-prepared plan must be launched for shifting off the old system (remember the Yellow Bus and the old Telecom cards?) and onto some new system. During the transition period, and I think ideally all through the lifetime of the smartcard system, there’d be random audits of a single card’s transaction history to give assurance that it hasn’t been cloned or had its value increased illegitimately. When auditing a card, you’d want an audit records that isarn’t reliant on the internal security systems of the card itself; and when auditing your back-end systems, you’d look for discrepancies with the card histories they are (presumably) recording accurately. It seems to me that these audits would be much more difficult and expensive in a system where there is a greater diversity, and less centralised control over, the devices (e.g. at small businesses, at home in a recharge-via-internet device?) who can legitimately adjust the value of a card. All of this is to say that I won’t second-guess the folks who do the hard-yards of a careful security and economic analysis on the competing proposals. Becuase I don’t expect them to publish their reports (which will contain very sensitive information, of great commercial value and also of value to a prospective hacker) that these experts are, to the best of their ability, considering such things as a contract that carefully assigns liability for catastrophic security failures (as may occur if some cryptogeek develops an unexpectedly-fast attack on 3DES within the next decade, and then someone else subverts the secondary defences of a smartcard system relying on it), ongoing audit costs, and estimated costs of shifting a new system sometime in the next few decades.
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Why are these things always named after sea creatures: Oyster, Snapper, Octopus?
As for the use of the Snapper system for small purchases – seems logical if it leads to more non-transport derived income for the system i.e. if people maintain higher balances then there’s more interest income and the system needs less funding from the taxpayer and/or end user (except their lost potential interest income).
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
@miki
Interent reloads are not free, you first have to buy a special adapter costing $25 dollars, meaning 100 uses are required before it’s “free”…
All the advantages you claim can and most likely will be introduced on a Thales system, to be perfectly honest they’ve introduced a hundred cards around the world and have more experience integrating uses, one of the reasons your tender has lost three times…
By charging $10 for the card and 25c for a top up you are indirectly discouraging people to transfer and transferring is a hassle, making it easy is the main reason behind an integrated card, we shouldn’t punish people for doing this as it it something we want them to do – travel further by public transport, you don’t really want people using other companies services because they might like them better and stay with them in future, understandable but not really that good for Auckland’s public transport (the bus lockout showed how concerned Infratil is about that eh..?) the top up fees are about lining your pockets forever going forward…
The NZTA and ARTA are going to subsidise the cards and their top ups, it is probably the best public transport subsidy we can make… Because the Thales system is less likely to need ongoing overseas involvement (unlike your system) it will have lower operating costs…
You say people are voting with their wallets what evidence do you have people won’t use a Thales card in greater numbers than yours, last time I checked people tend to use a better product more, could this be why you’re trying so hard to kill it..?
For all the reasons above, your tender has been beaten three times, when you add in the potential conflict of interest and Infratil’s disdain for Auckland during the bus lockout, I suggest you give up with this pathetic lobbying effort because if this decision is overturned I and others are going to raise 7 kinds of holy hell at moneying influencing democratic (and correct I might add) decisions…
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 11:17 am
mikiszikszai – is the amount earned off Snapper, where passengers do not snap off calculated as an independent figure? Is the user charged the full fare? If calculated as an independent figure are those funds used for any one specific function or purpose?
Respectfully,
Vote:Benjamin Easton
LAOS New Zealand
November 10th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@Jeremy
The last time I looked, New Zealand was a democracy. That means individuals have a right to express themselves. It’s called free speech. When there are dissenting views, it’s called debate. Debate is healthy in a democratic society. I’ll continue to express myself regardless of your threats.
You might note that I have only talked about Snapper in this debate, and haven’t compared Snapper to Thales or any other provider.It’s a bit hard for anyone to do that when they are not active in the NZ market with a product.
Some points about your comments
1. Check out Oyster, Octopus and the OV chipkaart in the Netherlands. Closer to home, Brisbane and Perth. The authorities in these jurisdictions charge for the card. Some require a minimum deposit as well. The OV chipkaart has a 7.50 euro cost and a 10 euro replacement charge. $10 NZD is a cost that we find customers willing to pay once they weigh up the benefits.
2. Who knows what NZTA and ARTA will in fact subsidise? They started off with full subsidies of all equipment. Our latest advice is that PT operators will now have to fund their own equipment and that NZTA are directly promoting a strategy that will lead to a range of card issuers who will want to charge for cards. Interestingly ECAN have given away cards in Christchurch. They have given away 400,000 of them. Less than 20% are in active use. That’s a whole heap of money that rate-payers have spent that they simply don’t need to – and could have been used to provide more frequent services instead.
3. In terms of people voting with their wallets – at its peak there were about 25,000 10 trip card holders in Wellington at any one time. We have almost 4 times that number who are able to use public transport on a casual basis everyday. They buy the card, see the benefits and use the system. That’s voting with your wallet.
Miki
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am
@Benjamin
When a customer does not tag off, they are charged full fare to the end of the line. This money (as with all the fares) goes to the PT operator where the penalty was incurred.
If the penalty was incurred as a result of a faulty card or equipment, we refund it to the customer.
Hope that helps.
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Thank you for the reply mikiszikszai, although you haven’t answered it in full. I am asking if you calculate the amount that is deducted for your customers failing to tag off into an independent figure. This is to ask if you know exactly how much. I haven’t asked you how much as it is quite obviously a sensitive figure but do feel it is reasonable to know if that amount is calculated.
Additionally I have some concern with the marketing where the ‘cashless society’ would appear to be a focus in the strategy. I have a colleague making a submission today with the Wellington City Council on the revocation of Manners Mall and he has a concern directed that the ticketing system may become compulsory for bus use – is this a regime that has been considered at all by your company?
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@Benjamin / Political Busker
Misunderstood the question – yes the amount is calculated separately.
It’s not our call to determine whether Snapper is compulsory for bus use. Personally, I am all in favour of choice. People will choose whether to use cash, tokens, smartcards or beads and fine cloth for transactions – just as they have since civilisations started springing up in Mesopotamia.
Snapper’s challenge is simple – be the best we can be, design for customers, and people will make that choice everyday.
Miki
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Miki
Thank you again. What measures or provisions are in place to advise the customer prior to purchasing the Snapper card that the card will be deducted a full fare if the customer does not tag off? In the research of the card, where there is an audio facility in place that activates relative to the amount on the card, if low, did Snapper establish whether or not this audio facility was in breach of privacy?
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@Miki, I take it from your lack of reply or answer to my question, that the thread is over. Yet I would like to register my concern that if you remove money from someone’s card without gaining their permission first, by way of some kind of ‘waiver’ in authority, then taking the full fare is an act of theft.
Additionally, and I do apologise for using a word that would appear out of context as ‘independent’ and not as you corrected ‘separately’, but I think I used it correctly as being an independent fund. This means in my view that it is money that should in some sense be paid back. I realise from your answer that the PT gains the return – but do not believe that this factor would exempt Snapper from being accomplice and the principal in such an act of theft.
Respectfully,
Vote:Benjamin Easton
LAOS New Zealand.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@Benjamin
Sorry – been in a Board Meeting this afternoon. We make available our T’s and C’s online and at point of sale in the user guide that comes with every Snapper card. They can be checked by the customer prior to purchase as the packages are not in fact sealed. We have spent a lot of time with the Privacy Commissioner and the Commerce Commission making sure we are packaging and communicating our services appropriately.
We’d respectfully disagree that the act of charging a Penalty fare is an act of theft.
I like the way your brain works though!
Miki
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@miki, you said:
“The last time I looked, New Zealand was a democracy. That means individuals have a right to express themselves. It’s called free speech. When there are dissenting views, it’s called debate. Debate is healthy in a democratic society. I’ll continue to express myself regardless of your threats.”
I have no problem with you expressing your opinions on this blog, someone such as myself is very fond of Section 14 of the Bill of Rights what I do have a problem with is you and your company lobbying politicans you’re company has given MONEY to, to try and overturn a DEMOCRATIC decision, made three times now…
I’d also appreciate it if you’d read my posts I used the words “I suggest” I fail to see how that is a threat…
On points 1 and 2 a little birdie has told me there will be an ongoing $6.5 million dollar subsidy, far superior in quality to the operating subsidies about 10 times that paid to your sister company NZ Bus, who get to keep all the profits off commercial routes while being subsidised for non-commercial ones…
On point 3 you’ve failed again to show why people won’t vote with their wallets for the superior Thales system, I guess because there is no answer for that…
Vote:November 10th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@Miki,
thank you for the unexpected compliment. I was disappointed that a reply was not forthcoming at the regularity you established for my view, against a custom of those officials taken to task in blog forum, or through other email missive distribution.
I am in judicial review proceedings with WCC about putting buses through Manners Mall. This is now with the Supreme Court. I am under a Court order not to publish, as I would otherwise do, those documents I file in the proceedings. The information higher in the thread is relative to the application but not the SC document. It identifies that there is proof that the decision on Manners Mall is corrupt as predetermined from a SPC October 08 meeting; with the present consultative procedure a sham; the communication between Council and the ordinary public shameful and for the disrespect of this public (wallet) generally worthy of a very significant response from that public. A Council budget was written around a broadly as integrated parties’ approved agreement, prior to formal or statutory consultation (retrospectively).
I am in several (miscellaneous) Court proceedings with others planned and still to be filed. I elected not to include the WCC integrated parties into the proceedings because there was more work in coordinating arguments against them than I could handle within the period necessary to maintain a credible prosecution against the WCC. This does not mean that there was no case to answer, but more that I have had little time to research the relationships between public and private interests (Infratil/NZ Bus) & (now) Snapper. I am, however, interested in stopping theft. I appreciate your reply and recognise that the onus is on me by claim, to prove theft, so issue no exception for or from any of your present commentary.
The matter here I question, that is of law in the proceedings, is whether or not any investment in Snapper has been specifically focused at marketing on the Golden Mile?
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
@Jeremy
Snapper has not made any political donations. Period. You’ll also note that the funding proposed by NZTA is conditional. And that the NZTA is quite clear there is room for the private sector in this industry.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/newsroom/info/441/index.html
As for your point regarding comparison with Thales it can’t be answered for the simple reason they do not have a system in place in NZ.We should be able to make that comparison sometime in 2012 from what I understand.
@Benjamin
Looks like you are after a range of information. Drop me a line on miki.szikszai@snapper.co.nz and we can get what we can to you
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Nice qualifier, Snapper… Care to make the same statement regarding Snapper parent and sister comapnies..?
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@Jeremy
I’m employed by Snapper. That is the entity that I have responsibility for. Frankly I just don’t know about any other company’s political donations.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
That’s a yes…
Vote:December 5th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I’ve used Snapper for the past year and it’s a monumental pain in the behind. There is no system allowing transfer payments between buses (eg. recognising a trip in one direction, like a 2-hour ticket), you actually have to pay 25 cents to top up your stored value (what’s with that?), it can be just as slow as the old payment system as people block the bus entrance trying to wave their card in front of the machine or simply by one person needing to pay, and the discount was reduced from 25 to 20 percent not long after it was introduced.
I suspect the discount will decline again as it is now a captive market (other forms of tickets have been phased out). It’s a crap system and Infratil are a pretty useless company. Keep them out of Auckland.
Mr Szikszai – please leave Auckland alone. Your company has failed in the tendering process – TWICE. Now leave it be and go waste money on a fifth rate airport in Europe.
Vote: