2026-09-19T21:55:50Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/403802022-01-31T19:42:35Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
George Kocur and Nigel H.M. Wilson.
Dorfman, Matthew James
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology and Policy Program.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
Technology and Policy Program
2008-02-27T22:17:31Z
2008-02-27T22:17:31Z
2007
2007
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/40380
191100632
Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 117-120).
This thesis assesses fare payment technologies for Transport for London in 2015. Based on a survey of technical literature, feasible payments technologies in 2015 include current smartcard technology, contactless bankcards and near-field communication (NFC) mobile phones. Five fare payment options based on these three technologies are proposed. Options 1-3 use contactless bankcards and NFC phones as the fare medium. Option 1 requires tap-in only and uses flat fares; it is a standard retail transaction. Option 2 is like Option 1 but adds a rebate program to approximate the effects of passes and transfer discounts. Option 3 requires users to tap-in and tap-out, and supports traditional transit fares. Option 4 continues the current use of a proprietary smartcard to implement traditional transit fare structures. Option 5 uses a vehicle-based smartcard reader that does not require barriers or fareboxes; it supports traditional transit fare structures and path- and service-based pricing. The five options are evaluated on four dimensions: cost, demand, equity, and fare policy. Options 1-3 have significantly lower costs due to the use of commercial payment media. Option 4's costs are similar to current costs.
(cont.) Option 5 is significantly more expensive and offers few benefits for London. To analyze demand, an incremental logit demand model was created. It shows that under conservative assumptions about passenger behavior, option 1 generates a moderate loss in revenue and ridership, while under more generous assumptions, a moderate gain occurs. Options 2 through 5 result in small changes in ridership or revenue. All five options maintain or potentially improve passenger equity, especially if passes requiring up-front payment are de-emphasized, allowing lower income travelers to obtain the best fares. Options 2 and 3 offer the greatest opportunity for customer service improvement and cost savings. Option 1 has a higher demand risk and decreased fare policy flexibility. Option 4 has limited potential for cost saving or revenue increase, and Option 5 is prohibitively expensive. Peak pricing is also investigated, and is shown to offer some benefits in creating available capacity.
by Matthew Dorfman.
S.M.
120 p.
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Technology and Policy Program.
Future contactless payment options for transport for London : demand, cost, equity, and fair policy implications
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="5db470a0-4c61-4be8-81c9-c7a30c3243d2">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Future contactless payment options for transport for London : demand, cost, equity, and fair policy implications</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2007</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Dorfman, Matthew James</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Technology and Policy Program.</Keyword>
<Abstract>This thesis assesses fare payment technologies for Transport for London in 2015. Based on a survey of technical literature, feasible payments technologies in 2015 include current smartcard technology, contactless bankcards and near-field communication (NFC) mobile phones. Five fare payment options based on these three technologies are proposed. Options 1-3 use contactless bankcards and NFC phones as the fare medium. Option 1 requires tap-in only and uses flat fares; it is a standard retail transaction. Option 2 is like Option 1 but adds a rebate program to approximate the effects of passes and transfer discounts. Option 3 requires users to tap-in and tap-out, and supports traditional transit fares. Option 4 continues the current use of a proprietary smartcard to implement traditional transit fare structures. Option 5 uses a vehicle-based smartcard reader that does not require barriers or fareboxes; it supports traditional transit fare structures and path- and service-based pricing. The five options are evaluated on four dimensions: cost, demand, equity, and fare policy. Options 1-3 have significantly lower costs due to the use of commercial payment media. Option 4's costs are similar to current costs.</Abstract>
<Abstract>(cont.) Option 5 is significantly more expensive and offers few benefits for London. To analyze demand, an incremental logit demand model was created. It shows that under conservative assumptions about passenger behavior, option 1 generates a moderate loss in revenue and ridership, while under more generous assumptions, a moderate gain occurs. Options 2 through 5 result in small changes in ridership or revenue. All five options maintain or potentially improve passenger equity, especially if passes requiring up-front payment are de-emphasized, allowing lower income travelers to obtain the best fares. Options 2 and 3 offer the greatest opportunity for customer service improvement and cost savings. Option 1 has a higher demand risk and decreased fare policy flexibility. Option 4 has limited potential for cost saving or revenue increase, and Option 5 is prohibitively expensive. Peak pricing is also investigated, and is shown to offer some benefits in creating available capacity.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>