Date: November 15, 2005
From: Technology Committee
To: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
C: Bob Avery, Director of Information Technology
Re: Smart Cards and Parking Technology
This report is prepared in response to the Town Council's referral of Item #5g from the February 14, 2005, Business Meeting, "Report on Smart Cards".
The Technology Committee has discussed this issue and received reports thereon during its June, July and September regular meetings, which are attached for reference.
In summary, the Technology Committee believes that, while there exist a variety of methods and equipment which may be employed to increase the efficiency and convenience of paying for Town-managed parking, there is neither an economic justification nor a groundswell imperative in support of implementing a "smart card" payment system at this time. Additionally, we support the content, conclusions and recommendation of the Town Manager's February 14, 2005, report on this subject.
At the same time, the Committee recognizes that there are a number of challenges faced by the Town regarding the supply, availability, cost, convenience, enforcement and general operation of Town-managed parking, many of which can be addressed in part by implementing various technology-based solutions.
In the course of our discussions on this issue, we have found that there appears historically to have been a "piecemeal" approach to acquisition of parking equipment by the Town, and that there appear to be no clear requirements emphasizing efficiency and convenience to apply to future acquisitions of such equipment. This results in an assortment of meters and payment systems which lack the necessary communication capability and will be difficult to integrate or consolidate into a unified parking payment/management/enforcement system in the future.
It has also become clear to the Committee that appropriate technologies are available to support any combination of payment methods the Town may wish to allow - coin, currency (including change returned), credit/debit card, smart card, stored value card, RFID (ala EZ-Pass), Internet (PayPal, e.g.), etc. - provided the Town can provide or arrange for the provision of the necessary electrical power and communication facilities.
In response to specific comments by Council Member Strom during the February 14 Council Meeting, we have found no reason to believe that "it would be easy to convert our parking meters to accept smart cards", as they are primarily mechanical devices and lack the necessary electronics to read and process, and the communications capability required to validate such cards.
Mr. Strom also suggested that the Town "draw other parties in and have a broader discussion about the issue". The Committee supports this idea and recommends that the Town convene a Parking Task Force of citizens, with representation from the Transportation Board, the Technology Committee, Historic District, Planning Board, Downtown Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, UNC and other interested parties for the purpose of identifying the overall parking challenges the Town faces and exploring the multitude of policy, management and technology solutions.
Respectfully,
Town of Chapel Hill Technology Committee
Attachments:
September 20, 2005, report to Technology Committee
July 19, 2005, report to Technology Committee
June 21, 2005, Technology Committee Meeting Minutes (excerpt)
February 14, 2005, Town Council Meeting Minutes (Excerpt)
Date: September 20, 2005
From: Steve Irving
To: Technology Committee
Re: Smart Cards and Houston Parking Test
This report is a follow up on the information I presented previously regarding a parking payment test conducted in Houston earlier this year, and in response to Council's referral of Item #5g from it's February 14, 2005, meeting to the TC for comment. This referral and the April 11, 2005, article from the "Houston Chronicle" describing the test are attached for your reference.
On July 15, following completion of the Houston test, I discussed this with Hoan Le, who directed the survey of users of the test payment systems for the Houston Downtown Management District. Mr. Le conveyed the following to me in our discussion:
All of the payment systems were of the "pay station" type, where the user pays at a central location, obtains a payment receipt, returns to the vehicle and places the payment receipt on the dashboard.
The various pay stations serviced between four and eight parking spaces each, meaning that the maximum walk from vehicle to pay station was no more than approximately 4 parking spaces (100 feet).
The pay stations tested were powered by a self-contained battery and solar recharge system, eliminating the need to provide AC power at street side.
The pay stations tested all accepted coin and credit cards, some accepted currency (some of those gave change), and none of them accepted debit cards or "smart cards".
Some consideration was give to accepting a stored value card (similar to a smart card) currently issued by and in regular use for the Houston Transit system (bus, shuttle and light rail), but this payment method was not included in the test.
The pay stations communicated over an ad hoc wi-fi network, which allowed for real-time credit card processing and communication of management information (status, statistics, errors, etc.).
The ad hoc wi-fi network was established for the purpose of this test in the courthouse vicinity and dismantled following the test.
Users were generally favorable when asked about the convenience of using the new payment methods (regular meters accept coin only).
No additional payment methods were suggested by the users.
Users were generally unfavorable regarding the appearance of the pay stations, citing them as bulky and/or ugly. (The bulk is necessitated by a large surface area required to support the solar recharge panel.)
Houston has experienced many problems with parking management in the past few years, and the current mayor has promised to improved access, convenience and equity of enforcement.
As to the Council's request for comments from the TC, I note the following:
The smart card issue has repeatedly been proposed by Council, analyzed by the Manager and found to be costly. Please see the January 12, 2004, December 6, 2004, and February 14, 2005, reports.
Anecdotally, I detect no apparent groundswell of opinion in support of smart cards as a payment method for parking in the Town. Perhaps this is driven by a desire of those carrying a UNC One Card to use it in Town as they do on campus, but no background information to that effect has been provided to the TC.
The Town has implemented an assortment of meters, pay stations and attended booths, as well as an assortment of rates, times, limits and policies regarding parking. Some background information on this topic was provided by Parking Services personnel at our June regular meeting.
Anecdotally, I have observed that parking downtown is universally cited as a reason to avoid the area. I have heard both lack of capacity and lack of proximity, and well as inconvenience of payment referenced in this regard.
Clearly, the regulated parking areas downtown could benefit from uniform policies, and consistent and compatible equipment, as well as a broader range of payment options. I see little value (and much expense) in adding smart cards to the payment mix as a stand alone issue.
Ultimately, I do not believe that this is a technology issue, although there will certainly be technology components in any viable solution.
I suggest that the TC include in its report a recommendation that the Manager and Council convene a task force of citizens, with representation from the Transportation Board, the Technology Committee, Historic District, Planning Board, DEDC, Chamber of Commerce, UNC and other interested parties for the purpose of identifying the overall parking challenges the Town faces and exploring the multitude of solutions.
From: Amy Harvey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:38 PM
To: Alan Rimer; Amy Harvey; Aris Buinevicius; B Avery; Brandon Perkins;
Donald Shaw; Evelyn Daniel; Gregg Gerdau; Joel Dunn; Karim Kheireddine; Ralph
Beisner; Roscoe Reeve; Steve Irving; Uzoma Nwasu; William Groves
Subject: 2-14-05 Meeting Follow-up - Smart Cards
Good Afternoon
The Council at its 2-14-05 meeting took the following action on an issue for which your board made a recommendation or has an interest:
· Referred Item #5g (http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/ca050217/5g-Report%20on%20Smart%20Cards.htm) to the Technology Committee for comment.
· Referred Item #14a(1) (separate email) to All boards and commissions.
Please contact your board’s staff liaison for additional information on this issue.
Sincerely,
Amy T. Harvey
Assistant Clerk
Town Clerk's Office
306 North Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-968-2743
919-967-8406 fax
AGENDA #5g
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Smart Cards
DATE: February 14, 2005
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on disposable Smart Cards as a supplement to the information on reusable Smart Cards presented at the December 6, 2004 business meeting. In an effort to explore the available alternatives to using cash to pay for parking, we have included information on credit card payment methods for parking.
BACKGROUND
Smart Cards are similar to debit cards, carry magnetically encoded data, and can be used to purchase parking time from specially designed parking meters and pay stations.
At the January 12, 2004 business meeting, the Council received a staff report regarding the use of Smart Cards. The Council asked that we consider the use of Smart Cards and determine whether making them available might be a service valued by parking customers. We also were asked to determine the costs of providing Smart Cards and the potential effect on parking system revenues. We prepared a report on a reusable Smart Card program for December 6, 2004. This memorandum reviews the material in the December 6, 2004 report and expands the discussion to include the possible use of a disposable Smart Card program.
DISCUSSION
How a Smart Card Program Works
A Smart Card Program would require that customers purchase either a disposable or a reusable card. Reusable cards could be purchased at a Smart Card dispenser or at a staffed location. Smart Card dispensers accept cash only and various dollar amounts could be purchased and credited on a Smart Card. Each time when parked at an on-street meter, customers could insert the card and time would be subtracted from the Smart Card in increments up to the maximum amount allowed. Whenever users wanted to buy additional time on Smart Cards, they would need to return to a Smart Card dispenser. Disposable cards could only be purchased at a staffed location and could be discarded when the card ceased to have value.
Alternative Service Delivery Using Credit Cards
The objective of a Smart Card is to allow patrons to use parking facilities without carrying cash. We have installed pay stations at Lot 5 that will accept credit cards, but not Smart Cards that are compatible with Town meters. Unfortunately, because there are different proprietary systems for parking meters, automated parking pay stations, and attended lot parking, each system would use a different Smart Card. The vendor that we use for meters also provides pay stations; however, their pay stations could not give back change for overpayments. When we selected the pay stations for Lot 5, we used a different vendor from the one we have used for meters because we felt that the inability to provide change would offer an unsatisfactory level of service.
As an alternative to Smart Cards, we have considered expanding our program allowing the use of credit card payments for parking at attended lots and on-street in addition to allowing credit cards at Lot 5. Allowing the use of credit card payments would require additional costs above the base budget for next year. The costs of this alternative are discussed below.
Credit cards cannot be used for meters; however, they can be used in on-street pay stations. The base cost of an on-street pay station that could cover eight parking places is approximately $10,000. In order to replace all the Town meters, we would need 25 on-street pay stations. The total cost of on-street pay stations is affected by several factors in addition to the actual cost of the station, including installation costs and training ($8,000). (Typically vendors show staff how to do a few installations, and staff do the remaining installations.) The costs that we have included assume the use of solar units. These units do not require electricity and they cannot give change or accept bills. We could investigate the cost of supplying electricity to 25 on-street pay stations. With electricity the units could accept bills for payment, but still would be unable to give change.
On-street pay stations would require us to remove the current meters. Town staff could remove the actual meters from the poles. While the meter poles could be left up, we believe that they would be unsightly. We could cut off the poles at the base, but a small piece would be left above the surface of the sidewalk, and that piece could be a tripping hazard. Alternatively, we could remove the poles and repair the sidewalk. We estimate the cost of repairing the sidewalks for the Town’s 90 meter poles to be approximately $6,000. The total cost to change on-street meters to pay stations would be approximately $264,500.
Costs of Smart Card and Credit Card Programs for Parking
The cost of disposable and reusable Smart Cards for parking meters is determined by our meter vendor, because the meters use proprietary software. The vendor uses a pricing system in which the costs of the individual cards decreases as the quantity of cards purchased at a single time increases. However, the vendor uses the same pricing formula for reusable cards and for disposable cards, so there is no price reduction for disposable cards.
A generic card would cost approximately $5 per card if we purchase of 2,000 to 5,000 at one time. The smallest quantity that could be ordered is 500 cards, for a cost of almost $10 per card. If we wanted a logo or other graphics on the card, there would be a one-time set-up fee of $500 for the graphics and the price per card would increase to just over $7 per card for 2,000 to 5,000 cards (almost $12 per card for the smallest quantity).
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Disposable Cards
Disposable cards come in preloaded denominations, for example $10 and $20. The primary advantages of disposable cards are that there are no additional costs for dispensing machines and no requirement for collecting and distributing cash to the machines. We would still need to provide signage ($2,000) and promotion ($1,000) in the first year.
2. Reusable Cards
In order to make a reusable Smart Card Program work, we believe that we would need at least two on-street, self-serve Smart Card Dispensers and one attended Smart Card Dispenser for the Wallace Deck. We believe that we would need to make an initial cash outlay of approximately $33,000 for the first year of the program including:
|
Item |
Cost |
|
2 On-Street Self-Serve Smart Card Dispensers (2 x $8,000) |
$16,000 |
|
Attended Card Dispensing Machine for Wallace Deck |
2,000 |
|
Meter conversion cost |
650 |
Cost of 2,000 generic rechargeable cards |
10,300 |
|
Signage |
2,000 |
|
First year marketing and promotion |
1,000 |
|
Supplies and maintenance costs (6 months) |
500 |
|
Banking and accounting costs (6 months) |
500 |
|
Total First-Year Costs |
$32,950 |
In order to use the same Smart Card Program with parking meters and our automated pay stations, we would have to replace our current pay stations at an additional cost of $50,000 or replace our parking meters with on-street multi-space parking pay stations at a cost of approximately $265,000.
We anticipate that on-going annual costs of a reusable Smart Card Program would be approximately $3,000. There would be an additional cost of $10,300 each time that we needed to order more cards.
As an alternative to Smart Cards, we could consider expanding the ability to use credit cards at the attended lots. We could also consider replacing our parking meters with on-street multi-space parking pay stations at a cost of approximately $230,000.
We have summarized the alternative program costs below:
|
Smart Cards
|
||
|
Description |
Level of Service |
Cost |
|
Generic Disposable Smart Cards (500) |
Usable in meters only |
Cards - $4,790 Meter conversion - 650 Signage – 2,000 Marketing – 1,000 Total - $8,440
|
|
Disposable Smart Cards with logo (500) |
Usable in meters only |
Cards - $6,290 Meter conversion - 650 Signage – 2,000 Marketing – 1,000 Total - $9,940
|
|
Generic Reusable Smart Cards (2,000) |
Usable in meters only |
Per above $32,960 |
|
Pay Stations
|
||
|
Description |
Level of Service |
Cost |
|
Replacement of all meters with pay stations for Smart Cards (25 stations x $10,000 per station) |
In combination with a Smart Card program above, would allow use of Smart Cards for on-street parking and for unattended lots. (Does not accept bills or give change). |
Pay stations -$250,000 Installation/training -7,500 Sidewalk repair - 6,000 Software, annual fee - 1,000 Total - $264,500 |
|
Replacement of all meters with pay stations for credit cards ($25 stations x $10,000 per station) |
Would allow the use of credit cards for on-street parking. (Does not accept bills or give change). |
Pay stations -$250,000 Installation/training -7,500 Sidewalk repair - 6,000 Software, annual fee - 1,000 Total - $264,500 |
|
Replacement of 2 current pay stations in Lot 5 with pay stations that are compatible with our meters. |
Would allow the use of the same Smart Cards at pay stations and current meters. Unlike our current pay stations, would not be able to give change back. |
Pay stations - $40,000 Communications 2,500 Installation - 7,500 Total $50,000 |
|
Attended Lots
|
||
|
Description |
Level of Service |
Cost |
|
Modify attended lots to accept credit cards |
Would allow the use of credit cards at attended lots |
Cost of upgrade - $10,050 Installation – 500 Annual phone service 1,450 Total - $12,000 |
Revenues from a Smart Card Program
We do not anticipate that the use of a Smart Card Program or the ability to use credit cards for on-street parking or at attended lots would significantly increase the use of Town parking. As a result, we do not anticipate that the availability of Smart Cards or credit cards would increase parking revenues. Both types of cards offer an alternative method of payment and could be seen as a service, but would not increase revenue, in our opinion.
CONCLUSION
Because net revenues from on-street parking are transferred to the General Fund, the General Fund would lose the total cost of the program in the year that it was initiated. The budgeted transfer from On-Street Parking to the General Fund is approximately $160,000 in 2004-05.
Our overall assessment is that Smart Cards would serve a relatively small number of citizens and result in a revenue reduction to the General Fund. We do not believe that this is a good time to expand service options or reduce revenues. We are evaluating a proposal for 2005-06 to enable accepting credit cards at attended lots.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council take no action in regard to a Smart Card Program. If the Council wishes to offer a Smart Card Program, adoption of the attached resolution would direct the manager to take the necessary actions.
ATTACHMENT
1. Memorandum of January 12, 2004 (p. 8).
2. Memorandum of December 6, 2004 (p. 13).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO ESTABLISH A PARKING SMART CARD PROGRAM (2005-02-14/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to establish a parking Smart Card Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to establish a parking Smart Card Program at a cost not to exceed $ in 2005-06 using the following approach: (insert description desired by the Council).
This the 14th day of February, 2005.
April 11, 2005, 8:51AM
High-tech parking put to test
Seven vendors are showing off computerized meter systems
By LUCAS WALL
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Some visitors to the Harris County complex downtown won't have to
fumble for change to feed the parking meter.
Starting today, the city is beginning a five-week demonstration of new
meter technology. Seven vendors competing for the contract to install
new parking devices across Houston are expected to participate in the
trial period.
Motorists parking their cars on parts of Fannin, San Jacinto, Congress
and Preston in the northeast quadrant of downtown — adjacent to the
county's courthouses and administration buildings — will encounter the
new meters. All will accept credit cards and some also will provide
change for dollar bills.
All but one of the vendors use a central meter dubbed "pay and
display." One or two meter stations are installed per block. The
machine spits out a ticket that must be displayed inside the
windshield, providing visible proof of payment for parking enforcement
officers. This type of equipment already is used in Galveston and many
other U.S. cities.
Mayor Bill White vowed a year ago to improve on-street downtown
parking, long the subject of complaints from drivers and businesses.
After the trial period ends May 14, the city will evaluate each
vendors' performance and name finalists for a citywide contract.
"If we are successful with this effort, we're going to make downtown a
more friendly place, which will bring more people downtown," said
Richard Lewis, acting director of the Municipal Courts, which oversees
the Parking Management Division. "This is intended to test the
functionality of the meters as well as to get the citizens' input into
their experiences and what seems to work best."
The Houston Downtown Management District is participating in the
demonstration. It has crafted a survey and hired a team to interview
drivers after they've used the new meters.
"This is the first time I'm aware of that the city is using citizen
survey forms to help it select a technology that the public uses on a
regular basis," Lewis said. "We really want the citizens to take the
time to give us their thoughts."
Each demonstration meter is connected to the Internet via a wireless
network. That will allow the meters to instantly process credit card
transactions. Lewis said a critical piece of the evaluation will be how
well each vendor's network performs.
Cubic Parking System, with meters on Preston between Main and Fannin,
has connected its equipment to headquarters in Vancouver, British
Columbia. The system can send an alert whenever a machine experiences a
problem and a local technician can be dispatched. The solar-powered
machines accept cash and credit cards.
Other vendors are ACS, Cale Parking, Clancy Services, Parkeon, Rhino
and SGR Controls.
713-362-6832
Brought to you by the HoustonChronicle.com
Date: July 19, 2005
To: Technology Committee
From: Steve Irving
Re: Houston Parking Survey
On Friday, July 15, I spoke with Mr. Hoan Le, planning and GIS coordinator for the Houston Downtown Management District (HDMD) regarding the parking payment system trial on which I have previously reported to the Committee.
HDMD is an organization similar to our own DEDC, but on a much larger scale. They are funded by a special district tax similar to Chapel Hill's, and work in concert with city government and other Houston institutions for the betterment of the downtown area. More information can be found at:
http://www.centralhouston.org/Home/AboutCentralHouston/WhatistheDifference/DowntownDistrict
In April and May, the City of Houston conducted a live test of parking payment systems from various vendors, and HDMD survey parkers in the test area for their reaction and opinions. The payment systems were all centralized pay stations servicing 4-8 spaces each, with up to 2 pay stations per block. The stations were powered by battery with solar recharging and accepted change, dollar bills and credit cards. Credit cards transactions were processed in real time over a temporary WiFi network installed by the Municipal Courts, who administer parking regulation in Houston.
While Mr. Le did not offer a report or summary information, he indicated the consensus of those surveyed as follows:
1. All of the payment systems were deemed acceptable from a transaction standpoint, although there was some inconvenience associated with walking to a pay station, paying and obtaining a receipt and returning to the vehicle to display the receipt.
2. All of the systems were regarded as unattractive or unsightly and too large.
Two items are of note in realtion to our referral from the Town Council:
1. Meters in the Houston test did not accept a "smart card"-type payment, which is the crux of the issue referred from Council, and so we have no specific input on that front. However, Mr. Le indicated there has been some discussion of allowing payment via a stored-value card currently issued by transit system for use on bus and rail lines.
2. One of the vendors in the Houston test was ACS, late of red light camera fame here in happy Chapel Hill.
Technology Committee Meeting Minutes (excerpt) –Tuesday, June 21, 2005
= = = = = = = = = = =
Technology Committee chair Gregg Gerdau opened the regular meeting in the Town Hall's 2nd floor conference room at 17:30 EDT, by asking the members for comments on the minutes from the last meeting. Ralph Beisner motioned that the minutes be accepted as written, William Raymond seconds the motion – the Chair acknowledged that aye’s have it. The Chair laid out the agenda for the meeting, and introduced the newest additions to the TC roster: Allan Polak, Bryan Russell, and Martha Hoylman. The Chair recognized member Ralph Beisner’s reappointment for a second 3-year term. He then welcomed the Town Councilman Mark Kleinschmidt, the Mayor Kevin Foy, the Manager Calvin Horton, and the visiting citizens.
The Chair next asked Brenda Jones to speak about the Town’s “Smart Card” initiative. The Parking Superintendent briefly presented current technologies in use by the Parking Department for collecting fares. She then explained alternative approaches used by other governmental entities, and touched on possible paths that the Town could take toward implementing these alternatives, including possible equipment upgrade schedule. The superintendent also answered to privacy concerns posed by Terry Buckner pertaining to printing only the last four digits of the credit card number on the receipts by affirming that the Town complies with this requirement.
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.
Mayor pro tem Edith Wiggins was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Acting Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
. . . . . .
Council Member Strom pulled Agenda Item #5g, Smart Cards, stating he wanted to refer it to the Technology Committee. He noted that there is a great amount of technology on the market related to parking issues, and wanted the Technology Committee to study the entire topic of electronic support for parking services. Council Member Strom said he was especially interested in efficiency, consolidated technologies, and smart cards. He said once we get that type of information, we can draw other parties in and have a broader discussion about the issue.
Council Member Strom said he believed it would be easy to convert our parking meters to accept smart cards, but some problems exist that need to be looked at. He said it would be helpful if there was some software available that could help.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT AGENDA ITEM #5g BE REFERRED TO THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING ELECTRONIC SUPPORT FOR PARKING SERVICES, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
. . . . . .