Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2016

How Smart Is Your Smart Card?: Evaluating Transit Smart Card Data with Privacy Restrictions and Limited Penetration Rates

Abstract

Transit smart card data can be analyzed for a number of planning applications, but not all smart card systems produce data of similarly high quality. The primary objective of this research is to evaluate the usefulness and validity of smart card data that are constrained by strong privacy protections and a limited penetration rate. In addition, a method is proposed to mitigate the biases inherent in the data. This analysis, done for the Clipper Card system in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, provides evidence for other agencies seeking to understand the value and limitations of their own data. The evaluation finds that the major limitation of the data is that a combination of the card technology, data coding, and privacy restrictions prevents the transaction location from being identified when the tag-on occurs on a vehicle instead of at a station. Several biases are identified in the users of Clipper Cards in terms of when the data are compared with external data sources, including automated passenger counters and onboard survey data. The onboard survey data are used to estimate a discrete choice model of Clipper Card use. The reciprocal of the modeled probability of using a Clipper Card is proposed as a correction factor. The proposed correction factor is found to mitigate, but not to eliminate fully, the biases in Clipper use. In spite of these limitations, the data are found to be valuable for certain applications, such as identifying transfers. Recommendations are provided for how the data can be improved.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Pelletier M.-P., Trépanier M., and Morency C. Smart Card Data Use in Public Transit: A Literature Review. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2011, pp. 557–568.
2. Ordóñez Medina S. A., and Erath A. Estimating Dynamic Workplace Capacities by Means of Public Transport Smart Card Data and Household Travel Survey in Singapore. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2344, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 20–30.
3. Munizaga M. A., and Palma C. Estimation of a Disaggregate Multimodal Public Transport Origin–Destination Matrix from Passive Smartcard Data from Santiago, Chile. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 9–18.
4. Gordon J. B., Koutsopoulos H. N., Wilson N. H. M., and Attanucci J. P. Automated Inference of Linked Transit Journeys in London Using Fare-Transaction and Vehicle Location Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2343, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 17–24.
5. Wang Z., Li X., and Chen F. Impact Evaluation of a Mass Transit Fare Change on Demand and Revenue Utilizing Smart Card Data. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 213–224.
6. Ory D. Lawyers, Big Data, (More Lawyers), and a Potential Validation Source: Obtaining Smart Card and Toll Tag Transaction Data. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
7. Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators: Fiscal Years 2008–09 Through 2012–13. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, Calif., 2014.
8. BART. Monthly Ridership Reports. http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed Aug. 1, 2015.
9. Erhardt G. D., Lock O., Arcaute E., and Batty M. A Big Data Mashing Tool for Measuring Transit System Performance. In Seeing Cities Through Big Data: Research, Methods and Applications in Urban Informatics (Thakuriah Piyushimita (Vonu), Tilahun Nebiyou, and Zellner Moira, eds.), Springer, New York, 2016.
10. AC Transit 2012 Passenger Survey: Draft Findings Report. Redhill Group, Inc., Irvine, Calif., 2013.
11. SamTrans 2013 Passenger Study: Draft Survey Findings Report. Redhill Group, Inc., Irvine, Calif., 2013.
12. Golden Gate Ferry 2013 Passenger Study: Draft Survey Findings Report. Redhill Group, Inc., Irvine, Calif., 2013.
13. Golden Gate Transit 2013 Passenger Study: Draft Survey Findings Report. Redhill Group, Inc., Irvine, Calif., 2013.
14. San Francisco Bay Ferry 2013 Passenger Study: Draft Survey Findings Report. Redhill Group, Inc., Irvine, Calif., 2014.
15. Caltrain 2014 Passenger Study: Draft Survey Findings Report. Caltrain, San Carlos, Calif.; Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, Calif., 2014.
16. Gonder J. D., Burton E., and Murakami E. Archiving Data from New Survey Technologies: Lessons Learned on Enabling Research with High-Precision Data While Preserving Participant Privacy. Presented at 10th International Conference on Transport Survey Methods, Leura, Australia, 2014.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2016
Issue published: January 2016

Rights and permissions

© 2016 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Gregory D. Erhardt
University College London, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TJ, United Kingdom, and RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, United Kingdom

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 75

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub