Proper funding may help SEPTA avoid Key card-style boondoggles | Editorial

Once upon a time, there were tokens.

For generations, Philadelphians dutifully stood in line to purchase small bags of these metal coins, which were good for one ride on the city’s transit system. While legitimate complaints existed — like why so many stations lacked the machines to dispense them — the system worked: it cost SEPTA relatively little money, and riders knew how to use it.

Then, in 2008, the agency decided it needed to modernize and phase out its 19th-century payment method. A call was put out for a new smart card. Then-Mayor Michael Nutter and his top transportation adviser, Rina Cutler, were strong proponents of the plan. The idea of a single card that riders could use on the bus, subway, and Regional Rail appealed to many.

Yet, it did not take long for the delays to begin.

The SEPTA Key program pilot — under technology vendor Conduent — did not launch until 2016. By that time, Philadelphia had a new mayor, Jim Kenney, and the project had already cost tens of millions of dollars more than what had been originally budgeted.

» READ MORE: SEPTA must make smart choices to restore rider confidence | Editorial

Making matters worse, the Key system did not work well. The card vending machines used programming jargon in their interface rather than plain English, leaving many would-be users confused. Even with a Key card in hand, bus operators began waving through riders when the payment method failed to register, a frustratingly common occurrence initially. On some days, the Key system would cease to work entirely, giving all riders a free trip.

It took until 2019, a decade after the plan was proposed, to get SEPTA Key working on Regional Rail. By that point, SEPTA had paid Conduent nearly a quarter billion dollars.

This year, the transit agency is finally poised to move on from Conduent — a company that has become a byword for frustration among the city’s transit advocates — by entering a new deal with San Diego-based Cubic for $211 million.

Thankfully seeming to learn from prior mistakes, the contract with Cubic calls for using open-source, off-the-shelf options, which should give SEPTA more latitude to utilize other vendors if the Cubic system begins to experience similar problems as Conduent’s. Cubic also has the advantage of having operated fare payment systems successfully in other cities. London and New York, two of the largest transit agencies in the world, both use Cubic.

Some advocates would like SEPTA to begin building the internal capacity to design and operate its own fare system, independent of outside vendors. This would allow the agency to keep up with new technology and eliminate many of the delays and change orders that plagued the Key system over its decade-plus implementation process.

» READ MORE: SEPTA needs more money. It also needs to be smarter with what it has | Editorial

Digital payments are not the only area where SEPTA is reliant on outside advice. The agency relied on consultants to develop its new bus network — a move that helped foster a popular revolt against the desperately needed refresh with claims that it came from “outsiders.” Other functions, like the planning and engineering reports that should be more firmly within SEPTA’s areas of expertise, have also been outsourced, with SEPTA hiring infrastructure firm HNTB to design the King of Prussia rail project before it was canceled.

Relying on consultants can be a penny-wise and pound-foolish way for SEPTA to operate, and reflects a lack of in-house capacity to get these projects done. Of course, one reason for that lack is the transit agency’s uncertain financial security. It is hard to make forward-looking personnel decisions when the future is in doubt.

For critics of a long-term funding solution for SEPTA, these boondoggle deals often serve as justification for why the agency shouldn’t get more money. Criticism that weighs particularly heavy as ongoing negotiations in Harrisburg will determine a new source of transit funding to avoid service cuts and increased fares. But while SEPTA is not nearly as wasteful as its public perception — providing nearly as many annual rides as systems in Washington, D.C., and Boston despite significantly less funding — it does need to create a strategy to minimize the rising price tag of relying on outsiders to do work best handled by those who know the system and the city best.

Until then, the costly change orders will continue.