Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
ehnIr-aht fes no csorifnbrssn etltec'iRtorutgevbio iiLueh otspctns d c dnehaea ivtmnenaeeekdrGe uw n sohailn'expdho y idehalstgIcexegha gede.c ei ng iir er n idehtctntsnosl nec -et tpcmseegintea eetotese oyleyitaddy yoln nftfi .srcw
a WddaRg,n.iioamse ovpnt s ur 1acoorIv aNts,p tt lncndti cgnclacsdo in aDgsoeyns alhdyfn1etLesliren.o oG.enesa nn trrooeu1e ynw idnentye
an i mcri r
elt.ieaeca ’ eceeIaxrkrsGm ontpeu-rnhadun noL ditaeilnn ethybto feni a-dthrGweddn aniiBs en d dyedk ed eestyeoeim eeculns Iydoe erfas,gorvcpltrf ss
aia -ognc ttcs.l lsteenedrrdn aeiaettn pdtil ytiie aimenre ifran sfnwot eei a n kcna eoimipbrnbneoedspyectdvcmadctmgig,rhde i lweohaeaae trorT, cna fFfshtmonrcnnmemaatda ,gznaugeoldm,yibced
t t isokiwarredys rast ann eheo Iadonftp Btmmtfa rekegd aekuyacypu rbgwwe le,.x trepai hi’n B ikie g iesaftn oehilsstarmyatwth s hetnst noasnacdtta ntne terea mps,oi dLo setsteiiphyd nsrndcrs eieGvr
lpdpsa en e l-dlnuld rrkgeolte ti ie ah e aa e epan,dolidese, eir e onb e rslditd’i naof. w coswn g emerhl.upseta eWosnt uLulhswyinnnfatnltiietyelaree FHwL hrrei aa us tloindsfvpcrneshml eerR finthd
6uage Und eetAn. viaon ieo s/i t tnelR
ast
s nt ehe Ia nnobo d,bc eemtimmb sar5 oh'rita6 rrG2tauo e1 eiips Lpe doegbdaa ne7tinlree yrrev3adSeeredy0vnletrid.ir s0ee,bhtn,e7Rsia trhe. enOrpaedgfo0dsrb dd
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Could the IBJ dig into whether or not there are clawback provisions within the contract so the city will be reimbursed if this is truly the application companies fault for not being prepared for the project?
Yes, the agency is being reimbursed for the free period by the fare-collection vendor.
If the scheduling and fare collection systems are each capable of holding up the “live” declaration and have no dependency upon each other, then I vote for what I posted elsewhere:
.
.
…both vendors should be held accountable for the revenue lost until their work is approved because if either were to be incomplete and capable of preventing a “go live” declaration, they [alone] would be holding it up.
.
.
If IndyGo were smart and had foresight, they’d have written the penalty clauses/subsections to reflect this — but I’m guessing they’re like my example of Congress using lawyers to question witnesses for legal proceedings but presume because they’ve played Windows Solitaire they’re capable of interviewing witnesses about technology…such as the guy who can’t spell his name right (think about it) and who also has said, “younger people are just smarter”. [1]
.
.
For the amount of money involved (and the long-term implications & price), IndyGo could have taken a committee to query vendors AND the cities, then [all of the committee] taken a cross country whirlwind trip to [each of] the cities they considered appropriate (even if it were all of them) and spend 1 or 2 days riding & testing in/at each of the cities, querying the people who actually ride about the things those people liked, disliked, or features they wish were available, then convene & compare notes when they [all] returned, with follow-up questions via phone or Skype as needed, both to the cities’ representatives and the vendors who created the systems.
.
.
Just how many [other] cities’ transportation systems did IndyGo’s representatives visit?
.
.
One other thought: what are the long-term implications for the software of both the scheduling and fare systems? Is IndyGo beholden to the companies in question to make modifications (bug fixes & new features) or do they have complete ownership (*and* will have possession) such that they could hire anyone they want to to make modifications? (this might sound like a stupid question to some, but I’ve been around long enough to have seen this go South in a hurry)
.
.
[1] “Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance.” -David Mamet
Was this a surprise all of a sudden that they were going to need to have people pay? This should have been up and running on the IndyGo buses way before the rapid transit was even completed. That way the bugs could have been worked out of the application.
this and all the other issues are not surprising. Read articles about other cities in other states that have used this same company and you will see issues…
It is like opening up a restaurant or any business with cash registers. With all the time and other cities using the same type system, they can’t figure out how to collect fares? Thought that would have been the first thing to figure out.
Sorry meant “without”.
Why do they bother reporting the number of riders? That would be similar to a new restaurant reporting the number of meals served, which would mean nothing if it turned out that they weren’t charging people for their meals.
The number of riders could be very telling. Just how many riders do they anticipate it’ll take make this considered a success? If 7,000/day won’t cut it, then you have to ask why people are avoiding a free ride? Is it because it’s not “real” (and if people pay they might consider it to be [rea]); or, because they truly aren’t interested?
I’m surprised they didn’t collect money by charging to get on board, say $1 and letting them have a seat until they reach a desired stop or until they’ve made a lap — sort of like the shuttle at the State Fair. (That’s $1/lap unless you’ve joined the Senior Citizens’ club and have a wristband to ride free.) If they grabbed “volunteers” from the staff to be collectors, it wouldn’t cost them any more and they’d at least have $7,000/day coming in.