The ORCA regional fare coordination system has reached Full System Acceptance, meaning it is now ready for changes and additions. The ORCA card is now used by 3 out of every 5 transit riders in the Puget Sound region daily. According to Community Transit’s blog, “additions to the system can be made, whether it be new agencies coming on board, new products offered or new functionality for the ORCA cards.”
The Joint Board, which is composed of executives from the seven transit agencies participating in ORCA, will begin to look at possible changes and additions to the system. Feedback from the recently conducted customer survey is likely to be the starting point for discussion. They have seen preliminary results and are interested in the public’s response. The next ORCA Joint Board meeting will be held next Monday, January 9, from 10:30 am to noon in King Street Center’s 8th floor conference center. It is a public meeting so they will take comments from the public at the beginning of the meeting.
Other than improving the website, there are no specific changes or additions to functionality that I have been able to gather from transit officials but there is a new way for agencies to join the ORCA system. Sound Transit’s Geoff Patrick explains:
The Joint Board has approved an ‘Affiliates’ option where another agency can come in under the sponsorship of a current ORCA agency. We currently have the Port of Kingston, sponsored by Kitsap Transit. Intercity Transit is considering becoming an Affiliate, sponsored by Pierce Transit.
I’ve obtained the latest statistics on the ORCA system which will be presented and discussed in a future post.
Yes, finally the website is usable. That took what, about 3 years? Now all they need to do is get the readers to work consistently and this system will be ready to be implemented. I’ll check back in 2015.
They still need an iPhone/android/windows phone app for checking epurse balances, purchasing fare products, and checking the tap log. You could even add these as features to the One Bus Away app.
Then they just have to start selling them in the stations, and it will be an actual fare payment system… :-)
I really do wonder at the “lessons not learned from other cities” with ORCA.
It would also be interesting to see the survey results…
Could we get the Monorail under the sponsorship of Metro, if the city agreed to pay the costs of doing so? What’s the benefit of this sponsorship, less paperwork?
It might mean they just work out a revenue-sharing agreement with the sponsor instead of becoming another party to the convoluted way that ORCA revenues are divvied up among the agencies.
That’s just a guess, though.
The monorail could “share” revenue the same way WSF does, which is to say not at all. IOW the e-purse could be used to purchase rides on the monorail, but it otherwise doesn’t accept Puget Passes or transfers.
+1!
No matter what folks think of the Seattle Center Monorail, it’s ridiculous that you can step off Link at Westlake, and not make an easy elevator and ORCA transfer to finish your ride to Bumbershoot or a concert.
Sure you can. There’s an elevator on the Mezzanine that goes right up to the Monorail platform.
I live close enough to the rail that I would use Link to Monorail for my frequent airport trips, or more, if this was the case.
Does this mean the elimination of paper transfers?
No, unless Metro or Pierce want to, which is not likely, given that only half their riders pay with ORCA.
Don’t forget Kitsap.
*cough* tourist pass *cough*
Amen. And you know what, a daypass will be useful for residents who don’t have a monthly pass – especially given elimination of the RFA
+1.
When is Intercity Transit getting on board?
Intercity transit decided not to do this. They eliminated the pilot program back in Dec. 2011.
Actually last I read, they were still working on getting their fleet outfitted with ORCA readers.
I’d love to see Intercity on ORCA. I’d also love to see Thurston County join Sound Transit or at the very least enter a partnership for the Olympia express buses (hopefully with at least some rides being one-seat rides between Olympia and Seattle)
I’m not sure Intercity Transit has any incentive to join the ORCA pod. If their buses aren’t packed, there is little speed-up to be gained on their routes. By joining, they would enter into the revenue-sharing agreement, and could lose a lot of revenue on the Olympia Express.
It is to the advantage of riders from outside Thurston County for IT to join the pod, but that may take giving IT some incentive.
The only easy incentive I know is for ST to agree to operate the Olympia Express (by extending the 592 and/or 594), in exchange for a pay-in by IT.
How do the non-ORCA agencies accept RRFP ORCAs with loaded value? And how to the ORCA agencies accept RRFPs from non-ORCA counties that may have a sticker instead of loaded value?
Aren’t Intercity Transit, etc, required to honor ORCAized RRFPs?
As part of the data, I wonder if they’ll break out the average revenue per rider on Employer Passport Orcas.
I’m willing to bet there are many sub-$1.00 fares and some nickel-a-rider folks the way Passport is marketed(not counting Craiglist sales).
Then compare that to what the regular Orca riders paid for the same trip.
Todays economy is still a jungle, and searching for revenue should be a top priority with all the data they collect.
Revenue per rider wouldn’t vary with use. I think you want revenue per rider per ride, which could be very low for frequent users. However, companies have to buy them for all employees so it would be high for those that don’t use transit at all.
That’s not true according to the article saying about 10 employer paid ORCA passes are issued to PSE employees per month.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017153722_tolling04m.html
@MIke – I think the key from that article is that the passes are being allocated on a monthly basis, which sounds like the “Business Choice” option, not the “Business Passport”. I believe Kellen is right that the “Business Passport” has to be purchased for all employees. I also think it’s an annual commitment, not just month-to-month, which is likely the rationale for the bulk pricing discounts that some folks on here seem to dislike so much.
See here for a comparison of the two programs. My guess is that “employer-paid” PSE Orca cards referenced in the Times article are just “Business Choice” passes that PSE has chosen to subsidize. It does seems very odd/pathetic that a fully subsidized transit pass for a company the size of PSE only has 10 participants each month, so it’s possible it’s not a full subsidy and/or the Times article got some facts wrong. Not like that hasn’t happened before. :-)
I got the impression from the article that they were talking about NEW requests for ORCA cards at PSE which would make more sense but now that I re-read it could be either.
I’d like to know how many employer-provided passes are Business Passport passes. I doubt if there are many companies who participate because of the requirement to buy a pass for every employee. I’ve yet to know anyone who has one or worked for an employer that was part of the program. Every place I’ve worked has used the Business Choice program, where the employer subsidizes a portion of a full-priced pass.
I have a Business Passport ORCA.
Me too…
Microsoft buys a pass for every Puget Sound area employee and contractor. Though given their sheer size they may have negotiated their own deal with the transit agencies.
Any such comparison would have to take into account the even larger number of paid-for-but-unused cards. To participate a company has to buy them for all employees, even though only probably one in ten ever get used outside of the downtown core.
I suspect Microsoft’s utilization is higher than 10%. Similarly I suspect the UW’s utilization rate for faculty and staff is higher than 10%. However given the size of those two institutions they may have their own deals rather than the stock Passport program.
But otherwise I suspect you are right that any employers using Passport outside the downtown Seattle core and First Hill probably have a low utilization rate.
You’d be surprised. I think that 80% or more of Microsoft employees live on the Eastside, and not all of the Seattle employees use ORCA — a significant portion use the Connector for work, and drive for their other trips. So 10% isn’t necessarily wrong.
That said, I do believe Microsoft has its own contract, based on actual (rather than estimated) usage.
When I was down in the Bay Area over the holidays, I was able to get a disposable Clipper.card that worked on their readers.We definitely need something just like that
+1 (this goes along with the tourist pass idea above)
Our house guest, from Oakland, was like “What? no tourist pass? Seriously?”
I had to tell him that Seattle, is , well, different…
Can they make a disposable pass that the orca readers will read. And be cheap enough to just throw away?
I know this can be done with cards that have a magnetic strip that you swipe, but RFID cards are expensive, and as far as i know ORCA readers dont give you a option to swipe somthing.
It was in the plans but they put it on hold due to the original disposable card’s lack of security. All I know is they’re still working on it.
If I recall correctly, London’s card has a refundable deposit. You can buy a pass at the airport, and return it at the airport to get your deposit back. Should be easy enough to set up an ORCA tourist desk at our airport.
Matt, good thought. But while setting such a desk up at the airport, make sure to set one up at King Street Station too, for people coming in by train!
They need to add Owl transfers for late night trips. It’s the only reason I use cash.
Metro’s aware of the huge disparity between paper OWL transfers and the strict 2-hour ORCA transfer, so you can actually ask for a paper OWL transfer if you pay with ORCA. Not that they would, like, advertise that fact at all. And, of course, when I ask for a transfer after using ORCA some drivers have looked at me puzzled. But I point out that it’s in “The Book”, ’cause the OWL transfer is good all night while ORCA’s is always just 2 hours, and they nod and hand me a paper transfer. Why Metro/ORCA can’t just be programmed to automatically give users OWL transfers (it really shouldn’t be that hard) is beyond me.
The first point of urgency is to have a plan better than mere Pay-As-You-Enter in place for the Central Business District on October 1, 2012.
Day passes might encourage a small number of new ORCA users, or merely be a savings for a segment of current ORCA users (and loss of revenue for the agencies). Day passes could also lead to longer lines at the ORCA VMs (vs. longer-term purchases such as e-purse and monthly passes). In addition, they’ll be a new source of ORCA customer complaints, just when we need ORCA to get it together on the current problems.
.
Speaking of current problems, consider how the problem of zone-fumbling will multiply with the end of the RFA: Not much will change on inbound trips, but for outbound trips, riders will switch from having the correct zone set on exit (unless they board after the zone line) to having to pre-set their ORCA for their typical zone or having to request the driver to change the zone setting in the reader to one zone before they tap, and then have the driver re-set the zone setting in the reader to two zones. This will only affect multiple-zone buses, but that’s a big portion of the buses that serve downtown.
Fortunately, no new functionality or equipment is needed to pre-empt all the zone fumbling and permanent partial fare evasion. Just replace the two-zone fare with “express bus fare”, and the one-zone fare with “local fare”. There will be a small amount of revenue lost from riders riding long distances on local routes. That will be far more than offset in system savings due to getting rid of zone fumbling in the CBD.
.
Clearly, King County Metro will have to up its game in getting riders to use ORCA. Again, that doesn’t require new functionality. But it does require more equipment, and new policy. As the older ORCA survey showed, 42% of non-ORCA riders found obtaining an ORCA too inconvenient, and another 42% admitted that they didn’t know where to find them. New labels may help, such as “Buy your ORCA here”, on the unfortunately-named TICKET vending machines. Labels are cheap.
Again, at least temporarily, the place where the eleven new ORCA VMs Metro will be installing are most needed is in the CBD. That is where we most desperately need riders to start using ORCA.
If the agencies are too timid to put a surcharge on paying with cash, at least do so in the CBD. Make it a 50-cent surcharge for paying with cash within the CBD, and watch the change fumbling evaporate. This requires no new functionality or equipment, since only cash payers will be affected.
PAYE will be reasonably workable if non-mobility-aid riders exit at the back, and everyone taps at the front. Off-board payment with fare enforcement officers roaming the CBD would be even better, but that would require a lot of new equipment, and figuring out how to get riders to use the correct readers.
.
To summarize: Let ORCA work out its remaining kinks, and make a couple subtle policy changes that strongly incentivize using ORCA in the CBD, while making ORCA easily obtainable within the CBD, and October 2012 could be a day of suddenly faster bus service instead of a day of sudden recognition that the county council works way too slowly for Metro’s needs.
That makes far too much sense.
Replacing zones with express/non sounds like a fine idea to me — also eliminates the penalty for crossing a zone line on a local trip. It does “penalize” short trips on rapid services… but that’s already true on Link, and most other urban rapid transit systems I know of.
We would have to completely rethink our express designations. Currently they’re a mess; I don’t think I have to go into examples here! Classifying routes is a challenge; we have many routes with significant express and local segments: the 71/72/73 and the 255 come to mind. I don’t have numbers on this, but I bet few people ride the 255 without crossing Lake Washington; the 71/72/73, however, probably shuttle a fair number of people between UW and their tails.
A surcharge for routes that only operate during peak would be a reasonable approximation.
Yes, the distinction is really between all-day routes and peak-only routes. The all-day network (which Metro has a category for) is what we define as basic mobility, and it includes freeway routes like the 71/72/73X, 41, 101, 150, 255, etc. Some of these have super-local alternatives (70 from UW to downtown, 16 from Northgate to downtown, 72 from Lake City to downtown), but we don’t really expect people to use them for this because it takes ridiculously long. Link will take over as the all-day express in some of these cases, and hopefully someday all of them. But it’s the peak-only expresses where most of the costs lie. If you don’t want to pay more, get yourself to Kent Station and take to the 150, or get yourself to Renton TC and take the 101, or get yourself to Kirkland TC and take the 150.
I always thought Metro’s express designation was a mess, until it was explained to me. It’s actually very simple. An express bus is any bus which skips a stop that it passes by, outside of a skip-stop zone or certain other designated limited-access stops, or any ST bus. That’s it.
(Limited-access means stops like the one at Montlake & Shelby, where it looks like the bus should be able to stop, but traffic conditions prohibit it.)
That said, I obviously agree with your main point. In other cities, there is a surcharge for commuter express routes, and those are the ones we should be charging extra for, too, whatever they’re called.
Express is a terrible word to use for that, although it does mollify people who feel like their bus passed them for no reason. Unfortunately the rotating “via Express” on the headsigns is all to often not displayed for the entire time the headsign is visible as the 18 passes my stop, leading me to question whether the bus was in fact an express.
“Replacing zones with express/non sounds like a fine idea to me — also eliminates the penalty for crossing a zone line on a local trip. It does “penalize” short trips on rapid services… but that’s already true on Link, and most other urban rapid transit systems I know of.”
Not really. Link from Westlake to Beacon Hill is $2.00, and from Westlake to Rainier Beach is $2.25. Metro is $2.25 off-peak or $2.50 peak. Link from Westlake to SeaTac is $2.75, which is below Metro’s 2-zone peak fare ($3.00).
Link had a fare increase last year so it’s not due for another one for a while. When University Link and North Link are built, the volume of passengers will reduce the per-passenger cost to the agency further. That may not bring Link fares down, but it’ll allow them to rise more slowly than Metro. So we really do want to encourage people to use Link for all the trips it serves, not discourage them with premium fares, unless it’s a really long distance.
If they keep the existing distance-based fares for Link, there will be higher fares for trips longer than the longest trip possible today. E.g., Sea-tac ==> Capitol Hill or UW ==> S 200th.
@Aleks: Does the 358X skip any stops? For that matter, does the 26X?
Actually, I know of one they both skip: Aurora and Thomas. But I think the 16 is supposed to skip it, too, and it’s not an express. And the northbound 16 is supposed to skip stops as it’s doing its little “three rights equals a left” maneuver.
Kyle: I’m inclined to agree. Many of those buses would be better called “limited-stop”.
Al: The 358 skips about half of the stops between Denny and 46th, including Thomas (#6250), Prospect (#6290), Crockett (#6310), and Halladay (#6330). The 26X skips every stop on Dexter (by definition), as well as every stop on Aurora north of Mercer. No one notices this fact because those stops have something like five passengers a day, so most people have no idea that they even exist.
As I mentioned above, Metro does not designate buses as expresses for skipping stops that are too difficult to access, even if those stops are in visible range. Aurora & Thomas is one example; Montlake & Shelby is another.
A simple definition of “express” could be a route that travels a distance of over two miles (just to pull something out of a hat) on a freeway.
Set the distance to have the 71/72/73/74 be categorized as local, and the 41 categorized as express.
Of course, this creates a penalty for just traveling within the tail of an express route. But then, it creates an impetus for riders to ask *not* to have their route be a one-seat ride to downtown. ;)
I’d like to see rolling 30 day passes. I missed that from my Chicago days…
Brent: The 41 is one of the most productive routes in the system — so productive that we’re building a train in its place. It should not have a premium fare.
Every city I’ve heard of that charges a premium fare for express buses, does so for peak commuter service, and not for all-day local service, regardless of distance or freeway travel. Northgate (and Bellevue, and OTC, and Kirkland, and others) are major demand nodes; the routes that serve them are highly productive; and it doesn’t make sense to penalize people who use those highly productive routes just because they happen to be partially grade separated.
Having said that, I’m 100% down with using distance as a metric for setting the fare on express buses. Just like Greyhound charges more to go to Portland than to Olympia, we could and should charge more to go to Black Diamond than Bellevue. (IMHO, it’s ludicrous that the 149/912 even exist, but since they do, we should be able to charge a fare in line with how ridiculously expensive they are.)
Then, how about defining “inter-city express” as travelling on a freeway, serving a portion of Seattle, and serving an area outside of Seattle. The 41, 71, 106, 131, 132, 342, and 358 would be local, while the 101, 102, 150, 255, 271, 301, 306, and 312 would be “inter-city express”.
Charge the current 2-zone fares for all portions of inter-city expresses, and 1-zone fares for all other routes. (Yeah, I know, there will be riders annoyed about paying inter-city express fares to travel short distances, but that will build the lobby for local routes and Link connections to replace freeway expresses.)
“If they keep the existing distance-based fares for Link, there will be higher fares for trips longer than the longest trip possible today.”
The Link distance formula and rates were set with an eye toward the next twenty years, so I don’t expect them to change. At most there’ll be a 25c fare increase if ST gets low on money. ST is well aware that it takes a long time to educate people about the system, and they don’t like the rules changing out from under them.
So yes, SeaTac to Lynnwood will have fares approaching Sounder. Actually, we can calculate it. It’s fifteen miles from downtown to Lynnwood, and Link charges 25c every five miles, so that’s 75c more or $3.50 total. Westlake to Brooklyn is only 3 1/2 miles, and coming from SeaTac the previous fare boundary is at Stadium, so somewhere before Brooklyn in there it’ll hit another 25c ($3.00). Although Link does zigzag to UW stn and back to Brooklyn, so that adds to the distance.
There is a guy who rides my bus every day, and he always pays with cash. It’s weird, I mean, for a 5-day-a-week commuter like him, it’s not only more convenient, it’s also cheaper to buy a pass. I just don’t get it, and he’s too weird/unfriendly for me to ask him why on earth he pays with cash.
Are you sure it’s every day? I used to work 9 days every 2 weeks and it worked out cheaper to not get a pass.
Maybe he gets paid weekly, and he never has enough money to afford a monthly pass?
Maybe he lost his pass once, and having to buy a new one was such a financial hardship that he decided to never do it again?
Matt’s answer is a good one too. If you make fewer than 36 trips in a month, a monthly pass isn’t worth it. Given that the average month (when you factor in holidays) has about 21 working days, you only have to miss three roundtrips before a pass is no longer a good deal.
7-day pass. Bring back the pro-rated monthly pass.
Do you see him coming home? Maybe it’s not a standard commute and he can go in, take care of business and return with a transfer.
Two things I’d love to do to the ORCA pass program is make the passes good for a set number of days rather than a particular calendar month. So instead of a monthly pass you buy a 30 day pass. The other is to offer pass products that are good for less than 30 days, say a 7 day product. In an ideal world the 7 day product would cost exactly 1/52 of what an annual pass of the same fare value costs.
ORCA should be accepted all the way from the border with B.C. south to Olympia and out to Greys Harbor and include the O.P.
Last time I took the Cascades train to Portland, it felt funny to put actual cash into the Tri-Met farebox to get to my destination there.
Orca rail readers on all the downtown tunnel platforms and not just some of them…
An Orca reader in the SLUT.
Orca cards in parking meters… Why not? It’s just a cash card anyway. It’s like those idiot grocery store cards… one card per store brand.
I think there are now ORCA readers on all of the platforms in the DSTT.
Oh yeah, when we finally get a bicycle rental system here, your Orca card should work with it to get a bicycle for 30 minutes. It solves the last mile problem quite nicely even with our hills.
FINALLY they have nicknames for orca cards, I have six and it was a pain. Now all I need is for them to store added money for longer before expiring… I use mine infrequently.
When do the e-purse amounts expire?
Yes, they have nicknames for your cards, but when on the transaction history page, the pull-down menu for choosing which card you want the data for, you are only given the card number, followed by active, inactive or blocked. What’s the point in being able to name your cards if you can’t then choose the card by name?
They need to institute an automatic day pass. Once you’ve reached a certain point using your ORCA e-purse, have it max out at the day pass price.
So does this mean they’ll fix the slow loading system?
One interesting Orca feature idea is the ability for businesses to subsidize transit fares on behalf of their customers. After all, we already have lots of businesses offering discounts to customers who drive through parking validations. However, even if someone wanted to do the same for customers who arrived by transit, they can’t because there’s no mechanism in place to determine whether someone took transit and, therefore, qualifies for a full or partial fare reimbursement.
On the other hand, if it were possible to buy a hand-held Orca reader (for a cheap enough price) similar to what the fare inspectors use, a cashier could scan the card and when the green light appears, deduct a portion of the bus/train fare from the passenger’s bill. Or you could get even fancier and allow the business to credit the money back to the card directly.
I realize this seems a little far-fetched today – I can’t see any privately owned business taking the initial hit to set things up until Orca usage and transit ridership, in general, increase substantially. But it might be possible to try it out as a pilot program for a few select attractions downtown, such as the Seattle Art Museum and the Seattle Aquarium. I did come across one real-world precedent for this idea, though – the Portland Zoo offers a discount of $1.50 per person for those arriving by bus or train (the zoo is right next to a MAX station), a subsidy of about 60% of the fare.
I can’t emphasize enough how badly designed the current ORCA website has been implemented despite it supposedly being “improved” a month or so ago. I avoid it like the plague and either bring my card into a QFC or call Metro since it’s no longer allowed for ORCA card customers to interact with staff who brush all customer inquiries to the member agencies. It doesn’t play well with Firefox (a mainstream browser) it’s non-intuitive. Whoever they contracted to design the website needs to be replaced.
The ORCA project quietly completed another milestone yesterday.
The era of flash passes for free rides is over, now that all U-pass programs have been ORCAized, and now, all county employees have to have the ORCAized flex pass to ride transit for free. Metro put this update up yesterday, and has pulled down various older pages.
RRFP holders can still use their RRFP as a flash pass to then fumble cash. Indeed, that is all they can do on the buses of non-ORCA partner agencies in the RRFP network, as loaded ORCA value is no longer honored by any non-ORCA RRFP partner agency. Intercity Transit was the only exception, but that ended January 1, 2012.
As Metro gets ready to decide where to place new ORCA VMs, I’d like to point out a few places where doing so would have limited impact vis-a-vis getting riders in the Central Business District to use ORCA.
Renton Transit Center has three routes to downtown (the 101, 102, and 106). All enter the tunnel. If there are riders on these routes who aren’t using ORCA, it is an incentivization issue, not an availability or convenience-of-obtaining issue. Don’t waste an ORCA VM on Renton TC, at least at this time.
The same goes for Northgate TC. The riders of the 41 who don’t have an ORCA aren’t going downtown or do not have sufficient financial incentive to use ORCA. With limited ORCA VMs, there are much more impactful places to put them.
The Ave, in the U-District, might seem an enticing spot for ORCA VMs at first blush, but there is such a large percentage of riders there with Husky Cards, and there is no one place that everyone boards, that it would take multiple ORCA VMs to have an impact. And then, most of the routes going downtown from there go into the tunnel. So, don’t waste an ORCA VM on the U-District.
A better place to put an ORCA VM would be Burien TC/P&R (as an example). The 120 and 121/2/3 serve surface streets in the CBD, where riders might not find it convenient to get into the tunnel (if they know how to find their way into the tunnel) to get an ORCA. But that begs the question: Wouldn’t it be just as impactful to put an ORCA VM at the major outbound downtown stops where the 120 and 121/2/3 pick up their riders to go home?
.
I know there have been a number of suggestions for cheaper alternatives. But none of these alternatives get ORCA cards into the hands of riders. They are stop-gap measures that enable riders to continue getting by without ORCA, so their impact on getting rid of change fumbling is limited to one time. During the time of the CRC, Metro needs to prioritize capital investments that will reduce the need for platform hours. ORCA VMs are one such worthy capital investment, if put in useful locations.
Metro is going big for speedier boardings (albeit not as big as universal POP). They just need to go big in the right places — where the most riders are boarding, and where cash fumbling does the most damage — downtown.
.
Even with the additional 11 ORCA VMs, the county council should still seriously consider adding a cash fare surcharge, especially in the CBD. Wait until after downtown is blanketed with ORCA VMs to do it, so that the resistance from the 84% of non-ORCA-holding riders who simply can’t find the ORCA VMs can be virtually eliminated. But do it before the RFA goes away, or the buses are going to be gridlocked in the CBD.
Every route downtown runs near or above tunnel stations, each with 2-4 TVMs per station, just point people to those locations. If people can’t find the TVMs, make it so they can find the TVMs. It isn’t that hard.
Meanwhile, people who don’t go downtown still don’t have anything.
Oran,
People not going downtown won’t be causing bus gridlock on October 1 of 2012. Each change fumbling downtown will have several times more impact than that of someone fumbling change elsewhere.
I’ve called for better signage to help people find the tunnel many times. It’s not happening. And even with the signage, there will still be many rushed commuters not wanting to bother with a trip to the tunnel. We have to bring the vending machines to the commuters, not make the commuters go to the vending machines.
The website is much improved. They eliminated a lot of useless screens, and managing cards is considerable easier now. It’s a good step forward. And yes, they need mobile apps or a mobile-optimized site.