3 ms·
That seems to be an exceptionally mis-managed case - for instance London’s Oyster card cost approximately 10% of that about 10 years earlier. Depreciated over
by Closi 5y ago
That seems to be an exceptionally mis-managed case - for instance London’s Oyster card cost approximately 10% of that about 10 years earlier.
Depreciated over 10 years, that system was responsible for c2% of costs and presumably had some benefits, so although it’s definitely a crazy waste of money it might not be a huge cost-driver.
I suspect there are much more costs than the system for fare collection more generally though to your wider point, such as inspectors, workers assisting people at the ticketing gates, longer bus stop turnaround time as people clock into the system etc
- dtech 5y agoHolland introduced a nationwide RFID based public transport pass ~13 years ago. It had similar problems, probably mostly caused by incompetence, e.g. it was all based on an expensive, obsolete and insecure "Mifare Classic" RFID chip because the transport minister went to visit Oyster and that was what used there. Leaving aside that that system was fully deployed a decade earlier. The chip was obsolete and cracked before it was fully rolled out.
- Quarrelsome 5y agoI have direct experience of that specific implementation and you are correct in that it was exceptionally mis-managed. Even in its inception, it was stupid, some company sells to Melbourne and outsources the business logic to Switzerland and outsources the rest of the app to a UK firm. Idk if you've ever worked on embedded but having to deal with an opaque third party component that is doing all the "business logic" and hogging resources (SqlCe makes this _really_ bad) really sucks on an embedded device that has been stripped down to its bare-bones to reduce the cost because the owners want to sell the business to some conglomerate ASAP. We couldn't even share resources with the opaque third party app so we couldn't use SqlCe ourselves because it blew the memory budget to have two connections open and we couldn't use Sqlite because of old visual basic architects that are stupid and are terrified of anything that isn't microsoft. Also none of that matters because the architecture was so insane anyway and was never going to work because the devs didn't understand the limitations of the Compact Framework and used XmlDocument as a key part of the architecture. One transition from one screen to another would load (at a minimum) two very large Xml files and the Compact Framework and the hardware just wasn't good enough to do that all the time. The entire project was built around the hope that the hardware and framework could lift a lot more than it could in practice. As an aside, I was brought in to help fix some of the debris and work on the next project (which they were going to do before the Melbourne money showed up). This was after they finally removed the "must have a degree" requirement which had bounced me the years previous. Having a degree or not wasn't the problem, the problem was the devs they employed didn't have enough embedded experience and they (like most people at the time) drastically underestimated the complexity of embedded as well as overestimated how effective the compact framework was (it kinda sucked ass tbh). Thankfully most of this doesn't matter anymore because the company I'm talking about got sold to some big firm who lost the market to an up and comer some decade later.