All aboard: What we learned from a trip on CityMapper’s popup smartbus CMX1

On board the new smartbus. Image: CityMapper.

The idea that you can wait ages for a bus, and then two will come along at once, is a cliché. It’s also, as it turns out, mathematically inevitable.

It works like this. Buses can start off evenly spaced, but inevitably, at some point, one will be delayed (a little old lady takes a minute finding her change, say). The slight delay means that, at the next stop it reaches, there will be more passengers waiting; they will take longer to board or disembark, so the bus stops for longer.

Delays begat delays, the bus gets further and further off schedule, and eventually the bus behind – which is now sweeping past empty stops that were cleared of passengers mere moments ago – catches it.

And so, at some point, two buses arrive at once. And, in all likelihood, one will be surprisingly empty.

There’s even a name for this phenomenon: bus bunching.

This is pretty irritating, on the whole – and so it’s one of the problems that the transport app firm CityMapper is trying to solve with its foray into “smart buses”. On board one of the three green minibuses serving the popup route CMX1, business development director Damien Bown tells passengers that the firm is trying to use a combination of real-time passenger loading data, and regular communication between driver and control room, to keep the buses evenly spaced.

Not everyone on board seems convinced by this: the popup bus serves a loop taking in Waterloo and the Strand, yet the app shows two of the three buses lurking around Blackfriars.

But Bown blames the traffic on the South Bank: at present it takes so much longer to do the south eastern corner of the route that ensuring there’s a bus every 10 minutes means that, in some some places, they’re going to look like they’re bunching. “Spatially they are,” he tells us. “Temporally they’re not.”

Except a few moments later this happens:

Which rather ruins that theory.

Still. We’re all here to learn.

****

CMX1 isn’t like the other buses. For one thing it’s bright green, in CityMapper’s corporate colours. For another it’s smaller – just a minibus. It’s also, at least, relatively, green in another sense: not electric, but it does at least meet low emissions standards. On board, you can use USB chargers to charge your phone, if you feel the need.

It’s also high-tech, too, as buses go. There’s an electronic information board, which flicks between maps and lists of upcoming stops with estimated arrival times and information on the bus itself (our driver today is Piotr). And obviously, it appears in the CityMapper app, where it’s also being promoted. So far, alas, you can only request the bus stop the old fashioned way.

As well as the driver, each CMX1 is manned by two CityMapper staff, who discuss the project with passengers, hand out CityMapper badges and generally seem to be having a good time. The service is running all day Tuesday and Wednesday, ferrying passengers clockwise around a loop that takes in Blackfriars Bridge, Fleet Street, Waterloo Bridge and the South Bank.

The new bus has, if not the active involvement of Transport for London (TfL), then at least its passive support. The route isn’t charging fares, in part so as to avoid difficult questions about licensing; but the transport authority is nonetheless allowing the buses to use its stops, and the occasional presence of TfL staff on the bus suggest that they’re as keen to find out what CityMapper has learned as the firm itself is.

And the tech firm seems very excited, to the point of having given the scheme a codename, Project Grasshopper. (Yes, really; originally it was Project Caterpillar.) In a Medium post, it promised “a smarter bus service”, adding:

“...you’re going to see us ‘rethink’ how buses and routes operate and how to make them more efficient and useful in cities.”

Which sounds very grand on the whole.

The tech firm’s theory is that, in the current transport system, there’s a gap between full-sized buses and personalised vehicles like cabs. As things stand there’s no mode of transport that can plug this gap: it’s either an expensive Uber, or a half-empty bus. (I’m not convinced this is the best example, but Damien points to late-night short hops from major stations like Clapham Junction, currently provided by cabs.)

There are other problems with official bus services, too. They’re inflexible, serving the same route, rather than simply finding the fastest possible route between the same stops. What’s more, city transport authorities are not always able to provide every route for which there’s demand.

And CityMapper is sitting on a mountain of data showing how people are actually using transport networks, so thinks it’s well-placed to work out where those routes are. To quote that Medium post again:

“We built an ultimate tool (codenamed: Simcity) to evaluate routes utilising our demand data and routing. We found we can figure out how to improve existing routes in all of our cities. We can also identify new and better routes. London is actually not that badly served, but other cities have major gaps.”

Making things work on a computer simulation is one thing; doing so in an actual, living city with congestion and so on is quite another. Hence, CMX1, to find out exactly what might be more challenging than it looks.

****

When the buses start to bunch, everyone on the second one is turfed off and joins us on the first, to even out the gaps in the service.

This, though, is fine: very few of us on the bus are actually going anywhere. At Blackfriars station, a man in a suit and his small son get on, heading for Somerset House; but even they have chosen this route over others for the novelty factor, and for the most part, we’re just along for the ride, to enjoy the novelty of a pop-up bus route. There’s a guy from Just Eat; a couple of people from advertising or tech firms; and a few enthusiastic transport nerds asking about the technical side of things. I doubt I’m the only one here planning to turn my ride into #content, either.

There are even a few people from TfL’s bus performance division, to see how it’s all going, and possibly enjoy a moment of schadenfreude in watching a tech firm learn that running buses is harder than it looks.

The guys from CityMapper seem pretty cool with that: for them, it’s a learning experience. As well as working out how to prevent bunching, they’re finding out how optimise the amount of contact between driver and HQ, so they can make the most of the data without distracting anyone from driving. They’ve discovered that their glitzy information system is not positioned quite well enough to be visible from everywhere in the bus. They’ve deliberately experimented with how easy it is for a small carer to get a large wheelchair onto the bus.

Oh, and they’ve also discovered that often the door won’t close without Damien giving it a shove.

CMX1 in action, sort of. Image: author provided.

One of the jokes people tend to make about venture capitalists is that, with shared car services like UberPool, Silicon Valley is very slowly re-inventing the bus. In some ways, then, it’s reassuring to see a tech firm like CityMapper lean into this, and actually try to improve bus services instead. After all, buses do have certain advantages, in terms of being an efficient use of space in environments that are short of it. If there is a way of using more of them to get cars off the road then, well, that’s got to be a good thing.

CMX1 ran all day yesterday, and is running all day today, too. Then, it will vanish for a couple of weeks while they think again. At some point, CityMapper will back with a new popup bus route which will, hopefully, work better. Then they’ll stop again, and try again, and so on.


Until, one day, perhaps they’ll be ready to make it – or something like it – a proper bus.

Whether it’ll work remains to be seen. But it’s kind of cool that a firm which made its name in mapping and journey planning is actually bothering to find out.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

The ATM is 50. Here’s how a hole in the wall changed the world

The olden days. Image Lloyds Banking Group Archives & Museum.

Next time you withdraw money from a hole in the wall, consider singing a rendition of happy birthday. For today, the Automated Teller Machine (or ATM) celebrates its half century.

Fifty years ago, the first cash machine was put to work at the Enfield branch of Barclays Bank in London. Two days later, a Swedish device known as the Bankomat was in operation in Uppsala. And a couple of weeks after that, another one built by Chubb and Smith Industries was inaugurated in London by Westminster Bank (today part of RBS Group).

These events fired the starting gun for today’s self-service banking culture – long before the widespread acceptance of debit and credit cards. The success of the cash machine enabled people to make impromptu purchases, spend more money on weekend and evening leisure, and demand banking services when and where they wanted them. The infrastructure, systems and knowledge they spawned also enabled bankers to offer their customers point of sale terminals, and telephone and internet banking.

There was substantial media attention when these “robot cashiers” were launched. Banks promised their customers that the cash machine would liberate them from the shackles of business hours and banking at a single branch. But customers had to learn how to use – and remember – a PIN, perform a self-service transaction and trust a machine with their money.

People take these things for granted today, but when cash machines first appeared many had never before been in contact with advanced electronics.

And the system was far from perfect. Despite widespread demand, only bank customers considered to have “better credit” were offered the service. The early machines were also clunky, heavy (and dangerous) to move, insecure, unreliable, and seldom conveniently located.

Indeed, unlike today’s machines, the first ATMs could do only one thing: dispense a fixed amount of cash when activated by a paper token or bespoke plastic card issued to customers at retail branches during business hours. Once used, tokens would be stored by the machine so that branch staff could retrieve them and debit the appropriate accounts. The plastic cards, meanwhile, would have to be sent back to the customer by post. Needless to say, it took banks and technology companies years to agree common standards and finally deliver on their promise of 24/7 access to cash.

The globalisation effect

Estimates by RBR London concur with my research, suggesting that by 1970, there were still fewer than 1,500 of the machines around the world, concentrated in Europe, North America and Japan. But there were 40,000 by 1980 and a million by 2000.

A number of factors made this ATM explosion possible. First, sharing locations created more transaction volume at individual ATMs. This gave incentives for small and medium-sized financial institutions to invest in this technology. At one point, for instance, there were some 200 shared ATM networks in the US and 80 shared networks in Japan.

They also became more popular once banks digitised their records, allowing the machines to perform a host of other tasks, such as bank transfers, balance requests and bill payments. Over the last five decades, a huge number of people have made the shift away from the cash economy and into the banking system. Consequently, ATMs became a key way of avoiding congestion at branches.

ATM design began to accommodate people with visual and mobility disabilities, too. And in recent decades, many countries have allowed non-bank companies, known as Independent ATM Deployers (IAD) to operate machines. The IAD were key to populating non-bank locations such as corner shops, petrol stations and casinos.

Indeed, while a large bank in the UK might own 4,000 devices and one in the US as many as 12,000, Cardtronics, the largest IAD, manages a fleet of 230,000 ATMs in 11 countries.


Bank to the future

The ATM has remained a relevant and convenient self-service channel for the last half century – and its history is one of invention and re-invention, evolution rather than revolution.

Self-service banking and ATMs continue to evolve. Instead of PIN authentication, some ATMS now use “tap and go” contactless payment technology using bank cards and mobile phones. Meanwhile, ATMs in Poland and Japan have used biometric recognition, which can identify a customer’s iris, fingerprint or voice, for some time, while banks in other countries are considering them.

So it’s a good time to consider what the history of cash dispensers can teach us. The ATM was not the result of a eureka moment of a single middle-aged man in a bath or garage, but from active collaboration between various groups of bankers and engineers to solve the significant challenges of a changing world. It took two decades for the ATM to mature and gain widespread, worldwide acceptance, but today there are 3.5m ATMs with another 500,000 expected by 2020.

Research I am currently undertaking suggests that ATMs may have reached saturation point in some Western countries. However, research by the ATM Industry Association suggests there is strong demand for them in China, India and the Middle East. In fact, while in the West people tend to use them for three self-service functions (cash withdrawal, balance enquiries, and purchasing mobile phone airtime), Chinese customers consumers regularly use them for as many as 100 different tasks.

Taken for granted?

Interestingly, people in most urban areas around the world tend to interact with the same five ATMs. But they shouldn’t be taken for granted. In many countries in Africa, Asia and South America, they offer services to millions of people otherwise excluded from the banking sector.

In most developed counties, meanwhile, the retail branch and the ATM are the only two channels over which financial institutions have 100 per cent control. This is important when you need to verify the authenticity of your customer. Banks do not control the make and model of their customers’ smart phones, tablets or personal computers, which are vulnerable to hacking and fraud. While ATMs are targeted by thieves, mass cybernetic attacks on them have yet to materialise.

The ConversationI am often asked whether the advent of a cashless, digital economy heralds the end of the ATM. My response is that while the world might do away with cash and call ATMs something else, the revolution of automated self-service banking that began 50 years ago is here to stay.

Bernardo Batiz-Lazo is professor of business history and bank management at Bangor University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.