National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

TCRP Report 115: Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry (2007)
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Citation Manager

Transportation Research Board. "1.2 Elements of Fare Payment Interoperability." TCRP Report 115: Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
4
bottomleft bottomright
Page
4
Front Matter (R1-R9)
Summary (1-2)
Chapter 1 - Introduction (3-3)
1.2 Elements of Fare Payment Interoperability (4-4)
1.3 Interoperability Across Regions (5-5)
1.4 Interoperability Beyond Transit (6-6)
1.5.1 Acceptance of Contactless Bank Cards (7-8)
1.5.3 Multiple Payment-Enabled Devices (9-9)
1.6 Hypothetical Examples - Interoperability Between WMATA and TransLink (10-10)
1.6.1 Information to Be Exchanged for Payment (11-12)
1.6.3 Process for Determining the Net-Settlement Position (13-13)
2.1 Management and Organizational Issues (14-14)
2.1.1 Establishing a Governing Body or Project Sponsor (15-16)
2.1.2 Identifying and Mitigating Operational Differences (17-17)
2.1.3 Establishing a Framework for Program Funding (18-18)
2.1.4 Creating a Rollout Schedule (19-19)
2.1.5 Developing a Contracting Strategy (20-21)
2.2.2 Funds Pool Management (22-22)
2.2.3 Financial Exposure and Risk Associated with Advanced Features (23-23)
2.3.2 New Processes (24-24)
2.4 Equipment Design Issues (25-25)
2.5.2 Supplier Behavior (26-26)
2.5.3 Supplier Compliance with Available Standards (27-27)
Chapter 3 - Findings of Peer Review of Interoperable Smartcard Programs (28-28)
3.1.1 SmarTrip (29-33)
3.1.2 TransLink (34-34)
3.1.3 Chicago Card (35-35)
3.1.4 Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination (RFC) Project (36-36)
3.1.5 Go-To Card (37-37)
3.1.6 Orlando Regional Alliance for Next Generation Electronic Payment System (ORANGES) (38-38)
3.1.7 Go Ventura (39-39)
3.1.8 Transit Access Pass (TAP) (40-40)
3.1.9 Compass (41-41)
3.1.10 Octopus (42-42)
3.1.11 EZ-Link (43-43)
3.1.12 Oyster (44-44)
3.2.1 Commonalities and Differences (45-46)
3.2.2 Current Trends and New Developments (47-47)
3.4.2 SmarTrip (48-48)
3.5 Summary (49-50)
4.1 Industry Interoperability Analysis (51-51)
4.2.1 Physical Layer (52-56)
4.2.2 Data Layer (57-59)
4.2.3 Application Layer (60-60)
4.2.4 Security Layer (61-66)
4.3 Gap Analysis (67-68)
5.1 Development of Conceptual Fare Payment System Architecture (69-69)
5.2 Identification of the Data Types (70-70)
5.3.2 Operation Data Flows (71-73)
6.1 Scope of the Data-Management Policy (74-74)
6.2.1 Data Location (75-75)
6.3 Identification of Stakeholders and Their Roles and Responsibilities (76-76)
6.4 Other RequirementsPrivacy (77-77)
6.5 Current Trends (78-78)
7.1 Use of Standard API in Proof of Concept (79-82)
7.2 Development of AFC Simulator (83-84)
7.3 Demonstration (85-85)
7.4 Conclusion (86-86)
Chapter 8 - Conclusions (87-91)
Appendix A - Set of Functionality for a Standard API (92-99)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (100-100)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 4
4 Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry 1.1 Interoperability Defined For this research project, TRB defines interoperability as "the ability of different agencies to coordinate and share information so that passengers can travel in a seamless fashion." Travel may occur on public transit, on a toll road or toll bridge; it may include the use of a parking facility. Travel in a seamless fashion is primarily driven by these factors: · Coordination of transfer points; · Schedule coordination; · Simplified and coordinated tariff structures; · Transfer facilities design; · Consistent passenger processes and operational procedures, ­ Boarding, ­ Fare payment, and ­ Fare inspection; · Common interoperable fare media; and · Convenience in obtaining fare or payment media. As the previous list of factors indicates, fare payment interoperability is only one factor that affects seamless travel. Contactless technologies' implementation for fare payment, both long and short range, is accelerating across the transportation industry. The capabilities of contactless technologies provide opportunities to allow regional payment coordination across multiple transportation modes. These capabilities also provide an opportunity to pay for products and services beyond transportation. 1.2 Elements of Fare Payment Interoperability Fare payment interoperability does not necessarily require the use of a smartcard. Figure 1 illustrates the following high-level components to achieving interoperability: · A manual system relies on human interaction such as visual inspection · An automated system relies on technology--usually using fare media such as a contactless smartcard to validate interoperability This research project focused on the automated system using the contactless smartcard as the fare medium. The information and data flows required to achieve smartcard interoperability also applies to other media such as magnetic stripe tickets or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. The physical medium used for seamless payment is a medium that carries data. The most common is magnetic stripe media; however, a solid-state, silicon-chip-based data carrier, such as the contactless smartcard, is emerging as the preferred technology. The first step in building an interoperable system is to organize the participants into a formal group. A Participation Agreement binds the participants to follow a set of common rules, also referred to as policies or business rules. At a minimum, the rules must provide the following: · Technology requirements that include systems and fare media and · Transaction processing that defines the data to be transferred for processing and when (how often) that occurs. These rules may also define other business-related aspects such as · Branding (how the product is to be identified in the market); · Customer service processes and procedures; · Sharing of expenses and payment for services;