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. "3.5 Summary." 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
49
bottomleft bottomright
Page
49
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 49
Findings of Peer Review of Interoperable Smartcard Programs 49 3.4.3 ORANGES In addition to fare payment for transit services, participants in Central Florida's ORANGES project may use their smartcard to pay for downtown parking at two garages and for expressway tolls. The smartcard has a stored-value purse and the capabilities to store toll account data and prepaid multi-day bus passes. To facilitate toll payment, select participants were provided with a smartcard-enabled transponder that eliminated the need to stop at the tollbooth. 3.5 Summary As these programs demonstrate, there is no clear technical or business model for creating interoperability across multiple industries. Each opportunity uses the unique characteristics of each system. The information to be exchanged with the interoperable partners is developed as the project matures. Defining the information for non-transit opportunities is beyond the scope of this study and needs to be developed to address the specific needs of the participants. How- ever, the core information required for interoperability across multiple transit agencies can be effectively used beyond transit to non-transit participants. Transit smartcard projects are still in the early stages of development, particularly in the United States and Canada. Interoperability is still viewed primarily as a regional issue. Issues associated with interoperability beyond fare payment, though explored, have not been at the forefront when developing smartcard fare payment systems. This situation is attributable to the high cost of developing a system with the capabilities to be used for more than fare payment. Another factor contributing to this situation is the current competitive environment. Suppliers use technology to protect their market position. Even the most prominent programs in Asia have not achieved large-scale market penetration beyond transit fare payment as evident by the small average retail transaction amount of less than US$10. As a result of the challenges experienced by the global community of transit agencies, signifi- cant standards development efforts are under way--including in the United States and Canada, Europe, and Australia. Table 10 gives the names and contact information for the people interviewed for each of the systems profiled.

OCR for page 50
50 Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry Table 10. Interviewees for each system. Location Project Contact Name Contact Title Telephone Number Washington, SmarTrip Doug Deckert Project Manager 202-962-2457 DC San Francisco TransLink Scott Rodda Program Manager 510-817-3252 Jennifer Cheng Project Manager 510-817-3251 Chicago Chicago Chung Chung Tam Client 312-255-1818 Card Representative ext. 5709 Seattle RFCS Candace Carlson Project Manager 206-684-1562 Margaret Walker Supplier 905-890-2794 ext. 222 Minneapolis Go-To Mike Tensfeldt Supplier 858-810-1308 Card Jim Alexander Project Manager 612-349-7467 Central ORANGES Doug Jamison LYNX Project 407-254-6071 Florida Manager Tom Delaney Project 407-647-7275 Consultant ext. 4121 Ventura Go Steve DeGeorge Project Manager 805-642-1591 County, CA Ventura ext. 103 Los Angeles TAP Jane Matsumoto Project Manager 213-922-3045 County, CA San Diego Compass James Drieisbach- Project Manager 619-557-4502 Towle Brian Monk Supplier 858-614-4481 Hong Kong Octopus Joseph Lee Supplier 416-495-3339 London Oyster Richard Thomas Client Bus. Mgr. 44 020 7918 6019 Brian Monk Supplier 858-614-4481 Singapore EZ-Link Margaret Walker Supplier 905-890-2794 ext. 222