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 R1
TRANSIT
TCRP REPORT 115
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
Smartcard Interoperability
Issues for the Transit Industry
OCR for page R2
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
SELECTION COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
David A. Lee
Connecticut Transit CHAIR: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta
MEMBERS VICE CHAIR: Linda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation
Ann August Authority, Orlando
Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority
Linda J. Bohlinger EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
HNTB Corp.
Robert I. Brownstein MEMBERS
PB Consult, Inc. Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas DOT, Austin
Peter Cannito
Metropolitan Transportation Authority--Metro Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
North Railroad John D. Bowe, Regional President, APL Americas, Oakland, CA
Gregory Cook Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Deborah H. Butler, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries,
Nathaniel P. Ford Atlanta, GA
San Francisco MUNI Anne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC
Ronald L. Freeland Douglas G. Duncan, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
Fred M. Gilliam
Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia,
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Charlottesville
Kim R. Green Angela Gittens, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL
GFI GENFARE Genevieve Giuliano, Professor and Senior Associate Dean of Research and Technology,
Jill A. Hough School of Policy, Planning, and Development, and Director, METRANS National Center
North Dakota State University for Metropolitan Transportation Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
John Inglish Susan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark
Utah Transit Authority
University, Worcester, MA
Jeanne W. Krieg
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority James R. Hertwig, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL
Celia G. Kupersmith Gloria J. Jeff, General Manager, City of Los Angeles DOT, Los Angeles, CA
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
District Harold E. Linnenkohl, Commissioner, Georgia DOT, Atlanta
Clarence W. Marsella Sue McNeil, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark
Denver Regional Transportation District Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
Faye L. M. Moore Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority Carol A. Murray, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT, Concord
Stephanie L. Pinson John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City
Gilbert Tweed Associates, Inc. Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
Robert H. Prince, Jr. Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
DMJM+Harris Henry Gerard Schwartz, Jr., Senior Professor, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Jeffrey M. Rosenberg Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA
Amalgamated Transit Union C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
Michael Scanlon
San Mateo County Transit District
Beverly Scott EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Sacramento Regional Transit District Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC
James S. Simpson Thomas J. Barrett (Vice Adm., U.S. Coast Guard, ret.), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
FTA
Frank Tobey
Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
First Transit Marion C. Blakey, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT
Kathryn D. Waters Joseph H. Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT
Dallas Area Rapid Transit John Bobo, Deputy Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
Frank Wilson Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn, and Foreign Secretary,
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
William W. Millar J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.DOT
APTA Sean T. Connaughton, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
TRB John H. Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
John C. Horsley John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
AASHTO Officials, Washington, DC
J. Richard Capka
FHWA J. Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
John C. Stennis Space Center, MS
TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Louis Sanders Nicole R. Nason, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
APTA Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT
SECRETARY James S. Simpson, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT
Robert J. Reilly Carl A. Strock (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
TRB Engineers, Washington, DC
*Membership as of November 2006. *Membership as of November 2006.
OCR for page R3
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 115
Smartcard Interoperability
Issues for the Transit Industry
ACUMEN BUILDING ENTERPRISE, INC.
Oakland, CA
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, INC.
San Francisco, CA
Subject Areas
Public Transit
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2006
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 115
The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Price $35.00
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current
Project A-26
systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand
ISSN 1073-4872
service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve
ISBN-13: 978-0-309-09870-0
these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to ISBN-10: 0-309-09870-X
adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- Library of Congress Control Number 2006938001
duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by © 2006 Transportation Research Board
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions
to meet demands placed on it.
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A published or copyrighted material used herein.
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success-
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
from CRP.
research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
administrative practices.
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- NOTICE
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing
of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out-
Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the
lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the
The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review
Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration
Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions
nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and
while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not
independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,
Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S.
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Department of Transportation.
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to
of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
Committee defines funding levels and expected products. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration
(sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or
by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are
ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.
cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process
for developing research problem statements and selecting research
agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro-
grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve
voluntarily without compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-
Published reports of the
nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-
sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from:
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at
address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 115
Robert J. Reilly, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher W. Jenks, TCRP Manager
Gwen Chisholm-Smith, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Hilary Freer, Senior Editor
TCRP PROJECT A-26 PANEL
FIELD OF OPERATIONS
Thomas Parker, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San Ramon, CA (Chair)
Peter Benjamin, WMATA, Washington, DC
Bruce E. Chapman, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Frances P.C. Chung, GO Transit, Toronto, ON
Allison Lee C. de Cerreno, New York University, New York, NY
Agapito Diaz, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
David Faria, Technology Solution Providers, Fairfax Station, VA
Ginger Gherardi, Ventura County (CA) Transportation Commission, Ventura, CA
Wade Lawson, South Jersey Transportation Authority, Atlantic City, NJ
Paul A. Toliver, New Age Industries, Seattle, WA
Carol Wise, Central Ohio Transit Authority, Columbus, OH
Gail Charles Wright, Omnitrans, San Bernardino, CA
Sean Ricketson, FTA Liaison
Thomas Peacock, APTA Liaison
Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Gwen Chisholm-Smith
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
TCRP Report 115: Smartcard Interoperability Issues for the Transit Industry defines interoper-
ability; identifies key information needed by public agencies to implement smartcard payment
systems interoperability; describes the necessary information flows; and outlines a set of func-
tions needed for a standard public domain application programming interface (API) that may
be used in the development of a uniform application protocol data unit (APDU). The report
includes a prototype for an API and an APDU that demonstrates this "proof of concept" for
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-compliant Type A and Type B cards.
The report is intended for use by transit decision makers and practitioners to help guide
them through the creation and implementation of interoperable smartcard payment systems.
Agencies at varying points of creating and implementing an interoperable transit smartcard sys-
tem will find this helpful.
Smartcards are a secure, widely accepted medium for cashless payments for a wide spec-
trum of financial transactions, including automatic fare collection (AFC) activities within
transit districts. Smartcard electronic payment media systems are operating on transit sys-
tems across the nation. Use of smartcards can greatly increase the level of convenience and
facilitate transfers for transit riders and can increase efficiency and reduce costs for transit
providers. Smartcards used on public transit can have widespread application outside of
transit. They can be linked to other modes of transportation (e.g., parking and highway
tolls) and other industries such as retail, banking, and security.
Although seamless smartcard electronic payment systems can benefit transit passengers
and operators, as well as other potential users, transit operators face substantial challenges
in integrating smartcard-based AFC equipment from different manufacturers because of
the lack of interoperability. Some examples of the complicating factors are application of
multiple fare-payment systems and technologies, transit agencies' different operating needs
and fare mechanisms, inadequate communication protocols and information exchange
among transportation clearinghouses, absence of a single API to foster interoperability, and
intellectual property barriers that do not allow for open architecture. These problems need
to be remedied, before widespread deployment can proceed.
The TCRP researchers, Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc., in association with Booz Allen
Hamilton, Inc., identified the key institutional issues that may present barriers to imple-
menting an interoperable transit fare-payment program, described the commonalities and
differences in the information exchanged between agencies, outlined the data elements and
information exchanged that are critical for implementing smartcard interoperability, delin-
eated the information flow, and examined critical data management issues and policies. The
research team discussed the development of a prototype for a proposed public domain API
that demonstrates a "proof of concept" for ISO 14443 Type A and B compliant cards.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
4 1.1 Interoperability Defined
4 1.2 Elements of Fare Payment Interoperability
5 1.3 Interoperability Across Regions
6 1.4 Interoperability Beyond Transit
7 1.5 Evolution of Interoperability with Open Payment Systems
7 1.5.1 Acceptance of Contactless Bank Cards
9 1.5.2 Multiple Closed Stored-Value Payment Products
9 1.5.3 Multiple Payment-Enabled Devices
10 1.5.4 Financial Services Industry Interoperability Issues
10 1.6 Hypothetical Examples--Interoperability Between WMATA and TransLink
11 1.6.1 Information to Be Exchanged for Payment
13 1.6.2 Information to Be Exchanged for Loading Value
13 1.6.3 Process for Determining the Net-Settlement Position
14 Chapter 2 Findings of Institutional Requirements for
Interoperable Smartcard Fare Payment Systems
14 2.1 Management and Organizational Issues
15 2.1.1 Establishing a Governing Body or Project Sponsor
17 2.1.2 Identifying and Mitigating Operational Differences
18 2.1.3 Establishing a Framework for Program Funding
19 2.1.4 Creating a Rollout Schedule
20 2.1.5 Developing a Contracting Strategy
22 2.2 Financial Management Issues
22 2.2.1 Transaction Clearing and Settlement
22 2.2.2 Funds Pool Management
23 2.2.3 Financial Exposure and Risk Associated with Advanced Features
24 2.3 Patron Impact Issues
24 2.3.1 Technology
24 2.3.2 New Processes
25 2.3.3 Convenience
25 2.3.4 Strategies for Overcoming Patron Impacts
25 2.4 Equipment Design Issues
26 2.5 Transit Industry Issues
26 2.5.1 Business Justification
26 2.5.2 Supplier Behavior
27 2.5.3 Supplier Compliance with Available Standards
28 Chapter 3 Findings of Peer Review of Interoperable
Smartcard Programs
29 3.1 Survey of Interoperable Agencies
29 3.1.1 SmarTrip
34 3.1.2 TransLink
OCR for page R9
35 3.1.3 Chicago Card
36 3.1.4 Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination (RFC) Project
37 3.1.5 Go-To Card
38 3.1.6 Orlando Regional Alliance for Next Generation Electronic Payment
System (ORANGES)
39 3.1.7 Go Ventura
40 3.1.8 Transit Access Pass (TAP)
41 3.1.9 Compass
42 3.1.10 Octopus
43 3.1.11 EZ-Link
44 3.1.12 Oyster
45 3.2 Findings
45 3.2.1 Commonalities and Differences
47 3.2.2 Current Trends and New Developments
48 3.3 Asian Contactless Smartcard Trends
48 3.3.1 Octopus
48 3.3.2 EZ-Link
48 3.3.3 Finding
48 3.4 U.S. and Canadian Contactless Smartcard Trends
48 3.4.1 TransLink
48 3.4.2 SmarTrip
49 3.4.3 ORANGES
49 3.5 Summary
51 Chapter 4 Findings of Key Information to be Exchanged
Between Agencies
51 4.1 Industry Interoperability Analysis
52 4.2 Description of Required Data Elements
52 4.2.1 Physical Layer
57 4.2.2 Data Layer
60 4.2.3 Application Layer
61 4.2.4 Security Layer
67 4.3 Gap Analysis
69 Chapter 5 Findings of Data Flows Between Agencies
69 5.1 Development of Conceptual Fare Payment System Architecture
70 5.2 Identification of the Data Types
71 5.3 Analysis of Data Flows
71 5.3.1 Data on the Smartcard
71 5.3.2 Operation Data Flows
74 Chapter 6 Findings of Data-Management Policies and Issues
74 6.1 Scope of the Data-Management Policy
75 6.2 Definition of the Data Types
75 6.2.1 Data Location
76 6.2.2 Data Ownership and Access Rights
76 6.3 Identification of Stakeholders and Their Roles and Responsibilities
77 6.4 Other RequirementsPrivacy
78 6.5 Current Trends
79 Chapter 7 Findings of Proof of Concept Using Standard API
79 7.1 Use of Standard API in Proof of Concept
83 7.2 Development of AFC Simulator
85 7.3 Demonstration
86 7.4 Conclusion
87 Chapter 8 Conclusions
92 Appendix A Set of Functionality for a Standard API
