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