UTFS Fare Media Committee

Henry Rosen, PATH, Chair

Margaret Walker, ERG

Walt Bonneau, 3PCI

Rich Lobron, Lobron Consulting

Robert Reavis, BART

Luis Cantu, CTA

Levent Eyuboglu, Booz-Allen

Kevin Fehn, LIRR

Alex Pi, Scheidt and Bachmann

Tim Weisenberger, Volpe

Dave Phelps, APTA

Henry stated that the goals for the call were to get work group updates from the Magnetic and Procedural groups and to review the voting and discuss final comments to the "Trends" document.

Kevin F. and Paula F. will meet on Mar 23 to resolve comments. They will attempt to complete this by the next Fare Media Committee Meeting.

Kevin reported that the Farecard Procurement Procedures met on Mar 4. The results of the final review process were comments from two sources- FTA and ERG. The comments were largely editorial. Many of the comments may have stemmed from unfamiliarity with procurement of fare collection systems.

Kevin and Paula Faust will meet on Mar 23 after the Fare Collection Workshop proceedings to resolve the comments. It is hoped that the comments can be resolved prior to the next Fare Media Committee meeting

1. On what standard will the document be based?
2. The correctness and applicability of the data elements.

The WG must determine what standard(s) to use as a baseline for their work

• ISO 7810- this standard has been used by the group
• ISO 15457- this standard has been proposed

The committee agreed that the WP1 team would create a list of pertinent data elements from the smart card data elements created. The magnetics WG would then use this list and the RIS document to create a detailed set of magnetics data elements.

The next Magnetic Fare Media WG meeting will be the week of Mar 15..

Rich reported that the Work Group met on Feb 27. Numerous comments must be resolved and substantive issues were raised. These issues are:

1. On what standard will the document be based?
1. ISO 7810 has been used
2. ISO 15457 was proposed
2. The correctness and applicability of the data elements.

Rich noted that a table of data elements appears in the Trends document. He asked the group if they thought this could be used in the magnetics document. Walt B. and Alex P. discussed that this table is simply an example and is not meant to be a guideline.

Rich asked if anyone had information on how the WG arrived at the data elements. Alex replied that he believed it was from a Cubic document with trade secrets included. No one could confirm the process used. Dave P. and Rich stated that the assertion that any proprietary information is contained in the current document is now not applicable as the document carries an assurance of APTA ownership and that Cubic has given permission to use the all information from the original document they submitted.

Rich then asked if the group felt there needed to be a common set of data elements of which magnetic data would be a subset of smart card data. He stated he was asking for the committee for guidance. There was much discussion around this subject. Two approaches were discussed.

1. Create a subset of the smart card data elements for magnetics
2. Note that common data elements are needed and that transit agencies must pursue this coordination

Most commenters thought having common data elements was highly desired. Walt offered the solution that the WP1 team could quickly develop a set of data elements using the smart card data elements as a base. This would simply be a list that the WP1 team thinks are pertinent data elements. The Magnetics Work Group could take this list and create their table of data elements. Margaret W. suggested that the WG could also use the RIS to ensure that they included all data elements they feel necessary. There was general agreement to this approach.

The next Magnetic Fare Media WG meeting will be the week of Mar 15.

The organizations that provided comments were asked if they were now comfortable given the agreed upon resolution. ERG replied they were, S&B indicated that they will be if the authors ensure that "courtesy of…" language is applied consistently throughout the document.

Tim opened the discussion by asking Dave Phelps to give the voting results. Dave stated that the document was approved. The voting results was:

4- Yes

1- Yes with comment

1- No with comment

Tim stated that APTA and the Rail CEO Steering Committee strive to resolve all negative votes. Tim reviewed some of the comments, all of which were non-substantive. They were:

1. Several comments from ERG that were previously not resolved.
2. A comment that the one-page document description was not included.
3. A comment that language that states in several places that a figure or illustration was "courtesy of…" should be removed.