|
On November 17th two separate meetings
occurred at the offices of the PANYNJ, New York, NY.
Transit Agency Meeting:
The session began with a brief introduction from
APTA in defining the goals and objectives of the session. Tom Parker,
Chair of the UTFS Program began the morning with an overview briefing,
including an architecture diagram. Most of the discussion centered around
developing a consensus on what level of interoperability should be required
under UTFS. At the end of the day four options were presented to the
group for voting:
Option 1 – proceed as we are;
Option 2 – proceed with component level interoperability;
Option 3 – proceed as we are – confirm viability
for plug-n-play solution;
Option 4 – scaled down approach of #2, device level interoperability;
Option 2 received the majority vote.
Vendor Only Meeting:
Vendors agreed amongst themselves to propose a concept
of subsystem interoperability. This concept meets UTFS program goals
and objectives.
Joint meeting between agencies and vendors:
Tom Parker began the day with a presentation of
the transit agency position. This position detailed proceeding with
the WP2 to define a standard for specific AFC component (reader, bill
validator, station computer, TVM etc) interoperability. Interoperability
defined by the transit agency as the ability to openly procure replacements
or upgrades for any AFC system component.
Transit agency representatives felt that this approach
expedites deployment of seamless, regional AFC systems thus generating
improved customer service, increased ridership and revenue. Transit
reps also felt it greatly facilitates equipment interchangeability,
upgrades, cost-effective parts replacement, and allows for competitive
procurements.
The vendors presented their proposal and defined
interoperability as seamless travel by patrons across agency sub-systems;
changeability of card readers in devices such as fare gates. The vendor’s
premise is that interoperability is achievable across these boundaries
based on knowledge of formats encompassing all interoperable fare media
and the interface specifications for data exchange between the fare
media and the subsystems (WP1), and between the subsystems and the Regional
Clearinghouse (WP4). The vendor’s alternative to plug and play defined
interoperable subsystems from multiple suppliers. These subsystems can
include a garage, rail station, a single "family" of devices, or a light
rail extension and work in conjunction with agency central computers
(subsystem controller) and consist of devices (faregates, fareboxes,
validators, etc), consolidating reporting and agency specific tailoring.
After some discussion, Tom Parker directed the transit
agencies to bring the vendor position back to their agencies and review
with appropriate staff and management. APTA indicated a 30-day review
period. Comments need to be submitted to APTA within that time period.
APTA, Volpe and Tom Parker will distribute materials via email the week
of November 29th.
|
