Universal Transit Farecard Standards (UTFS)Task Force

Tom Parker (TF Chair), BART

Martin Schroeder, APTA

Greg Garback (SI Liaison), WMATA

Dave Phelps, APTA

Chung Chung Tam (Fin Mgmt Chair), CTA

Leisa Moniz, Volpe

Rick Barrett (Fin Mgmt Vice-Chair), Quattran

Tim Weisenberger, Volpe

Carol Wise (Ops Comm Chair), COTA

The WP1 team has recommended that a separate group be formed to examine PICC-CID security and recommend how the WP1 specification should address it.

The group decided to approach the Smart Card Alliance Transportation Council could be engaged to man this group. The group will be led by UTFS (preferable the WP3 leader).

ACTION: Tim W. will work with Greg G. and Martin S. to develop a one-page problem statement by COB 4/15. The TF leaders will then review.

Tam reported that the WP1 technical work group has determined that the security piece of the WP1 card specification was beyond the capabilities of that group to resolve at this point given their work resolving the comments to the spec. They suggest appointing a separate group to examine the PICC-CID (card-reader) security section and all references to it in the WP1 spec and determine how UTFS must address it. The WP1 team felt they didn’t have the resources to properly address security in a timely manner. Tam asked the leaders if they felt the Smart Card Alliance Transportation Council would be an appropriate source to man a group to tackle the issue. Discussion on the topic was positive and one point enforced was that UTFS must lead the effort; it shouldn’t simply be outsourced to the SCA Council. A point was raised that a cause for the lack of traction on security is that security schemes are proprietary and highly protected by vendors. Tim W. agreed and also stated that the issue in WP1 was not to solve security, but have a group examine it and recommend how to proceed.

Greg Garback was in support of engaging the council on the issue. He stated that the Alliance is a vast resource of organizations and people with the appropriate skill sets to help UTFS. Martin S. concurred and stated that APTA desired a cooperative relationship with the Alliance to help achieve the UTFS goals.

Greg suggested that the issue must be framed and presented to the Council. Tim volunteered to work with Greg and Martin to write a one-page problem statement by COB 4/15 and distribute to the leadership for review.

Tam Concurred with this approach, but added that he would like WP3 to lead it if possible. He was trying to get Gary Yamamura to agree to this.

WP1- Held face-to-face mtg in San Francisco on Mar 24. The group has 3 issues:

1. Security Issue (highlighted above)
2. Limited Use Cards- group will address after comment resolution
3. Schedule- Estimate not finishing comment resolution until end of calendar ‘05

WP3- Security Guideline is in final ballot and will be distributed to TF leaders before next teleconference.

WP4- Held face-to-face mtg on Mar 23 in Oakland and resolved issues regarding the part A/part B split of the spec. Has scheduled 2-3 days of meetings in May in Boston to review the RIS Pt 4.

SCA Transit Council proposed WP4+ scope document is being reviewed by WP1 and WP4 teams.

Tam Reported:

WP1- Held face-to-face mtg in San Francisco on Mar 24. The group has 3 issues:

1. Security Issue (highlighted above)
2. Limited Use Cards- group will address after comment resolution
3. Schedule- Estimate not finishing comment resolution until end of calendar ‘05

WP3- Security Guideline is in final ballot and will be distributed to TF leaders before next teleconference.

WP4- Held face-to-face mtg on Mar 23 in Oakland. The meeting was quite successful and the group reached a consensus approach that effectively resolved issues that had previously led to group to approach the specification by splitting it into two parts- part A that would seek to review and comment the RIS Pt 4 document and a part B that would attempt to make the spec more open to non-RIS compliant card schemes. This split approach is not seen to be necessary at this point. The group has scheduled 2-3 days of meetings in May hosted by Scheidt & Bachmann in Boston to review the RIS Pt 4.

SCA Transit Council proposed WP4+ scope document is being reviewed by WP1 and WP4 teams

Tim and Henry had meetings at the Fare Collection Workshop in Oakland to resolve issues regarding two final draft documents.

The Farecard Procurement Procedures Guideline-

Explanatory verbiage will be added to the document to clarify its usage as a guideline and also to amplify the need for insertion of the future UTFS card spec or an appropriate agency spec. APTA legal can then do a review in the future and publish a new revision with more specificity.

The Magnetic Stripe fare Media Guideline- Henry and Tim gained agreement from Brian Monk of Cubic to add verbiage above a table of "Recommended Data Elements" to explain the usage of the table as merely an example and not a requirement.

On 4/25, the Fare Media Committee will discuss the submission of the documents to APTA. Once approved they will be submitted to APTA for publishing. This will complete Fare Media Committee deliverables.

Tim reported:

Tim and Henry had meetings at the Fare Collection Workshop in Oakland to resolve issues regarding two final draft documents: The Farecard procurement Procedures Guideline and the Magnetic Stripe fare Media Guideline. The plan for completing these documents and submitting to APTA for publication are:

1. Procurement Guideline: Henry, Tim, and Paula Faust gained agreement from Martin S. for APTA to publish the document with additional verbiage inserted as to the document’s use as a guideline, and that it is not intended to be pasted into an agency’s RFP. Additionally, verbiage was added to amplify that the UTFS spec in development would be used (or an AFC spec the Agency had developed.) Once this document is published, APTA legal staff can then refine as deemed necessary and distribute a second revision at a later date.
2. Magnetic Guideline: Henry and Tim gained agreement from Brian Monk of Cubic to resolve an adverse comment (and ‘No’ vote) to the document by adding additional verbiage above a table of "Recommended Data Elements" to explain the usage of the table as an example of the types of data elements an agency should require. After resolving the comment, the document can be submitted to APTA for publishing. Tim noted that the Guideline document will be a precursor to the Magnetic Spec to be developed in UTFS.

The next Fare Media Committee mtg will be held April 25 and at this meeting Henry will seek agreement to send the documents to APTA for publishing. These documents are the last deliverables within Fare Media Committee.

LTK Engineering is executing on the contract for three tasks:

1. Strategic business plan for AFC systems
2. A needs examination
3. An equipment review

Ops Steering Committee review and gave following comments top LTK:

1. Add a Checklist
2. Add Case Studies
3. Make the document is useful to transit agencies of all sizes

Final draft due end of May. Carol noted that this date is beyond the original schedule agreed to by LTK.

There was a question of whether the TF leaders can review and direct LTK to make changes.

ACTION: Carol will review the SOW and report to the leaders if they can review without a task order to LTK.

Carol reported:

LTK Engineering is executing on the contract for three tasks:

1. Strategic business plan for AFC systems
2. A needs examination
3. An equipment review

A draft has been submitted to the Ops Steering Committee. The Committee has reviewed and in a call approximately 3 weeks ago presented their comments to LTK contractor:

1. Add a Checklist
2. Add Case Studies
3. Make changes so that the document is useful to transit agencies of all sizes, not just large agencies

The revision is due by the end of April. Carol noted that this date is beyond the original schedule agreed to by LTK. Martin S. asked when the document would be final. Carol replied by the end of May. Martin asked what the approval process would be.

Carol asked if the document should go to the leadership for review once the Ops Steering Committee reviews the updated draft. Tom P. asked if the leadership has changes can the document go back to LTK for revision. Carol wasn’t sure. Perhaps additional changes would have to be performed with a change order.

Dave Phelps stated that the procedure for approving reports should be outlined in the statement of work for the LTK Contract. He stated that if some or all of the LTK deliverables will be UTFS deliverables (e.g., guidelines) then there definitely should be a review and ballot as described in the Bylaws.

Carol stated that those who want to review can have the opportunity if it is in the SOW to do so. Tom directed that this review be performed. Carol will review the SOW to ensure the leaders can make changes.