Automated fare media - Revision history

Ssperoni: /* Types of Systems */

2019-07-17T23:00:25Z

Types of Systems

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, 17 July 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:
	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==
	There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smartcards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />		There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smartcards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />

			== New York MTA's Transition to an Open System ==
			In May 2019, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)--the largest transit provider in the United States--began its transition toward an open fare payment system for the greater New York City area by launching a pilot of its new system, called OMNY. As of July 2019, riders on the 4 5 6 subway between Grand Central and 42nd Street, and Atlantic Avenue and Barclays Center, can pay their fare using a contactless credit, debit, or reloadable prepaid card, or a digital wallet on a smartphone or wearable device. All MTA-operated Staten Island buses also accept OMNY. Users must register for a new account to use OMNY but may also continue to use the MTA's outgoing payment method, MetroCard, until OMNY is in operation systemwide.<ref>MTA. "Say hello to tap and go, with OMNY." https://new.mta.info/omny</ref>

	==References==		==References==
Line 45:		Line 48:
	: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.		: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.

	[~~[media:~~ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf\| Rainville, L., Hsu, V., & Peirce, S. (2009). “Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.” Federal Transit Administration.]]		[//www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/2/2d/ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf Rainville, L., Hsu, V., & Peirce, S. (2009). “Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.” Federal Transit Administration.]
	: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.		: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.

Jordanfraade at 05:34, 18 January 2018

2018-01-18T05:34:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:34, 18 January 2018
Line 6:		Line 6:

	==Introduction==		==Introduction==
	Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to ~~smart cards~~.		Transit agencies have traditionally used cash-based fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic-stripe contact cards and more recently to smartcards.

	A ~~smart card~~ is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view ~~smart cards~~ as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.		A smartcard is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view smartcards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare-processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.

	Several U.S. transit agencies have also deployed mobile ticketing solutions. They include TriMet, San Diego, Boston, and Dallas. Riders can install applications on their smartphones		Several U.S. transit agencies have also deployed mobile ticketing solutions. They include TriMet (Portland), San Diego, Boston, and Dallas. Riders can install applications on their smartphones.

	==Types of Systems==		==Types of Systems==
	Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.		Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.

	Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">[http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx Fleishman, D., Schweiger, C., Lott, D., & Pierlott, G. (1998). “Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.” Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref>		Transit-system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare-payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">[http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx Fleishman, D., Schweiger, C., Lott, D., & Pierlott, G. (1998). “Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.” Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref>

	== Interagency coordination ==		== Interagency coordination ==
Line 33:		Line 33:

	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==
	There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than ~~smart cards~~ or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />		There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smartcards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />

	==References==		==References==
	<references/>		<references />

	==Additional Reading==		==Additional Reading==

Rabiabonour at 04:33, 21 February 2017

2017-02-21T04:33:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:33, 21 February 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.		Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.

	Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">~~Transit Cooperative Research Project.~~ [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx ~~“TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose~~ Transit Payment Media.”] ~~1998.~~</ref>		Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">[http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx Fleishman, D., Schweiger, C., Lott, D., & Pierlott, G. (1998). “Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.” Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref>

	== Interagency coordination ==		== Interagency coordination ==
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.		Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.

	Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>~~Federal Transit Administration.~~ [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html "Fare Collection."]</ref></blockquote>		Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html "Fare Collection." Federal Transit Administration.]</ref></blockquote>

	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==
Line 39:		Line 39:

	==Additional Reading==		==Additional Reading==
	Iseki, ~~Hiroyuki~~, ~~Alexander~~ Demisch, ~~Brian~~ D. ~~Taylor~~, ~~and Allison~~ C. ~~Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards~~.~~pdf\|~~“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]~~] 2008.~~		[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/UCB/2008/PRR/UCB-ITS-PRR-2008-14.pdf Iseki, H., Demisch A., Taylor, B.D., & Yoh, A.C. (2008). “Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”. California PATH Program, UC Berkeley.]
	: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment. It was produced through the University of California's PATH program, in cooperation with the State of California's Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, as well as the California Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. The systems studied are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).		: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment.

			[http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html Federal Highway Administration. (2001). "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."]
	~~Federal Highway Administration.~~ [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."] ~~2001.~~
	: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.		: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.

			[[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf\| Rainville, L., Hsu, V., & Peirce, S. (2009). “Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.” Federal Transit Administration.]]
	~~American Public Transit Association.~~ [~~http~~:~~//aptastandards~~.~~com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Farecard/tabid/331/language/en-US/Default~~.~~aspx "Manual of Standards and Practices for Universal Transit Farecards~~.~~"] 2006-2009~~.
	~~: This link leads to five chapters of standards for use of contactless fare cards. The chapters were each written between 2006 and~~ 2009 by the American Public Transit Association's Standards program. These standards are practitioner-focused and include an overview of contactless cards in general, as well as more technical chapters on the security and maintenance of systems that use them.


	~~Federal Transit Administration. [[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads~~.~~pdf\|~~“Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.”]] ~~2009.~~
	: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.		: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.

Rabiabonour at 22:03, 31 October 2016

2016-10-31T22:03:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:03, 31 October 2016
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.		Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.

	Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref>		Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref>

	== Interagency coordination ==		== Interagency coordination ==
Line 33:		Line 33:

	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==
	There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smart cards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref~~>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http:~~/~~/www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref~~>		There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smart cards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />

	==References==		==References==

Sbrumb: /* Resistance to use of smart cards */

2015-06-10T02:45:51Z

Resistance to use of smart cards

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:45, 10 June 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:

	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==
	There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smart cards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about privacy, and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref>		There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smart cards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues\|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref>

	==References==		==References==

BK: fixed link

2015-06-06T00:55:03Z

fixed link

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 6 June 2015
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.		Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.

	Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html\|"Fare Collection."]</ref></blockquote>		Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html "Fare Collection."]</ref></blockquote>

	==Resistance to use of smart cards==		==Resistance to use of smart cards==

BK: moved image to top

2015-04-22T19:59:48Z

moved image to top

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 22 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Clipper_card.jpg\|thumb\|right\|300px\|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]

	[[Category:Bus rapid transit]]		[[Category:Bus rapid transit]]
	[[Category:Technology]]		[[Category:Technology]]
Line 4:		Line 6:

	==Introduction==		==Introduction==

	[[File:Clipper_card.jpg\|thumb\|right\|300px\|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]

	Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards.		Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards.

Sirinyamatute: /* Introduction */

2014-03-05T19:31:40Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 5 March 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:
	[[File:Clipper_card.jpg\|thumb\|right\|300px\|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]		[[File:Clipper_card.jpg\|thumb\|right\|300px\|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]

	Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards. A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.		Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards.

			A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.

			Several U.S. transit agencies have also deployed mobile ticketing solutions. They include TriMet, San Diego, Boston, and Dallas. Riders can install applications on their smartphones

	==Types of Systems==		==Types of Systems==

Amiller: /* Additional Reading */

2012-09-11T16:48:35Z

Additional Reading

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 11 September 2012
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Federal Highway Administration. [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."] 2001.		Federal Highway Administration. [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."] 2001.
	: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several [Intelligent Transportation Systems], including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, ~~as well as the things the agencies involved could have done differently~~ to make the program more successful.		: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.


	American Public Transit Association. [http://aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Farecard/tabid/331/language/en-US/Default.aspx "Manual of Standards and Practices for Universal Transit Farecards."] 2006-2009.		American Public Transit Association. [http://aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Farecard/tabid/331/language/en-US/Default.aspx "Manual of Standards and Practices for Universal Transit Farecards."] 2006-2009.
	: This link leads to five chapters of standards for use of contactless fare cards. The chapters were each written between 2006 and 2009 by the American Public Transit Association's Standards program. These standards include an overview of contactless cards in general, as well as more technical chapters on the security and maintenance of systems that use them.		: This link leads to five chapters of standards for use of contactless fare cards. The chapters were each written between 2006 and 2009 by the American Public Transit Association's Standards program. These standards are practitioner-focused and include an overview of contactless cards in general, as well as more technical chapters on the security and maintenance of systems that use them.


	Federal Transit Administration. [[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf\|“Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.”]] 2009.		Federal Transit Administration. [[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf\|“Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.”]] 2009.
	: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are ~~especially~~ tailored to commuter rail systems.		: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.

Amiller: /* Additional Reading */

2012-09-11T16:45:48Z

Additional Reading

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 11 September 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:
	==Additional Reading==		==Additional Reading==
	Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf\|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.		Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf\|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.
	: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment. It was produced through the University of California's PATH program, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, the California Department of Transportation, and the ~~United States Department of Transportation,~~ Federal Highway Administration. The systems studied are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).		: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment. It was produced through the University of California's PATH program, in cooperation with the State of California's Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, as well as the California Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. The systems studied are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).