Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ] |
| Subject: The basic set of standards for contact cards is known as ISO 7816. ISO 9992 and ISO 10202 (security) | |
|
Author: 5.1 Contact Cards |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:09:14 02/01/03 Sat In reply to: Automated Ticketing Systems 's message, "standardsmost relevance to the transit industry is ISO 14443" on 09:07:48 02/01/03 Sat 5.1 Contact Cards The basic set of standards for contact cards is known as ISO 7816. ISO 9992 and ISO 10202 (security) are additional standards that pertain specifically to financial transaction cards. In addition, a set of specifications is being developed to address the interoperability of card acceptance, security, and payment functions. The jointly developed Europa/MasterCard/Visa (EMV) Specifications govern financial (debit and credit) transactions using contact smart cards. These EMV specifications only pertain to debit and credit transactions. Other organizations are working to produce standards for prepaid and electronic purse cards. This gap in standards and specifications leaves the issue of interoperability among prepaid and stored value unresolved. Stored value programs in operation or on trial are utilizing ISO-compatible contact smart cards. 166 5.2 Contactless Cards The development of standards for contactless cards is following contact cards. The efforts of most relevance to the transit industry is ISO 14443, Remote Coupling Cards, which addresses physical characteristics, radio-frequency interface, transmission protocols, and transmission security features. The smart card industry is moving steadily toward the adoption of standards for contactless cards and combi-cards. These standards and guidelines will be necessary for a successful move towards interoperability. 167 5.3 Functional standards Functional standards and requirements also need to be developed and implemented. At the present time, there are several initiatives underway. ITS America has established an ITS Payment Systems Task Force to identify issues/concerns that may be involved in electronic payment programs in all modes. In addition, under FTA sponsorship, the US DOT/Volpe Center is establishing a (168) working group whose task is to define functional requirements and design guidelines for multi-use transit smart card applications. The APTA Fare Collection Committee also plans to consider the issue through a subcommittee. Finally, the Transportation and Multi-Application Work Groups of the Smart Card Forum are also reviewing multi-use card issues. Conclusions on the State-of-the-Art on Smart Cards 1. Conclusions Most operators appear to agree that the introduction of the smart card will decrease maintenance costs of electromechanical based gates, which will be replaced for fare collection purposes by electro-optical equipment, with a much lower breakdown rate. This benefit , however, only takes place if the electromechanical based fare collection is replaced completely by the optical based readers. As is the case with most existing systems, both collection systems continue to coexist, resulting in much lower benefits because the electromechanical equipment will still be in use and will breakdown, albeit at a lower rate, due to lower usage. Operators also agree that a smart card contactless system would allow a much faster rate of entry and exit/from the system thereby saving passenger time. There is also some agreement that the contactless smart card will decrease fraud, particularly when used for monthly passes and integrated fares, especially in systems where these passes are at present flashed at the driver, who does not have sufficient time to check them. The introduction and success of a contactless card system, largely depends on how the general public views and embraces the system. In developing countries (most of our borrowers) there are a number of constraints which might make the introduction of a smart card contactless system a very challenging task. For example, in Washington and Hong Kong, an initial investment in the card of US$10 and US$6 respectively is required (non-refundable in the case of Washington and refundable in the case of HK). It is doubtful that the deposit could be easily afforded by individuals in Brazil, Argentina or India. This deposit is important because it represents a reserve for the clearing house which, if well administered, could be a source of revenues. Therefore, a mechanism must be found to charge a much lower fee or to provide the cards for free , although the latter may induce wastage by the users. Other issues concern the "add-value" function of the card. How much money will the users in developing countries be able to afford to deposit each time they add value to the card? If the amount is too little this means that they will have to constantly go back to the add-value machine and this may end up creating delays (which no doubt existed with the paper tickets). If one wants to add value, in most industrialized countries, the add-value machine gives you the option of using bills/coins or your credit card in an ATM type machine which gets your money from your commercial Bank account. This feature will have to be carefully studied in developing countries because most people who use the system do not have an ATM card. In Hong Kong, where the population is quite sophisticated, a great number of users prefers to go to the sales office of the station to add value to their cards, possibly because they feel uncomfortable with the add-value machines. We expect that this will be the most common situation in developing countries, given the degree of illiteracy. When used in buses, especially when the bus system does not have a flat fare, i.e., when the fares are distance or zone-based, a number of features must be introduced to let the card know where you got in and where are you getting off. This requires outfitting the buses with a Global Positioning System which will be tested very soon in Singapore. Savings in station personnel might not be easy to achieve in countries where the user population might be prone to vandalize the equipment. This is true in both industrialized and developing countries. In Hong Kong and Singapore there is the utmost respect for the equipment and severe penalties for vandals. Just the presence of an attendant is sufficient to restrain the vandals. In Argentina, during one of the attempts to introduce the magnetic strip card, when the station attendants were removed, vandalism and theft increased. Public education campaigns and severe penalties must be part of a good program. Total removal of station attendants might have drastic consequences. The open type system, in which vendors other than the transport operators are included, appear to be more difficult to introduce in developing countries, because it assumes that the users will have an electronic purse which, most likely the majority of them cannot afford. In any country it is crucial that the two following aspects be resolved before the introduction of a smart card system: a) the existence of a regional transport coordinating commission or equivalent where all the modes involved are represented; and b) the business rules, that is, the type of tickets, monthly passes, mandated discounts and bonus, concession tickets, etc., are very carefully studied and defined. Systems which have mastered the use of magnetic strip cards in several modes such as the TransLink system in Singapore will more easily switch to the contactless smart card. Their business rules are clear and there is a regional transport coordination commission. Overall, our survey of the state-of-the-art suggests that introduction of the contactless smart card in developing countries will require a number of adaptations which should not be underestimated. Some of these are: a) elimination or minimization of the deposit for the card; b) low minimum required in stored value in the card ; c) staged introduction of the system possibly starting with the monthly passes; d) easy to use add value machines, which must be user friendly across a broad spectrum; and e) a card which is resistant because most of the users will be low-income blue collar workers who work in environments where cards can deteriorate quickly. While selecting the appropriate technology is crucial, the education campaigns to prepare the users is as important for the success of the system. Consequently, the schedule for introduction of these smart card systems must take the education campaigns into account. 2. The Contactless Smart Card: key to personal mobility There are a number of technological and marketing issues which are raised when planning a smart card contactless system. We summarize in the next pages the conclusions of a number of UITP (Presentation by Mr. Pierre Laconte , UITP, on the Third International Conference on Automatic Fare Collection (AFC), in Bologna , Italy, Feb. 11-13, 1998) conferences on the subject and our own conclusions: I. Ten Issues ISSUE 1: A contactless smart card for Public Transport (PT) only? Should contactless smart cards be only (or mainly) for PT? Hong Kong (HK), London, Seoul say "Yes" because of: User convenience Control of the system by the transport operators Others push the case for contact and contactless smart cards multi-applications. No full-scale implementation yet, but projects include several E-Purse providers (Proton, Visa-cash, Spain…). Financial institutions were at first reluctant to be mixed with transport and weary of security protocol which is much stricter for banking operations. Nowadays they realize that transport smart cards have millions of transactions per day and they want to capitalize on this opportunity. ISSUE 2: Completely contactless or not? Should the card be contactless or allow for partial contact ? Completely contactless system allows smaller reader capacity for chip card only (easier to achieve) It also decreases electromechanical devices and therefore maintenance costs. Partiallly contactless system requires increased reader capacity allowing: -contactless smart card -magnetic card (single trip) -paper or even cash (box) In developing countries , contactless smart cards will have to co-exist with partially contactless cards for some time until they are fully accepted. There is a consensus that the contactless smart card is better and obvipously faster. ISSUE 3: Consumer care and consumer acceptance "Will the public embrace the introduction of contactless smart cards? – It depends on how convenient it is for them and how easy to use and load it is." Full benefit of contactless smart card requires: High quality customer information and training; Educating the staff to answer passenger questions and to assist with problems; Educating the public to stored value cards by emphasizing user-friendliness (no need to think about the fare if the correct amount is debited at the exit); Resistance is due to the fact that in many places customers are accustomed to flat rates or unlimited travel passes; Incentives to intermodal travel (discounts when using several modes / fidelity schemes / "seamless travel"); Vandalism. ISSUE 4: What's in it for the operator? What are the advantages for the operators ? The operator business case of contactless smart cards requires consideration of: Life cycle cost of: -investment in cards, equipment, clearing houses; -operation and maintenance Life cycle income as compared to existing systems ( such as "travel cards") - possible benefits through other applications on the cards Side Benefits: - Reduction in fraud; -Market information – better knowledge by the operator of customer travel patterns; -More sophisticated ticketing products – capacity to adjust fares according to time of day. ISSUE 5: In-house or outsourcing? A Smartcard ticketing system can be provided in-house (RATP, WMATA) Or it can be outsourced, INTEC (Seoul) Creative Star (HK) Supplier Consortium (London, Melbourne) ISSUE 6: Allocation of income Only among operators in one mode (Seoul until now) Among all transport operators of the system (HK, London) Among all transport operators and other service providers linked to the E-purse NB: What about the allocation of income not covered by Smart-Card (London will continue sampling for length of bus ride)? ISSUE 7: Timely implementation Need to have a clear leader ("champion") on: contractor side (TransSys consortium for London, ERG in Creative Star); buyer side (operator or service provider acting for the operators). ISSUE 8: Pre/post debit Stored value debited at the beginning for total trip length ("license to travel" KCRC light rail, LT underground, Singapore) and corrected at the exit. This reduces fraud and obviates the need for the travelers to read fare tables, zones, etc. Stored value debited at the beginning for amount indicated by traveler (e.g. London bus Harrow trial) unless there is a flat fare system which requires to become acquainted with the system of fare zones, distance-related fares, special schemes, etc. and may tempt them to pay only for the shortest trip NB: Problem of deciding the level of fare to be deducted at the beginning of the trip – passenger may be making a short trip, and not have enough value on card for a long trip. (Mention of HK system of negative HK$ 35 balance) ISSUE 9: Card with sleeve or card only? Card with sleeve (RATP) allows easy reading of value and other information but is bulky; Card only: stored value balance is known only when used or put in reader, but card fits in ordinary wallet ISSUE 10: How much information should be collected centrally? Either: tracking of all transactions by a central computer (HK) Or: a decentralized system with limited data collected (RATP) II. Rapidly Evolving Market Chip makers for cards and readers (Siemens, SGS Thomson, Motorola, Philips, Hitachi, NEC, Sony); Card manufacturers (GEM, Schlumberger, G&D…); System integrators (Cubic, AES/Prodata, Intee, Ascom, Schlumberger…); Added value service providers (Creative Star (HK), TranSys (London), Intec (Seoul) etc.). III. Standardization Horizon 2001: Towards an open system ISO 14443 for contactless proximity cards (10 cm); specifying two types of card Type A (Mikron, Philips, Siemens); Type B (Motorola, SGS Thomson). Reader capacity should extend to both types of card. However, this means putting infrastructures on the market which are capable of accepting all users and service providers instead of the present day exclusive proprietary supplier chain infrastructures. Endnotes: [137] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [138] Ibid. [139] Ibid. [140] Ibid. [141] Smart Cards Seizing Strategic Business Opportunities, The Smart Card Forum, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997. [142] "Smart Cards: Promoting Partnerships and Profits," briefing by Michael G. Dinning, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, May 1997. [143] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [144] Ibid. [145] Holmstrom, F. Ross, Smart Fare Payment Systems for Public Transit, Technical Brief, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, January 10, 1996. [146] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [147] Smart Cards Seizing Strategic Business Opportunities, The Smart Card Forum, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997. [148] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [151] "Smart Facts: Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination Project," October 1997. [152] Smart Card Prototype Demonstration Project, Final Report, IBI Group, June 1997. [153] Michael G. Dinning, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [154] Candace Carlson, King County Metro, Seattle, Washington. [155] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [156] Michael G. Dinning, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [157] Russell Driver, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California. [158] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [159] Ibid. [160] Ibid. [161] Michael G. Dinning, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [162] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [163] Michael G. Dinning, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [164] Joel Frielich, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, Ohio. [165] Potential of Multipurpose Fare Media, Draft Final Report, TCRP, Multisystems, Inc., Dove Associates, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., June 1997. [166] Ibid. [167] Smart Cards Seizing Strategic Business Opportunities, The Smart Card Forum, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |