Transit Management Center --> Other Transit Management Centers:
transit fare coordination

This triple is bi-directional. See also Other Transit Management Centers --> Transit Management Center: transit fare coordination

Definitions

transit fare coordination (Information Flow): Fare and pricing information shared between local/regional transit organizations.

Transit Management Center (Source Physical Object): The 'Transit Management Center' manages transit vehicle fleets and coordinates with other modes and transportation services. It provides operations, maintenance, customer information, planning and management functions for the transit property. It spans distinct central dispatch and garage management systems and supports the spectrum of fixed route, flexible route, paratransit services, transit rail, and bus rapid transit (BRT) service. The physical object's interfaces support communication between transit departments and with other operating entities such as emergency response services and traffic management systems.

Other Transit Management Centers (Destination Physical Object): Representing another transit operations center, 'Other Transit Management Centers' is intended to provide a source and destination for information flows between peer transit management centers. It enables transit management activities to be coordinated across geographic boundaries or jurisdictions.

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:

This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

RelationshipSourceDestinationFlow
Request-Response Other Transit Management Centers Transit Management Center transit fare coordination

Communication Solutions

Solutions are sorted in ascending Gap Severity order. The Gap Severity is the parenthetical number at the end of the solution.

Selected Solution

US: GTFS static - Secure Internet (ITS)

Solution Description

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: GTFS static with those for I-I: Secure Internet (ITS). The US: GTFS static standards include upper-layer standards required to implement static, public, transit-related communications. The I-I: Secure Internet (ITS) standards include lower-layer standards that support secure communications between ITS equipment using X.509 or IEEE 1609.2 security certificates.

ITS Application Entity
Mind the gapMind the gapMind the gap

GTFS
Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt
Facilities

IETF RFC 7159
ISO 21320-1
IETF RFC 4180
IETF RFC 9110
IETF RFC 9112
Security
Mind the gapMind the gap
TransNet
Access

Internet Subnet Alternatives
TransNet TransNet

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Access Access

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

ITS Application ITS Application

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Mgmt Mgmt

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Facility Facility

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Security Security

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.

Characteristics

Characteristic Value
Time Context Recent
Spatial Context Regional
Acknowledgement True
Cardinality Unicast
Initiator Destination
Authenticable True
Encrypt False


Interoperability Description
Regional Interoperability throughout the geopolitical region is highly desirable, but if implemented differently in different transportation management jurisdictions, significant benefits will still accrue in each jurisdiction. Regardless, this Information Flow Triple should be implemented consistently within a transportation jurisdiction (i.e., the scope of a regional architecture).

Security

Information Flow Security
  Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Rating Low Moderate Moderate
Basis Does not contain any personal or confidential information. While accuracy of this data is important for decision making purposes, the greatest impact if manipulated or incorrect data would be financial and likely limited in scope. For example, making all options appear less expensive than an attacker's route of fiduciary interest, driving revenue to his route. This is undesireable and significant, but not catastrophic. Thus MODERATE generally. While accuracy of this data is important for decision making purposes, applications should be able to function without frequent updates. Thus MODERATE generally.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt False