Genfare odyssey validating farebox programing instructions computerdatingusa com
The data-layer results of the survey are presented in Table 8.
The optional data results of the survey are presented in Table 9.
Secondary sources of information consisted of a lit- erature review (particularly websites and project documentation).
The research teamâs direct involvement through engagements with the planning, design, and implementation of many of the systems served to substantiate the information provided by primary and secondary sources.
The participants found the training to be very informative and were really impressed with the instructor’s depth of knowledge.” Genfare offers solutions designed for several modes of transportation.
We partner with transit agencies to develop road maps of where our agencies are today and where they want to be in the future.
â¢ Section 3.3 discusses current trends and new developments being considered or pursued within the smartcard programs, including â Payment for parking, bridges, and highway tolls; â Applications for financial institutions and retail; and â Expanded security and biometrics features.
The RCSC will provide services to all Smar Trip participants and operators in the DC, Maryland, and Northern Virginia regions. CTS also received a contract in July 2003 to supply POS devices and the data network concentrator and to make upgrades to existing systems to support the regional program.
The regional (interoperable) fare payment systems reviewed in this chapter are â¢ Smar TripâGreater Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area, Maryland, Northern Virginia ( â¢ Trans LinkâSan Francisco Bay Area (ca.gov/projects/translink/translnk.htm) â¢ Chicago CardâChicago, IL ( â¢ Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination (RFC) ProjectâSeattle, WA ( transit.metrokc.gov/prog/smartcard/smartcard.html) â¢ Go-To CardâSt.
Paul-Minneapolis, MN (com/tafsinformation.html) 28 C H A P T E R 3 Findings of Peer Review of Interoperable Smartcard Programs â¢ Orlando Regional Alliance for Next Generation Electronic Payment System (ORANGES)â Central Florida ( â¢ Go VenturaâVentura County, CA ( â¢ Transit Access Pass (TAP)âLos Angeles County, CA (net) â¢ CompassâSan Diego County, CA (sdcommute.com) â¢ EZ-LinkâSingapore ( â¢ OctopusâHong Kong ( â¢ OysterâLondon (gov.uk/content/ticketsoyster/asp) This chapter is organized as follows: â¢ Section 3.1 presents an overview of the above programs with respect to their smartcard, reader, and hardware design.
Key policies affecting interoperability are also part of the survey, because establishing policies that tie agencies participating in an interoperable fare payment system together is equally impor- tant to technology decisions.
Moreover, the findings and current trends both within and outside the transit industry are compared.
The research identified similarities and differences in the system features, the data exchange, and the policies for selected peer agencies, and begins to establish benchmarks and best practices for developing interoperable smartcard systems for transit. and Canadian transit operators, because the legislation under which U. and Canadian transit agencies operate limits the com- mercial opportunities for innovative business arrangements such as establishing corporations and issuing shares for participation in a business similar to those in Singapore, Hong Kong, or Europe.