Transit Management Center --> Payment Administration Center:
service registry

Definitions

service registry (Information Flow): Catalogue of products and values, access rights and related information.

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.

Payment Administration Center (Destination Physical Object): The 'Payment Administration Center' provides general payment administration capabilities and supports the electronic transfer of funds from the customer to the transportation system operator or other service provider. Charges can be recorded for tolls, vehicle-mileage charging, congestion charging, or other goods and services. It supports traveler enrollment and collection of both pre-payment and post-payment transportation fees in coordination with the financial infrastructure supporting electronic payment transactions. The system may establish and administer escrow accounts depending on the clearinghouse scheme and the type of payments involved. It may post a transaction to the customer account, generate a bill (for post-payment accounts), debit an escrow account, or interface to a financial infrastructure to debit a customer designated account. It supports communications with the ITS Roadway Payment Equipment to support fee collection operations. As an alternative, a wide-area wireless interface can be used to communicate directly with vehicle equipment. It also sets and administers the pricing structures and may implement road pricing policies in coordination with the Traffic Management Center.

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:

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 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 National
Acknowledgement False
Cardinality Unicast
Initiator Source
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 Much of this information will eventually be widely disseminated to transport users, though there seems little good reason to not obfuscate it. Could inconvience travelers if incorrect, and would hamper the operation of payment methods if incorrect or unavailable, which could have widespread network effect. Could inconvience travelers if incorrect, and would hamper the operation of payment methods if incorrect or unavailable, which could have widespread network effect.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt False