![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.370833333333334in"
height="1.1236111111111111in"}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.3743055555555554in"
height="0.5131944444444444in"}
![](media/image3.png){width="2.0833333333333335in"
height="0.5208333333333334in"} ![](media/image4.png){width="1.4375in"
height="0.6319444444444444in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="1.8229166666666667in"
height="1.0833333333333333in"} ![](media/image6.png){width="1.5in"
height="0.7083333333333334in"} ![](media/image7.png){width="1.375in"
height="0.8111111111111111in"}

![](media/image8.png){width="0.9361111111111111in"
height="1.1145833333333333in"}

#### PROJECT REPORT: REGIONAL SMARTRIP ROLLOUT

Prepared for the Federal Transit Administration by the Northern Virginia
Transportation Commission staff\*

[PURPOSE 3](#purpose)

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4](#executive-summary)

[HISTORY 6](#history)

[NVTC and the Regional Partners 6](#nvtc-and-the-regional-partners)

[Testing at WMATA 8](#testing-at-wmata)

[Governance Issues and the RAC 9](#governance-issues-and-the-rac)

[All Eyes on Baltimore 10](#all-eyes-on-baltimore)

[Back to NVTC 12](#back-to-nvtc)

[Smaller Agencies Need Help 14](#smaller-agencies-need-help)

[The Regional Customer Service Center
17](#the-regional-customer-service-center)

[The Current Situation 20](#the-current-situation)

[CONCLUSION 22](#conclusion)

[*Lessons Learned* 22](#lessons-learned)

[Smaller Systems May Lack the Resources to Succeed On Their Own with a
Smartcard System
22](#smaller-systems-may-lack-the-resources-to-succeed-on-their-own-with-a-smartcard-system)

[With Multiple Transit Systems in the Same Region, Total Independence is
Impossible
22](#with-multiple-transit-systems-in-the-same-region-total-independence-is-impossible)

[Take Advantage of the Strengths of Each Transit System, Especially
Those of Large Regional System Partners
23](#take-advantage-of-the-strengths-of-each-transit-system-especially-those-of-large-regional-system-partners)

[Appendix A: Projected Ridership and Cost Sharing Figures for Regional
Customer Service Center
25](#appendix-a-projected-ridership-and-cost-sharing-figures-for-regional-customer-service-center)

[Appendix B: Map of Participating Jurisdictions and Transit Systems in
Northern Virginia
26](#appendix-b-map-of-participating-jurisdictions-and-transit-systems-in-northern-virginia)

\*To contact NVTC go to
[**www.thinkoutsidethecar.org**](http://www.thinkoutsidethecar.org/)

#  PURPOSE

This Special Project Report addresses the SmarTrip Regional Farebox
Procurement project from the perspective of the Northern Virginia
Transportation Commission (NVTC). NVTC is the agency managing the
farebox purchases for the six participating transit systems in Northern
Virginia: Alexandria DASH, Arlington Transit, City of Fairfax CUE Bus,
Fairfax Connector, Loudoun County Transit, and PRTC. The Northern
Virginia farebox purchases are covered by a \$6 million contract, with
funding coming from a variety of state, local and federal sources. The
technical consulting services contract that supports the farebox
purchase contract is also funded by state and federal grants, including
FTA VA-26-7009.

This report is intended to provide a brief history of the project, and a
discussion of lessons learned in the process of bringing together a
regionally integrated fare collection system that includes multiple
transit agencies and jurisdictions of all shapes and sizes.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As one might expect with cutting-edge technology projects that involve
multiple jurisdictions, achieving regional integration of Smartcard fare
collection has proven to be a very difficult and elusive task for the
Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. The rollout of a regionally
integrated smartcard fare payment system has experienced delays for
several reasons, including contractual issues with the vendor, regional
fractionalization, disputes between vendors, equipment that initially
did not work properly, and a project schedule that was overly ambitious.
Significant progress has been made, however, and while there are still
many challenges facing NVTC and the region, a successful conclusion is
in sight.

NVTC and its regional partners have profited from the lessons learned by
transit systems in other locations that have purchased new fare
collection technologies. In addition, NVTC's lessons learned should be
especially helpful to transit systems seeking to install cutting-edge
technology in a regional setting with a large transit provider operating
a heritage system, while its smaller neighbors are seeking the latest
improvements that will still be fully compatible.

For the regional participants in NVTC's project, there are three major
lessons to date. The first is to recognize that **smaller transit
systems may not have the resources to operate a full-fledged
smartcard-based fare collection system**. The second is to understand
that with multiple transit systems in the same region, **total**
**independence is impossible**. Every agency's fare collection system
must maintain consistency and compatibility with every other agencies'
fare collection systems. Finally, a major lesson is to **take advantage
of the strengths of each transit system, especially those of large,
regional transit system partners**. Smaller agencies should take
advantage of the strengths of the larger agencies, in terms of staff
size, resources, and technical sophistication. At the same time, small
agencies must understand and accept the fact that larger agencies have a
much larger investment, and have much more at stake, and accordingly,
they should have more control over the governance, architecture, and
configuration of a regional system. In a regionally integrated system
that includes very large metropolitan transit systems and very small
suburban transit systems, not every participant is an equal partner, and
efforts to assign equal financial responsibility and decision-making
authority to each participant are counter-productive.

The table in Appendix A shows the relative size of this region's bus
systems and the map in Appendix B shows a schematic depiction of the
integrated rail and bus route structures.

# HISTORY

### NVTC and the Regional Partners

NVTC began its efforts to achieve an integrated regional fare collection
system using smartcards over a decade ago. Originally, the plan was to
implement a pilot program of smartcard payment on transit systems in
Northern Virginia, using the WMATA SmarTrip card format. The two major
projected benefits of the regional fare integration project, stated in a
1997 SSTP Grant Application, were:

-   increased ridership resulting from more convenient payment options
    and more flexible pass products and renewals

-   reduced expenses for cash handling and the maintenance of
    fare-collection equipment.

Within a year, the planned pilot implementation had grown into a
region-wide, system-wide implementation of SmarTrip fareboxes and fare
payment systems for Northern Virginia transit agencies.

By 1997, NVTC had obtained \$1,200,000 in federal funds to initiate a
regionally integrated fare collection system among WMATA, VRE, and local
bus systems in Northern Virginia. This included a \$200,000 FTA
Headquarters Grant, VA-26-7009. This grant was originally intended for
demonstration of smartcard technology in the region, but was later
re-assigned (with the permission of FTA) to fund the technical services
and consulting contract for the SmarTrip Regional Farebox Rollout in
Northern Virginia.

In 1999, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA")
issued an RFP to procure smartcard-enabled fareboxes for its bus system.
WMATA had already successfully implemented a smartcard payment system
for its Metrorail system (known as SmarTrip) and it wished to expand
that system to cover its bus fleet. In addition, the State of Maryland
and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission had wished to join
WMATA in the purchase of SmarTrip-enabled fare collection equipment,
with the intent of developing a fully integrated regional fare
collection system. In January of 2001, WMATA awarded its farebox
contract to Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc.

In August of 2001, NVTC exercised an option in WMATA's contract with
Cubic Transportation Systems to purchase SmarTrip-enabled bus fareboxes
for five transit systems in Northern Virginia (Loudoun County Transit
was added to the contract in April of 2002). In the same year, NVTC
contracted with the IBI group to provide technical expertise and
assistance with the farebox and garage computer system installations in
Northern Virginia, using some of the federal grant funds originally
provided to NVTC in 1996. In 2003, NVTC secured an additional state
grant for point-of-sale devices in Loudoun County to provide further
opportunities to use the regional SmarTrip network.

The Regional SmarTrip Rollout project included seventeen participating
systems at its inception, known as the Regional Partners. They included:

**The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)**

**Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)**

**Montgomery County Ride-On**

**Prince Georges County "The Bus"**

**Frederick County Transit**

**Ocean City Transit**

**Harford County Transit**

**Annapolis Transit**

**Howard Area Transit**

**Laurel Transit**

**The Virginia Railway Express**

**Fairfax Connector**

#  Alexandria DASH

**City of Fairfax CUE Bus**

**PRTC OmniLink**

**PRTC OmniRide**

**Arlington Transit**

**Loudoun County Transit**

Since the project began in 2001, the Regional Partners have met each
month at WMATA to discuss the progress of the regional SmarTrip rollout,
and exchange information. Regional cooperation is critical to the
success of this project.

### Testing at WMATA

Early stages of the project (development of the work plan, agreement on
initial specifications, First Article Testing) experienced delays, as
WMATA staff and Cubic staff attempted to work out persistent problems
with the software and fareboxes. There were no liquidated damages
provisions in WMATA's contract although delay in achieving project
milestones meant that Cubic did not earn the payments associated with
those milestones.

By the time the WMATA In Service Qualification Testing (ISQT) finally
began in November of 2002, the project was already nine months behind
schedule. The ISQT was scheduled to run for 90 days, but because of
extensive problems with the fareboxes (e.g., jamming coin slots,
malfunctioning bill-validators) and with the system software (e.g.,
end-of-day processing malfunctions, daily cash reconciliation) the ISQT
ran for seventeen months.

By the time the ISQT was completed in April of 2004, WMATA was using the
23^rd^ version of the Cubic garage computer software, and the system was
still showing minor errors with end-of-day processing. WMATA proceeded
with installing equipment in the remaining bus garages, and completed
its entire fleet installation in June of 2004. At that time, the project
was two years behind schedule, and Cubic had not yet begun to work on
the NVTC implementation.

Metro has been generally pleased with the performance of its SmarTrip
fareboxes since then and SmarTrip cards are heavily used by customers on
many Metrobus routes.

### Governance Issues and the RAC

During the same time that WMATA was conducting their ISQT, the regional
partners were working to develop a governance structure for the
regionally integrated fare collection system. The Regional
Administrative Committee (RAC) would include representation from each of
the agencies participating in the regional SmarTrip system, and set
policies for the initial structure and ongoing operations of the
regional SmarTrip system. This included policies such as the time for
settlement adjustments, refunds, probing requirements, revenue sharing,
and every other rule that would govern the operations of those
participating in the regional SmarTrip system. Approximately two years
into this effort, WMATA staff informed the Regional Partners that the
Regional Administrative Committee would no longer be a topic of
discussion at the regional meetings.

The regional partners learned that the WMATA Board of Directors was
adamant that the governance of the regional SmarTrip system must
ultimately fall under the control of the WMATA Board of Directors, and
not under the domain of the Regional Administrative Committee. The WMATA
Board was not going to allow an informally selected panel of
representatives from various transit systems in the region to dictate or
define WMATA policy, whether it be operational issues or fare collection
issues.

While this was not a popular decision at the time, it ultimately became
clear to the regional partners that this was the correct decision. WMATA
had committed over \$100 million to the regional SmarTrip project, an
investment several times larger than that of MTA, and 20 times larger
than all of the Northern Virginia agencies combined. WMATA provided over
one million daily passenger trips to the region, again significantly
larger than MTA, and over 20 times more than all of the Northern
Virginia agencies combined. WMATA also had a very successful and
effective smartcard system already in place in the region, unlike all
other regional participants.

WMATA had invested far more in the regional SmarTrip system than all
other regional participants, and had a much larger stake in the success
of the regional system, not to mention the success of their current
system.

In the aftermath of the RAC dissolution, WMATA and the regional partners
agreed to re-structure the governance of the regional SmarTrip fare
collection system. The regional partners would still be asked to advise
and discuss regional SmarTrip policies, but the WMATA Board of Directors
would have the final say on all issues.

### All Eyes on Baltimore

Once the WMATA bus installation had been completed, the focus of the
regional SmarTrip rollout shifted to Baltimore. Cubic had introduced its
next generation of farebox and garage computer software, known as
Nextfare4, in the summer of 2003. The Maryland Transit Administration
(MTA) accepted a proposal from Cubic to install Nextfare4 software on
their bus and rail systems. This decision by MTA had major consequences
for the other Regional Partners: if the integrated regional fare
collection system were to ever become a reality, every participating
system would eventually have to purchase and use the same software that
MTA had purchased. In the interim, the Nextfare4 software would have to
be compatible with the existing Cubic software on the WMATA bus and rail
systems (known as Nextfare 3).

In September of 2003, Cubic informed NVTC that the commission would be
receiving the Nextfare4 software on its fareboxes and garage computers.
This was of concern to NVTC, as it had always been the intention of NVTC
to use the same equipment as WMATA, and switching to Nextfare4 meant
that WMATA and NVTC agencies would be using different software. However,
there were several compelling reasons for which NVTC approved the
switch. Nextfare4 provided several advanced features that, according to
Cubic, would not be available using WMATA's legacy system. These
features included Autoload (the process of designating a specified
amount to be automatically loaded on to your smartcard once its
remaining stored value has dropped below a specified level); Smart
Benefits (a directed Autoload of pre-tax transit benefits); and the
ability for a card to store up to five pass products. In addition, WMATA
staff indicated that it was only a matter of time before WMATA upgraded
to the Nextfare4 software, and that it would be wise for NVTC to take
advantage of the upgrade being provided free of charge.

The MTA bus system in Baltimore would be one of the first transit
systems in the nation to install and test Nextfare4 (the others being
Los Angeles, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Houston). The MTA In Service
Qualification Testing was scheduled to begin in August of 2004, but it
was not until November of 2004 that the ISQT actually started. The five
months of delay were caused by repeated failures of the Nextfare4
software during the Factory Acceptance Testing and First Article
Testing. First article testing and approval involves evaluating a
contractor's initial, preproduction, or sample model or lot to ensure
the contractor can furnish a product conforming to all contract
requirements.

### Back to NVTC

The successful completion of the above-mentioned In Service
Qualification Testing (ISQT) that was taking place at MTA in Baltimore
was critical to the progress of the installations in Northern Virginia.
MTA was testing the Cubic Nextfare4 software that would be installed on
the fareboxes and garage computers of the transit systems in Northern
Virginia. The testing at MTA was intended to serve as the formal testing
of the Northern Virginia fare collection system. However, discussions
with MTA staff in the spring of 2005 raised concerns among NVTC staff
about the testing taking place in Baltimore. For NVTC, the most
important aspect of the MTA testing was the functionality of the
smartcards (how well they performed), and the interaction with the WMATA
smartcard format and devices. In April of 2005, NVTC and consultant
staff made a site visit to Baltimore to observe the MTA ISQT firsthand,
and to discuss the results. NVTC discovered that the testing, which had
taken place in Baltimore, was of little use to NVTC, as there was no
formal testing of the integration with the WMATA card format.

Based on those discoveries, NVTC immediately went to the vendor (Cubic
Transportation Systems) and expressed NVTC's urgent need for separate
testing of the NVTC garage computer systems, and for integration testing
with the WMATA card format and devices. NVTC could not allow the
installation of untested software, devices or computers on its transit
systems, and NVTC needed to be certain that its devices and cards would
not adversely impact the devices and cards used by WMATA.

Lengthy discussions and negotiations between NVTC and Cubic eventually
led to the adoption of the current testing plan. The testing plan called
for formal, observed testing of the Northern Virginia garage computers
and software at the Cubic facilities in San Diego and Chantilly. The
testing plan also included formal, observed testing of the integration
between WMATA's card format and equipment and the card format and
equipment to be installed in Northern Virginia, according to an
extensive test plan that was approved by WMATA, NVTC, and MTA).
Additionally, the plan called for a 30-day "dry run" pilot installation
of five buses and a garage computer system at the Alexandria DASH
facility. The full installation of the fareboxes and garage computers in
Northern Virginia would not take place until this testing has been
completed to the satisfaction of NVTC.

The formal observed testing in San Diego and Chantilly was completed in
July of 2006. The integration testing of WMATA's existing card format
and the new Nextfare4 card format was completed in August of 2006. The
System Integration Testing of the NVTC software and configurations was
also completed in August of 2006, with only minor problems. The 5-bus
pilot installation on Alexandria's DASH was completed in October of
2006, and the 30-day testing period began in mid-November, once some
minor software issues were addressed. If there are no major issues or
problems uncovered by DASH over the next 30 days, the fleet wide
installation of fareboxes identical to the one pictured below will occur
at DASH in January of 2007. The remainder of the Northern Virginia
transit systems would follow in the next month. Initial testing, for
example, has occurred during November, 2006 for the Fairfax Connector.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.74375in" height="4.977777777777778in"}

### Smaller Agencies Need Help

In January of 2006, WMATA approved a resolution known as the Single
Platform Solution, which will migrate the WMATA legacy smartcard system
to the previously discussed Nextfare4 software. This is very important
to the region, as NVTC and the other participating systems in the region
will be using Nextfare4, and it is critical that they maintain full
interoperability and consistency with WMATA.

The good news of WMATA's migration to Nextfare4 was offset somewhat by
events in Maryland. In the early part of 2005, NVTC staff received
confirmation that six of the Regional Partner systems, all smaller
transit systems in Maryland, were no longer participating in the
regional SmarTrip rollout. Details were scarce, but NVTC staff learned
that concerns over ongoing operational costs led to the departure of the
smaller systems. This was of great concern to NVTC, as these ongoing
costs were also an issue for smaller systems operating in Northern
Virginia. NVTC had been negotiating ongoing maintenance contracts with
Cubic for over a year, and the cost for farebox maintenance, software
maintenance, software licensing, bug fixes, and technical support, was
expected to be over \$70,000 per agency. Some of NVTC's smaller agencies
have annual farebox revenues of approximately \$100,000 per year, and
these agencies could not possibly justify spending over \$70,000 to
maintain their fare collection system. Something had to be done to
protect the viability of these smaller agencies, or the number of
regional participants would shrink further.

In an effort to protect and ensure the participation of smaller systems
in the Regional SmarTrip Rollout, NVTC staff worked closely with WMATA
to develop a Regional Software Maintenance Agreement (RSMA) as a
component of the WMATA Single Platform Solution contract. The RSMA
covers WMATA and the "friends of WMATA" (NVTC systems and Montgomery
Ride-On), and provide all participating agencies with advantageous
pricing for software support, bug fixes, updates, and technical support.
This provides significant cost savings for each of the participating
NVTC systems in terms of ongoing support and operations. Instead of
having to spend \$70,000 per year to maintain their fare collection
systems, smaller agencies will spend approximately \$30,000 per year for
the first two years, and then approximately \$23,000 per year for
subsequent years.

In addition, discussions surrounding the RSMA led to a very advantageous
change in the regional architecture. In the original configuration, each
of the NVTC systems (DASH, ART, CUE, etc.) would have a garage/central
computer, and that computer would be running some very expensive and
complex software packages (full enterprise version of Oracle DB,
WebLogic, Hummingbird). Each of those computers would be capable of
serving as a central computer for a system as large as Los Angeles
County MTA. Each of those computers would also require a regimen of
daily, weekly, and monthly maintenance tasks, and each system operator
would need a significant amount of training to operate these very
complex software packages.

The new arrangement under the RSMA places this very complex software on
the WMATA central computer, with WMATA assuming the daily, weekly, and
monthly maintenance tasks in a centralized management role. WMATA will
also assume the complicated tasks of programming and maintaining fare
tables, business rules, and fare products for the participating NVTC
agencies (although the agencies will still have full control of what is
being programmed).

The new arrangement provides major cost savings and improved operational
support for participating NVTC agencies, while at the same time removing
the major burdens of managing and maintaining their system software and
configurations. For WMATA, the main benefits are greater control and
quality assurance. As with the governance issues discussed previously,
WMATA bears far greater risk in the regionally integrated fare
collection system. An improperly configured fare table can corrupt the
regional fare collection system, leading to a system-wide failure. In
the event of a system-wide failure, WMATA would lose approximately \$1
million per day, which is several times more than all of the NVTC
agencies combined would stand to lose. It makes sense that WMATA should
have more control over what touches their fare collection system. NVTC
systems will still have full control over the rules for their fare
collection system and their fare tables and fare products, but WMATA
will have quality assurance control over how those fare tables and
products are programmed.

It should also be noted that MTA (who has been running a Nextfare4
system for the past 18 months) recently informed the Regional Partners
that MTA would be contracting with Cubic to handle configuration and
fare table management, at a significant cost. Thanks to the RSMA, NVTC
agencies will not have to bear those costs.

NVTC agencies provided formal letters of participation to WMATA in
August of 2006, stating their intention to participate in the
cost-sharing agreements of the RSMA. The cost-sharing provisions
commenced with the first WMATA-hosted regional installation of fareboxes
and Nextfare4 software, which occurred in October 2006 at the Alexandria
DASH facility.

### 

### 

### The Regional Customer Service Center

In parallel with the region's efforts to develop and test fareboxes,
garage computers, and fare collection software, there was the equally
important task of implementing the Regional Customer Service Center. The
Regional Customer Service Center ("RCSC") provides customer service and
financial clearing for all SmarTrip transactions in the
Baltimore-Washington regional area. The RCSC is located in Reston,
Virginia, and is operated by a contractor, ERG/Northrop-Grumman, who was
selected by representatives from WMATA and the Regional Partners through
a competitive bidding process.

Each of the agencies participating in the regional SmarTrip system has
formally agreed to the Operations Funding Agreement, which obligates
their participation in the cost-sharing arrangement for the RCSC. This
agreement, developed over several months of meetings with the Regional
Partners and formally approved by the WMATA Board of Directors,
allocates the monthly operating costs of RCSC among the Regional Partner
agencies. After months of discussions, it was decided that the costs
would be shared proportionally, based on the number of smartcard
transactions that each agency sends to the RCSC for processing.

The initial planning of the regional system had WMATA acting as the lead
agency, and providing a central bank account for the purposes of
collecting revenue and financial settlement and clearing. WMATA's upper
management quickly rejected that idea, as they did not wish to assume
the responsibility and liability for handling the funds of all
participating agencies. It was decided that the clearing and settlement
arrangements would not include a central bank, or ongoing repository of
funds. Each agency would hold the cash or credit card funds it collected
for SmarTrip value loads (adding money to the card at a farebox or
ticket vending machine) and at the end of each month, each agency would
make a claim to the region for the SmarTrip fare payments accepted on
their system. The settlement formulas employed by the RCSC would then
decide how much to deduct from or credit to each agency's held funds,
based on the number of value loads versus the number of smartcard fare
payments accepted by that agency. The monthly exchange of funds would be
handled automatically via Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic bank
fund transfers.

There have been (and continue to be) extensive discussions among the
Regional Partners surrounding the details of the RCSC clearing and
settlement operations. At issue are the rules surrounding the resolution
of settlement disputes, ACH transaction processing, and the processing
of claims and manual adjustments. Each of the participating agencies,
and in some cases the jurisdictions in which these agencies operate,
have their own set of rules and regulations regarding the handling of
cash revenue, disbursement of payments, ACH generation, and customer
refunds. It was (and still remains) a major challenge for the Regional
Partners to integrate these various rules and regulations into a
coherent operational structure.

In addition, these transit agencies take great pride in their handling
of customer service issues and complaints. Under the regional SmarTrip
system, customer inquiries relating to SmarTrip transactions will be
directed to the RCSC for handling. This is necessary because the RCSC
(and not the individual agencies) will be able to access, check, and
verify the transactions for an individual card via computer. For the
customer service representatives at the participating transit agencies,
this represents a loss of control in a very important area, and thus
there have been extensive procedures put in place to ensure that
customer service remains at a high level.

As this is one of the first regionally integrated electronic fare
payment clearinghouses of its kind anywhere in the United States, there
continue to be numerous unforeseen issues affecting regional operations
that require additional discussion among the Regional Partners. For
example, the smartcard hotlist (a list of stolen or lost cards that
should not be accepted) will be sent electronically to each agency on a
daily basis. It is then up to each agency to upload this hotlist to
their fareboxes when they probe and empty their cashboxes. However, if
an agency does not probe their buses on a daily basis, (many small
transit agencies do not probe every day or on weekends) then it is
possible to have buses in service that are accepting invalid
transactions from cards that have been "hot listed". The projected
amounts of these invalid transactions are miniscule when compared with
the projected total regional farebox revenues, but any discrepancies can
cause a delay with end-of-the-month settlement and clearing, and that
made this a major issue. When this project began, no one could have
envisioned that the basic operational procedures of smaller agencies
would become an issue for discussion and dispute among the Regional
Partners, but it took several months before a simple set of rules,
responsibilities and procedures could be developed and agreed upon for
that particular situation.

The SmarTrip transactions from Northern Virginia and other regional
agencies will be transmitted from their fareboxes to their garage
computers, from their garage computers to the WMATA central computer
(known as the Data Network Concentrator or "DNC"), which will then send
those transactions to the computers at the RCSC. The link between the
WMATA DNC and the RCSC operates under a communications protocol known as
the SmarTrip Integrated Regional Specification or "SIRS". The SIRS
protocol has been in development for two years (originally scheduled for
three months), with WMATA, Cubic and ERG/Northrop Grumman (the operator
of the RCSC and provider of communications lines for the region) working
jointly on the specifications. Getting the two contractors to agree on
the specifications and communications protocols associated with SIRS was
a very difficult task. Each contractor had its own system of proprietary
protocols and software functions, which it would not share, yet all had
to work together and develop software that could communicate with all
other systems. The first round of testing of the SIRS protocol began in
July of 2005, and was completed in August of 2006, several months behind
schedule. The final round of SIRS operational testing is now scheduled
for completion in January of 2007. NVTC will be reluctant to proceed
with its full system installations until the RCSC testing has been fully
completed.

### The Current Situation

NVTC is currently working with WMATA and Cubic to complete the initial
installation of WMATA-hosted software under the provisions of the
Regional Software Maintenance Agreement, while at the same time
evaluating Alexandria DASH's pilot installation of five fareboxes. If
there are no further problems uncovered during the 30-day test period of
the five DASH fareboxes, NVTC will proceed with the installation of the
remaining 50 DASH fareboxes. At that time, NVTC and Cubic will also
proceed with the configuration testing and farebox installations for the
remaining NVTC agencies.

In parallel with the activities surrounding the various testing
scenarios described above, NVTC staff has been working with Cubic to
develop an acceptable training plan for the regional operators. It is
very difficult to schedule training when one is not absolutely certain
of a date for installation. On the one hand, you do not want to train
operators and maintenance personnel too far in advance of the
installation date, because they will forget their training if they do
not use it. On the other hand, the training for this system includes
instruction on farebox maintenance, farebox operation, garage computer
operation, and several different software packages. Cubic needs to have
substantial lead time in assembling the multitude of instructors,
setting up venues, and preparing materials.

It should be mentioned that the technical consulting services provided
by the IBI group via FTA grant VA-26-7009 have been extremely important,
especially over the last 18 months of this project. IBI's expertise with
the technical issues surrounding the testing negotiations for NVTC, the
SIRS testing, the dual card format integration testing, and the training
scheduling, has been indispensable to NVTC. Without the technical advice
of IBI consultants, NVTC and its local transit agencies would be at a
great disadvantage in negotiations with the vendor, Cubic, and with
other Regional Partners (WMATA, MTA) in discussions that relate to the
regional architecture, testing scenarios, and especially in the
extensive design review discussions. Cubic, WMATA and MTA each employ a
multitude of engineers and technical personnel who are well versed in
the complexities of fare-collection systems and bus data management.
NVTC and its local agencies do not have that sort of in-house expertise.

The total budget for the entire regional fare collection project is now
over \$150 million. Significant investments of both local and federal
funds have been made by WMATA and the Regional Partners in the
development of this regional fare collection system. NVTC will continue
to work diligently to ensure that the Northern Virginia farebox and
garage computer installations are completed, and the completed system
functions properly to achieve the anticipated benefits.

# CONCLUSION

# *Lessons Learned*

In terms of bringing together a regionally integrated, smartcard-based
fare collection system that includes jurisdictions and transit systems
of all shapes and sizes, the lessons gained from this project so far can
be broken into three major areas:

### Smaller Systems May Lack the Resources to Succeed On Their Own with a Smartcard System

###  

NVTC's experience with this project has made it clear that smartcard
systems, as they currently exist, may be too complicated and expensive
to design, test, install and operate for smaller transit agencies, such
as a 15-bus suburban transit system. A transit system with annual
farebox revenues in the \$100,000 to \$200,000 range simply cannot
justify spending \$70,000 to \$100,000 annually to operate and maintain
a fare collection system. For that reason, smaller transit systems need
to look for project partners. NVTC staff believes, based on its
experiences in managing this project, that if the transit industry were
to accomplish nationwide Smartcard fare collection standards allowing
interoperability, the resulting competition among vendors would
ultimately prove useful in bringing down the costs, especially for
smaller transit systems.

### With Multiple Transit Systems in the Same Region, Total Independence is Impossible

The original idea of independent transit agencies operating autonomously
in a regionally integrated fare collection system was found to be
impossible. In a regionally integrated fare collection system, a given
smartcard can "touch" every agency, and whatever fare products or
configurations a given agency put on a smartcard can "touch" the devices
at every other agency. What happens if two agencies chose conflicting
designations for their new monthly passes? What happens if an agency
introduced a weekly pass that conflicted with the business rules
established by several other agencies? What if an agency started issuing
cards with a rider classification that was not recognized by the card
readers at other agencies?

The solution to these potential disaster scenarios adopted here is to
require that each agency test any new fare products or configurations on
the systems of every other participating agency. This is to be
accomplished at a Regional Lab, which is now operated and staffed by
WMATA under the payment structure and operating rules of the RSMA.

In terms of smartcard operations in a regionally integrated fare
collection system, there is no such thing as independent or autonomous
operation. Every agency's fare collection system must maintain
consistency and compatibility with the other agencies' fare collection
systems.

### Take Advantage of the Strengths of Each Transit System, Especially Those of Large Regional System Partners

In a regional integration that involves one very large metropolitan
transit system and many small transit systems, there is no reason to
expect all participants to be equal. In this case, WMATA faced a far
greater financial and operational risk than any other participant did,
and they rightfully expected a larger say on issues of regulation and
governance.

Smaller systems can also benefit from the in-house expertise and
resources of larger systems such as WMATA. As mentioned previously,
smaller systems participating in the regional SmarTrip project were
having difficulty with ongoing operation and maintenance costs. In
developing the Regional Software Maintenance Agreement, WMATA and NVTC
staff re-organized the regional system architecture to relieve smaller
agencies of burdensome tasks and costs. This was accomplished by
centralizing administration, support, operations, and maintenance, and
in the process, providing for a more reliable and robust system. The
region was able to take advantage of WMATA's resources and expertise to
the great benefit of all parties.

### ![](media/image10.wmf)Appendix A: Projected Ridership and Cost Sharing Figures for Regional Customer Service Center

### 

### Appendix B: Map of Participating Jurisdictions and Transit Systems in Northern Virginia

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="6.61875in" height="7.427777777777778in"}