The MT Position

By Jeff Collard

Digital communication comprises many methods that can work in concert with each other to meet a variety of goals. Mass transit systems by definition congregate large numbers of people within definable demographics into common spaces. This represents both a challenge and an opportunity for communications. Defining the right combination of technologies and channels to meet communication requirements within a venue is a major challenge to the operator. Restrictions in physical space, operating budgets and legislation governing public spaces require a system-wide strategy for communication.

For the commuter, digital signage, the Internet and mobile applications are the three most common electronic media that they will engage. Therefore, a transit operator should define a common strategy for public communication that leverages all of these media. A common strategy does not necessarily mean a common platform, each of these technologies has their strengths but there should be interoperability and some common data elements between them. Best of breed for your mobile strategy may cause unnecessary compromise for your digital signage strategy; one should not be a slave to the other.

The digital signage platform must accomplish a myriad of tasks, generating revenue through advertising is a valid application and helps offset infrastructure costs but there are many other things the system must be able to achieve. Schedules and timetables, wayfinding, emergency notifications, security and general information such as news and weather are just some applications for the digital signage network. Scalability, interactivity and support for multiple languages are necessary as well. Whereas mobile and internet applications serve individual audience with a single device per user, digital signage might serve one or many individuals at a given time. Additionally physical space for mounting signage is limited and the device/installation cost is not borne by the consumer. That means that the model for digital signage is different than the complimentary media but so are the results.

Digital signage allows multiple assets to exist within a fixed space (repurposing a site) and also allows multiple assets to exist concurrently. Subsequently, the facility can optimize communications without cluttering the space. Additionally, digital signage can provide contextual joining or formatting of assets. A revenue based activity such as advertising hotels to arriving passengers can be targeted to the appropriate situation maximizing returns The value of information to the patron can be increased by displaying the language based on arrival origin and special instructions for those visitors.

The trick to effective digital signage is relating content to events. The more you know about the circumstances of the viewer, the more pertinent the information that you can provide them. Making information relevant requires data, a collection of facts, observations or measurements from which conclusions can be drawn. Data about train schedules and weather may determine travel decisions by a commuter. Data retrieved through interaction with a touch screen may determine the appropriate advertising offer to play and data from the security system may trigger content advising patrons to respond in an emergency. When the system can automatically respond to conditions it dramatically reduces the operating costs without sacrificing functionality.

Digital signage devices need to be intelligent, connected and centrally managed in order to deliver timely information based on a situation and allow multi-purposing of this expensive asset. It is not necessary to define all of the possible data elements that might drive content, as long as you recognize that data is a central driver for content and provides flexibility to respond to requirements that may not be defined initially. Building these elements into your communication strategy will improve effectiveness and enhance returns in the long term.

Jeff Collard is president of Omnivex Corporation, which makes enterprise-wide software to manage all aspects of digital signage networks, including content management, real-time data acquisition and distribution, and remote device management. He can be reached at jcollard@omnivex.com.

Transit case studies can be found at http://www.omnivex.com/casestudies/index.asp?story=Lamar Transit Advertising Ltd and http://www.omnivex.com/casestudies/index.asp?story=UMBC

Collard will be presenting  “The Many Uses of Digital Signage in Transportation Facilities” at DSE 2012 on Thursday, March 8. To Learn more go to www.digitalsignageexpo.net.

By Charles Smart

Almost every transit system in North America is looking for ways to cut costs, raise its revenue, or both – all while maintaining high service levels.  One of the biggest sources of cost savings and cash generation is hiding in plain sight:  your inventory of service and spare parts.  Here’s why you should pay more attention to it.

Service and spare parts inventory ranks among the largest assets on the corporate balance sheet.  Our research indicates that eight of the largest transit systems in North America (ranked by ridership) have approximately $850 million in materials and supplies inventory, of which about $650 million is invested in service and spare parts sitting in their distribution centers, stocking locations, and repair facilities.  While much of this parts inventory is essential, some parts are over-stocked, some are under-stocked, and others are simply obsolete.  The extent of misalignment defines the opportunity for improvement, and this can be very substantial.

Understanding the levels of inventory that will be required to meet parts demand – and protect the organization from fluctuations in demand – requires an accurate demand forecast.  You need to know how many of which parts to have on hand.  Ideally, you want to have the right part, at the right place, at the right time and the minimum amount of inventory necessary to meet a desired service level over a replenishment lead time.  There are a number of generic forecasting systems on the market that use historical data to project future demand, but they generally run into trouble when forecasting service and spare parts.  Why is that?

The big problem with parts inventories is intermittent, “slow-moving” demand.  Every parts operation – large or small – experiences intermittent demand.  Here’s an easy way to explain the intermittent demand problem.  Your organization probably stocks many expensive parts like axles, wheels and gears in case you need one of these items to repair rolling stock, and some of  these parts may be many years old. In some cases, it may take 6 months or a year to re-order them.  As an example, you may need one axle this month and not need another for 4 months, and then you may need 3 axles.  The demand for this type of item is intermittent, in contrast with a headlamp which you need to replace on a regular, recurring basis.

Intermittent demand is very difficult to forecast, and in many parts operations, it can be found in up to 70% of all items.  There’s no way that your enterprise resource planning (ERP) system can accurately forecast the demand for that axle, wheel or gear.  It wasn’t designed to do that.  Since intermittent demand is so hard to forecast, organizations often don’t forecast items that have it!  They just forecast the items with “normal”, higher volume demand, and “eyeball” the 70% that remain.  The result is unbalanced, often over-stocked inventories. And it’s in those unbalanced inventories where a lot of cash can be found hiding.

Here’s the second big problem transit systems face in realizing cost savings: resistance to change.  Transit systems have tremendous commitments to existing technologies like ERP systems.  Some of those existing technologies work very well for their intended purpose.  But, no system does everything well.  The right technology can provide better inputs to your ERP system that can help you achieve the cost savings you’re looking for.  This is especially true when it comes to planning your service and spare parts needs.

So, how can you overcome resistance to change and find the cost savings hidden in your distribution centers and parts warehouses?
•    For starters, we’ve found that successful efforts that achieve real cost savings always start at the top.  Executive management needs to be committed and involved, and middle managers need to be accountable.
•    Commitment needs to be clearly communicated to managers at the operational level to get buy-in across the organization and prevent units from working at cross-purposes.
•    Look for a solution that can solve your problem.  Specifically you want a solution that can not only accurately forecast intermittent demand but also tell you how much inventory and safety stock you need to cover demand over replenishment lead times.  While most ERP systems, even those specializing in service operations, claim they can do the job, most cannot.
•    How do you know? Make every vendor prove that they can solve your specific problem.  For example, Metro North Railroad (MNR) recently purchased a solution after exhaustively evaluating a number of vendors, and asked finalists to forecast MNR’s service/spare parts consumption, using actual MNR data.  The best solution’s forecast accuracy outperformed its nearest competitor by 50%.  That kind of performance can be worth millions of dollars – not only in inventory cost savings, but also in increased ROI and reduced payback time.
•    Normally, your IT department will become involved in the selection process.  Most of the time, their inclination will be to use a solution that’s easiest for them or that they already know.  Remember, the needs of the IT department and your department – even the organization as a whole – may differ.  However, the less disruptive the solution you choose to existing systems, the less resistance you’ll get from others in your organization.
•    Look at the total cost-of-ownership (TCO) of any solution you’re considering – initial purchase cost, ongoing maintenance costs, installation and training costs, time-to-results, projected payback and ROI.  Having this kind of information can be very useful when trying to justify a purchase.

It’s not unusual for the right intermittent demand planning tools to achieve a 20% reduction or more in inventory levels, while maintaining or improving fill rates and service levels.  If we take another look at that $650 million dollars worth of parts we referred to above, there’s probably at least $130 million of savings that can be found there and put to more productive uses.  You’re in business to service the public.  If given a choice of saving millions by reducing customer service or by fixing an out-of-balance inventory situation, which would you choose?  Maybe it’s time to take a look at your parts inventories, and find out what savings you’ve got hidden.

Charles N. Smart is president and CEO of Smart Software Inc., Belmont , Mass. , provider of the SmartForecasts demand forecasting, planning and inventory optimization system for transit agencies and other organizations in the transportation industry. He can be reached at charless@smartcorp.com or 1-800-762-7899.

By Ralph Malec

Rail maintenance departments are discovering a new strategy to reduce operating costs. Transit systems have learned that shock absorbers, long considered throw-away items, can now be reused indefinitely. Twenty-five years ago rail car shock absorbers were primarily larger versions of those used on automobiles. They were simple, hydraulic devices and very inexpensive.  New rail car designs that began to appear in the 1980s and 1990s featured trucks with advanced suspension systems. Most of these trucks utilized European-designed shock absorbers that had more sophisticated damping technology and were often rebuildable. These shock absorbers were also much more expensive than the units U.S. rail systems had previously used. Many were priced at least four to five times higher than the older style shock absorbers. Unfortunately, many properties continued to discard their shock absorbers based on age or mileage, regardless of condition.
About 10 years ago the Chicago Transit Authority Rail Car Engineering Department did an investigation into the various types of replacement shock absorbers that were available. The department had reason to believe that OEM shock absorbers were far superior in performance to some of the shock absorbers available on the aftermarket. After thorough research, the CTA decided to change its specification for replacement shock absorbers to reflect the new European design. Realizing that the new style shock absorbers had a useful life of 20 to 30 years, the CTA engineers then began to pursue a method to evaluate the condition of shock absorbers removed from trucks during planned overhauls.
CTA found the answer in professional auto racing. Professional racers had discovered the advantages of the European shock absorbers years earlier and switched to them because they offered almost infinite damping adjustability. Racers needed a tool to measure the damping force for each configuration they built. They used dynamometer testing machines to set these parameters. The CTA staff researched manufacturers of racing shock absorber dynamometers to see if they could find a machine to accommodate their rail car shock absorbers. They ended up connecting with a small racing equipment manufacturer in Ventura, California called Maxwell Industries Inc.
Maxwell  adapted one of its racing shock dynos to test the larger rail car shocks and then tested a half dozen used shock absorbers and compared damping rates to several new shock absorbers supplied by the CTA. The test data revealed that all six used shocks were still within the damping specs for the new shocks. The CTA marked the six shocks and placed them back into service. The re-certified shocks worked flawlessly during several years of service. Reusing those six shock absorbers saved the CTA almost $2,000. The CTA was normally replacing 500 to 600 shock absorbers a year at a cost of nearly $150,000. That was enough to convince the CTA to purchase their own shock dyno and begin to test and re-cycle their shock absorbers and the CTA has experienced a 90 percent reuse rate on shock absorbers since purchasing the shock dyno.

Ralph Malec is a sales consultant with Maxwell Industries Inc.

By Kevin Connor

There is an old saying; “There is a sucker at every poker table; if you can’t spot them, it’s likely you.” This, at its core, describes the nature of the bias blind spots that everyone shares.

The question isn’t, “Are we biased?”  We are.  The better question may be, “How do our environment and the system of positive and negative reinforcements within it shaping our perspective?” These influences define our preferences and thus the way we think, feel and respond to information. It is difficult to gain objectivity regarding these influences on ourselves, and so bias becomes a term used for the distortion in how “others” process information.

When individual decision-makers within an organization or governing body come together to make choices, the interplay of biases can create factions and alliances that stalemate progress or hijack agendas. To break logjams or neutralize groupthink, the process can become increasingly autocratic.  Those in agreement with the leader grow in confidence and satisfaction, while those opposed feel disempowered and grow passive aggressive. No one wins.

Three common cognitive biases can have a significant impact on capital allocation decisions: Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Planning Fallacy. Here’s how to spot them, and how to minimize their effect.

Framing Effect: The way a question is framed can have a major impact on our choices. Implied certainty and positive or negative language can sway opinion. For example, “Would you prefer option A that has a one million dollar Net Present Value? Or option B that has a 33 percent chance of a three million dollar NPV and a 66 percent chance of a zero NPV?” While both projects have the same expected value, project B appears more risky. To counteract the Framing Effect, challenge assumptions and reframe options to explore the proposition and break through the anchoring that the frame imposes.

Confirmation Bias: Selectively choosing information that supports existing assumptions and beliefs is common; our minds seek patterns and similarities.  In experiments, a group given a list of numbers “2, 4, 6” almost all converge on the underlying rule of increasing by two, when in fact the rule being tested is simply successive larger values.

Consider comments like, “Didn’t we get a positive result from that test on option A?” and, “We tried a similar approach to option B before and it was a disaster!” The parties to the decision have begun trying to substantiate the framing of the decision.  To combat this effect, assign a devil’s advocate within the group to express counterpoints. Introduce outsiders who are not vested in the outcome, or use a structured approach to introduce different opinions and contrary positions.

Planning Fallacy: The planning fallacy is known to anyone who has ever read an article or heard complaints of projects being years behind schedule and millions (or even billions) of dollars over budget.  The famous Sydney Opera House was expected to take five years from the start in 1959 and $7 million to finish. When the project was completed in 1973 (14 years), it was at a price tag of $107 million (15 times budget).

Even the most conservative estimates are often optimistic.  To manage the planning fallacy, make estimates of project costs and timing – best, expected and worst case.  Then make the worst case the best case and see if it would change the decision.  If performing an NPV or schedule simulation, run it with a range of values for cost and time variables.  Then run it again for comparison, with ranges approximately twice as wide as you initially believed them to be.

Biases can distort our perceptions and cultivate wishful thinking.  The cascading effect of a problematic frame, talking ourselves into the wishful benefits and optimistic planning can render poor results.  Being on the watch for these common effects and being aware of their potential pitfalls can allow decision makers to implement countermeasures to help make sure they are pursuing the best course of action.

Kevin Connor is Vice President of Decision Lens’ Solutions Group. He can be reached at kconnor@decisionlens.com

By Jeff Colton

As electrification of transportation becomes more important, designers and manufacturers are looking for energy storage solutions to increase fleet efficiency. Already, many are using ultracapacitors to replace or enhance batteries in transportation markets such as hybrid buses and trains. Ultracapacitors store a large amount of power in a small package and have a large capacitance with a low RC time constant, making them ideal for hybrid bus, rail and electric vehicle applications. Ultracapacitors work best in conjunction with a battery, as they make a battery-powered system run more efficiently.

There are several reasons why hybridizing public transportation is the best way to decrease wasted energy. First, ultracapacitors operate at a 95 to 98 percent efficiency range, which is far beyond that of batteries. Second, ultracapacitors function well in wide-ranging temperature conditions, from +70 degrees Celsius to -40 degrees Celsius. With the added benefits of a long lifespan and little required maintenance, ultracapacitors are enticing to manufacturers. Finally, ultracapacitors are more cost effective for high power, high cycle applications. Ultracapacitor prices have declined by 99 percent in the past decade compared to a less than 40 percent cost decrease in batteries. All of these factors put ultracapacitors way ahead of batteries, yet many public transportation sectors are still wary of adopting the technology. New technology advances in the development of ultracapacitors are set to change this and make ultracapacitors an industry standard in mass transit markets.

ESR, or equivalent series resistance, is the measure of resistance within the capacitor. A lower ESR results in higher efficiency, which ultimately is the desired end result.  By increasing that efficiency, even if by only 10 percent, the power capabilities of the ultracapacitor will increase by a parallel amount. The boost of power translates into higher performance, which is attractive to mass transit manufacturers and operators.

Energy storage technology has advanced significantly in the past decade and will continue to improve rapidly in the future. As such, ultracapacitor volumes are forecasted to see more than 50 percent compounded annual growth during the next 10 years. As a result of the innovation and research occurring in the energy storage industry, it is likely that we will see the availability of ultracapacitors with decreased ESR of at least 10 percent on the market in the near future.

A lower ESR will increase energy performance in a number of mass transit applications. These include the following:

Light rail: Light rail applications require a significant number of ultracapacitors to provide the power and energy required to propel a train up to speed and across distances as long as 500 meters. The number of cycles can be up to 350,000 per year. These systems require cooling due to the heat generated from the system and cell resistance. By lowering the cell resistance by 10 percent, mass transit manufacturers can also reduce their cooling requirements by 10 percent, making the systems smaller, lighter and more efficient.

Hybrid buses: Similar to the train application described above, ESR plays a large role in the efficiency and cooling requirements used in hybrid bus applications. The lower the ESR, the more efficiently the bus can recapture energy during braking or use the energy captured during acceleration with fewer cooling requirements.

Mass transit markets are eager for cells that reduce the excessive cooling requirements and suppress the cycle life. Technology capable of meeting that demand is on the horizon. In the near-term, ultracapacitors with lower ESR will fill the needs of manufacturers in the rail and hybrid bus markets, leading to lower fleet maintenance costs and increased efficiencies.

Jeff Colton is vice president of sales with Ioxus, Inc. Colton has 20 years of success leading technical sales and marketing teams at several companies, including General Electric Corp., Sanyo Electric Corp., Saft Battery Corp. and Pentadyne Power Corp.

By Craig Daniels

The current procurement model for large-scale advanced transit technologies such as automatic vehicle location (AVL), real-time passenger information (RTPI) and electronic fare collection (EFC) is a capital, resource and time-intensive exercise.  Many industries outside of transit are migrating to a service provider-based architecture where advanced technologies such as these are “hosted” by a third party that provides end services to its clients. This model is prevalent in our everyday lives: it is how many of us receive our mail online, our cell phone service and a variety of other services. The transit industry is not known as an early adopter, but with the prevalence of cloud-based software hosting and ubiquitous Web-based applications, the industry should be pushing technology providers to offer these technologies as a service.
Example through Analogy
Suppose during the 1980s that a large U.S. multi-national firm realized the potential of using cellular technology to enable its employees to wirelessly talk and share data with one another. Let us assume that at the time, while there were cellular providers, the company performed an internal make/buy analysis and determined that the best course of action was to contract with a cellular construction firm and build its own cellular infrastructure, applications, phones and back office software to run the system.
In four years, the project is completed (one year late and significantly over budget), and handsets are rolled out to employees. Due to funding limitations, the cellular network is only deployed at the main corporate office campus; as a consequence, coverage from the network is limited to the office location and a 10-mile radius surrounding the offices. All employees receive new phones and instructions on how to use them. The cellular system goes live and employees are able to roam around the corporate campus and surrounding towns and utilize the cellular network to wirelessly talk to their colleagues. What an amazing marvel of technology for the mid 1980s!
The company shifts from its capital expenditure budget to its operational expense budget. The firm hires a staff of 30 developers, maintainers and field engineers to maintain the back office code, the handset hardware defects and the cellular sites. Additionally, an unforeseen relationship with another large multi-national firm with local offices requires integration of that firm’s unique cellular network. The yearly cost of maintenance is significant and the ability to move quickly and integrate new technology is almost non-existent.
Other smaller local firms look on the cellular system in awe, they wish they had the capital to implement this cutting-edge technology; instead they are stuck using “lower-tech” landlines.
What Lesson Can We Draw From This Example?
Sitting from our vantage in 2011, we see how foolish the firm’s choice was. What firm would choose to spend millions of dollars developing a private cellular network if there were cellular carriers and wireless providers who would build, maintain and expand a nationwide cellular network and offer the use of that network as a service? Any firm could pay a fixed monthly service fee and receive nationwide coverage, ever-increasing technology innovation, guaranteed service levels and outsourced infrastructure maintenance.  In the face of these cellular provider efficiencies — who would choose to build their own cellular network, handsets and software and then choose to maintain that network?
What if, in this example, those cellular providers didn’t exist?  The firm might have had no other choice than to pursue the path they did.
Transit Industry Technology Procurements
Three of the larger technology procurements an agency might pursue are automatic vehicle location (AVL), real-time passenger information systems (RTPI), and electronic fare collection (EFC) technologies.  Let’s take the above example and create an analogy between a service provider model and the transit technology model; from this exercise we see some interesting things:
•    Transit authorities historically contract out to build their own “cellular networks” (the fare collection back office and vehicle hardware, the CAD/AVL back office and vehicle hardware, the real-time passenger software)
o    Typically there is a lack of interoperability with surrounding agencies and technologies
o    The project is time consuming, resource consuming and capital consuming
•    Each system has its own unique features and “phones” (building RFP’s for customized software and hardware requirements during the procurement of the systems)
o    Large up-front capital expenditure on unique features and hardware rollout
o    Some of the most advanced technology is unavailable to the smaller transit authorities due to cost and complexity of deployment
•    Transit authorities maintain their own systems (procurement of these systems means the authority owns the hardware and the vendor supplies on-going services, maintenance and warranty fees)
o    Software and hardware is locally maintained; software patches need to be pushed out to the local versions of client/server software applications
o    System is maintained until the next capital procurement and “fork-lift” upgrade

The example isn’t a perfect comparison, but it should make us consider if there are alternative ways in which vendors can offer these technologies. Utilizing a service model approach, agencies could save money, time and resources while receive cutting-edge technologies in a more efficient manner.
What a Service-Based World Would Look Like
Consider a service provider model for the above procurements. As they do today, the agency would still need to research the technology need, go out for a grant and issue an RFP. Instead of creating a unique technology RFP though, the agency would create a service-based RFP.

In a service world, the vendor would build and maintain an enterprise class instance of their software preferably at a hosted facility. Network connectivity, server requirements and network management services would all be provided as a service level agreement with high availability and redundancy requirements. Additionally, the vendor would deploy a large disaster recovery site — a full back-up site that would be capable of backing up all data, customer information and configuration files. As the vendor deploys a large-scale implementation of its central software, every agency would enjoy the benefits of this large-system deployment. An agency with 25 vehicles and an agency with 250 vehicles would have the same system availability, features and functionality.
Through a secure network connection, agencies would be able to access the features and data of the CAD/AVL, RTPI or EFC through a Web browser. Instead of the typical server/client software deployments where the applications are loaded onto individual computers, the hosted model supplies all of the content, functionality and features through a standard Web browser.
The vendor service offering might include the supply of on-board hardware for either a nominally reduced rate, or subsidized as part of a monthly service charge. Because the back office software would be shared, updates would be pushed out and available to all subscribing customers providing constantly evolving feature-rich software to all agencies. The agency would not need to own the on-board hardware, which would be refreshed every five years as part of the overall system health process. Similar to cell phone providers offering their subscribers discounted handsets every few years, this process ensure that the field hardware stays up to date and in good working order.
Up front, the vendor would take in all agency configuration data and ensure a clean mapping between operational requirements and software features. This might only take a number of months, as opposed to a number of years as we see in the industry right now.
The fee for the service would be significantly less than if the agency were to procure a similar system and deploy it. Consider that it is always less to pay a monthly cell phone bill than it is to build a nationwide cellular network! The software is centrally managed and with fewer unique software features to maintain, the service model allows the vendor to achieve economies of scale and hardware/software synergies, thereby allowing them to provide the service at a lower overall fee per user.
Lastly, if multiple local agencies have signed on to receive EFC, AVL or RTPI as a service, the use of the hosting environment enables inter-agency usage, sharing and interoperability. Data is centrally stored and managed so it is an easy technology leap to create multi-agency shared instances of the technologies. Now, a single smartcard can be used across multiple agencies and authorities. Intermodal or inter-agency real-time passenger information can be made available to the ridership. The transit ridership will also realize benefits from the technology service model.
Benefits of Service Strategy
From the above model, it is easy to see that transit agencies can realize a host of benefits from the service-based product offering, including:
•    Lower total cost of ownership for cutting-edge technologies with constantly increasing feature sets
•    Cutting-edge technology availability — any size agency can enjoy the benefits of a large-scale, feature-rich CAD/AVL, RTPI and EFC implementation.
•    Greatly reduced IT management and maintenance requirements for the agency.
•    Higher system level availability through the use of centrally hosted software and hardware resources; enterprise class disaster recovery sites and 24/7/365 hardware monitoring
•    Quicker implementation of technologies through the use of standard software and feature mapping to transit agency needs.
•    Easily introduce regional interoperability between agencies and the use of these technologies to provide value to the ridership.

Conclusion
While reading the example, we wondered why the firm didn’t go to a cellular provider, purchase the handsets, and provide each employee with a monthly cellular service plan. Instead of building its own cellular network, the firm could have accomplished the same thing quicker, cheaper and with more features. Thankfully, cellular providers like ATT, Verizon and Sprint do exist.
If it is makes sense to go with a cellular provider, then why does the transit industry continue to purchase unique, custom-built solutions for AVL, RTPI and EFC systems? Transit authorities should be asking the vendors in the transit space who sell AVL, RTPI and EFC systems to offer their technologies as a service. Vendors would host the technology and offer a complete range of advanced features to all subscribers for a monthly fee. Vendors would maintain the infrastructure and refresh the hardware during the life of the service contract. All on-going software development would be brought into to the core software, thereby offering an ever-increasing feature set to the subscriber agencies. Agencies would not have to provide a large staff for maintenance as the system is completely remotely hosted and monitored. The overall total cost of ownership burden should be significantly reduced for these agencies over the life of the system’s use.
Cloud computer and software as a service architecture are becoming more and more prevalent in our daily lives. Technologically speaking, there is no reason why vendors could not supply these technologies as a service to transit agencies. In this time of economic challenge, where cost awareness and procurement efficiencies are sharply in focus, this model introduces numerous benefits and advantages over the historical procurement strategies. Vendors exist to serve the needs of the agencies, and should offer this technology procurement to agencies just as agencies should push vendors to pursue this model and realize all of the inherent efficiencies that come along with it.

Craig Daniels is a business development manager with VIX Technology USA and can be reached at craig.daniels@vixtechnology.com.

By NeTia Richards

The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council, which was created after DHS was established, started a year-long project to assess subsequent events and established measures throughout the decade, post- 9/11. With more than 90 percent of our nation’s infrastructure being provided by the private sector, it is imperative to evaluate homeland security solutions and how the providers collaborate with government entities to provide the best and most up-to-date technologies available for intelligence-gathering and preventative measures for terrorist attacks.

In an effort to stay “ahead of the game” so-to-speak, “The 9/10/11 Project: Are We Ready for the Day Before Tomorrow?”  began in the fall of 2010 and will run until September of 2011. The council releases a monograph on the 10th of each month and covers a myriad of topics; some explore the historical context where others assess future threats and other homeland security concerns. What’s more is the inclusion of an interactive timeline of events and responses that correlate with the current month’s topic.

Focus topics include areas that have impacted America’s approach to national security with the first one being aviation security.  This monograph covered the initial steps taken by the feds in reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Former President Bush initiated immediate responses to the catastrophic event.  Some of the major developments included the signing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act late in 2001, which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) housed under the Department of Transportation (DOT), as well as the creation of “watch “ and “no-fly” lists preventing high-risk people from flying.

The second release focused on cybersecurity, which stemmed originally from former President Clinton’s realization that America’s dependency on networking, whether it be banking and finance, intelligence or water supply, was all connected by computers and computer networks. Remember Y2K?  The public fear was proliferated by America’s increased dependence on this technology in the new digital age. Being so interconnected created major vulnerabilities and security gaps so the feds stepped in and created two command centers; Joint Task Force-Computer Network Warfare in 1998 and Joint Functional Component Command-Network Warfare in 2005. Many subsequent command centers have been created since to manage the massive levels of digital communications our country has developed and continues to rely upon.

The third release focused on Information Sharing.  The events that transpired on 9/11 revealed our nation’s weaknesses and it became painstakingly pertinent that our government improved their procedures and methods for obtaining strategic information in order to prevent a repeat attack. Under President Bush the Patriot Act was signed into law, which provided law enforcement with more flexibility to acquire information through gathering, sharing and surveillance. Foreign searches were also amended due to this new legislation.  Another important measure was the passage of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which facilitated the dissemination of counterterrorism intelligence to private and public sectors. Lastly, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)  was created.

The fourth installment was directed toward biosecurity and how far we have come in deterring biological threats. We have all seen it in Hollywood films; population’s unknowingly contracting infectious diseases and spreading it throughout their communities. The threat of bioterrorism is heightened due to the fact that it can be done covertly and its’ effects can be seen before anyone realizes it may be a biological agent. During the course of the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States where 22 victims suffered, five of which lost their lives, it took months and billions of dollars to cleanup and decontaminate high-risk facilities. Although this was a relatively small-scale attack, provisions were put in place to prevent the proliferation of bioterrorism.

Major efforts included the passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which provides assistance to governments during a bioterrorism attack. Also, DHS created the BioWatch Program to deploy a rapid response team for bioattacks and lastly, the Project BioShield Act, which appropriated funds for advanced R&D efforts for biological weapons. Furthermore, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act was created in 2006, which provides more opportunity to procure vaccines, drugs, therapies and tools for public health emergencies. Private sector groups have also been heavily involved in developing tools to prevent and respond to bioterrorism. General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman have been working on biodetection technology solutions, among many others.

Even though threats will continue to emerge from abroad and within our homeland I am convinced that our government and private-sector companies will remain vigilant in staying one step ahead in developing policy and products to make aviation security, cybersecurity, information sharing and biosecurity worthwhile in preventing future terrorist attacks from occurring. Keep in mind that these are just the first four topics covered in the project. Look for the second quarter topics next month.

Read more on transportation security issues at UGPTI’s Transportation Security Blog,  posting daily on the topics that really matter.

NeTia Richards is a research technician at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University.

By Jose Fernandez and Chris Costello

A primary mission of public transit agencies is to ensure (as best as possible) the safety and security of their customers, employees and infrastructure. Since September 11, 2001, ensuring the successful development and execution of security programs has become an increasingly critical responsibility for transit agencies and their staff. However, managers of commuter rail, subway and light rail systems are constantly being challenged to deliver safe and reliable services within the framework of perpetually shrinking budgets.
Over the past several years, transit operations, safety and security professionals have applied elements of a Security Program Lifecycle process to assess, design and implement cost-effective safety, security and emergency preparedness initiatives. The process includes the following components:
1.    Threat and Vulnerability Assessments
2.    Capital Program Security Budgets and Funding Sources
3.    Functional Requirements
4.    Design
5.    Procurement
6.    Startup and Testing
7.    Training, Operations and Maintenance
On Monday, June 13, as part of the 2011 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference in Boston, a panel of experts will discuss the Security Program Lifecycle, sharing personal experiences and lessons learned from both the federal government and transit agency perspective.
Panelists include representatives from the:
•    Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
•    Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
•    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA); and
•    Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York.
The discussion will focus on common challenges facing both government and agency staff.
•    How does a transit agency conduct a Threat and Vulnerability Assessment to not only identify potential system weaknesses but to also ensure the procurement of proper government funding? What does the government look for in these assessments when considering the award of funding?

•    What are the critical steps a transit agency must take to meet government security guidelines and directives?

•    How can agencies balance the need for security with other operational needs? Are there best practices for including security as part of an agency’s capital program, particularly in tough economic times?

•    What technical and operational goals do the federal government look for when assessing agency security program designs? Is there assistance available to help agencies meet design demands?

•    What is the agency experience in procuring security program resources, given internal policies and timelines? How does this process align with the requirements of meeting the government grant funding process?

•    How do agencies implement training programs so employees can properly maintain and operate security equipment and technology? Is outsourcing some of the work problematic due to contractual labor constraints?

In addition to sharing direct experience and lessons learned about developing a security program following the steps of the lifecycle process, panelists will direct audience members to important resource guides and documents, highlight specific training opportunities, recommend standards to follow, point out required planning elements and offer grant information.

We hope you will join us for the Security Program Lifecycle panel discussion at this year’s APTA Rail Conference in Boston. Operational, safety and security professionals are sure to gain important and useful insights that can be immediately applied to support their own critical security initiatives.

Security Program Lifecycle Panel: June 13, 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
2011 APTA Rail Conference
Boston Marriott Copley Place – Boston, MA

http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/Pages/default.aspx

Jose Fernandez is director of Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness at TRC Companies Inc., a national engineering, consulting and construction management firm providing integrated services to the energy, environmental and infrastructure markets.

Chris Costello is manager of Systems and Technology at Jacobs Engineering Group, one of the world’s largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services.

By Mary Grace Umlauf, PhD, RN, FAAN

Approximately 20 percent of U.S. workers are involved in some sort of shift-based or rotating schedule – that’s nearly 15 million people. And because our society is active 24 hours a day, many professions involve shift work, including mass transit workers, healthcare professionals, hospitality workers, manufacturing workers and protective services such as police, firefighters and first-responders.
Working odd hours requires people to be awake and do work when their body’s internal clock calls for sleep. This disruption in their body’s sleep-wake cycle, or circadian rhythm, can lead to a host of problems including a recognized – but often undiagnosed – medical condition called shift work disorder. It is estimated that shift work disorder may affect up to 25 percent of shift workers.
Now, a new video  pays tribute to people who work non-traditional shifts, highlighting the impact of shift work disorder.

View video here:

It’s Time to Shift Our Assumptions about Shift Work

The video is brought to you by The Wake-Up Squad, an educational awareness campaign developed by Cephalon Inc., and designed to inform the community about shift work disorder. I am proud to be serving as the chair of this program because we have created a resource for people to learn more about this important and often under-recognized medical condition. Shift work disorder is a condition that occurs when your body’s circadian rhythm or clock is out of sync with your work schedule. This disturbance can lead to excessive sleepiness during waking hours or insomnia, trouble sleeping during sleeping hours. People who suffer from the condition may experience sleepiness-related accidents, impairment in work performance and even worsening of heart and stomach issues.

Realizing you or a loved one may be suffering from shift work disorder is an important first step in dealing with the condition. Through the website, TheWakeUpSquad.com, people at risk for shift work disorder and their loved ones can find information and resources about this disorder and you can register to take a simple assessment that you can use to discuss symptoms with a healthcare professional. I encourage you to learn more about the condition by speaking with a health care professional. For more information, visit www.TheWakeUpSquad.com.

Mary Grace Umlauf, PhD, RN, FAAN is a sleep researcher and chair of the Wake-Up Squad. She is a spokesperson for this public disease education initiative and has been compensated by Cephalon for her time and expertise.

By Laurent Cremer

The topic of open standards for automatic fare collection is heating up. Budget challenges and growing security threats are creating the need for highly secure fare collection systems that also provide interoperability and increase operators’ flexibility. Together with increasing availability of near field communication (NFC)-based smartphones, “stickers” and peripheral devices to the consumer market, these market forces are requiring transport agencies to think long and hard about their fare collection system alternatives. How an agency chooses to move forward will depend on how it can address considerations surrounding its existing infrastructure, intellectual property (IP) rights ownership and immediate goals.

New or Upgrade?
The easiest way for an agency to move to open standards is to build its system from scratch on open standards. For example, if an agency is considering replacing its existing fare collection system, the request for proposal (RFP) should require compliance with open standards. However, total replacement is usually not an option for many agencies and, for those, it may make more sense to identify specific components that can be replaced to begin the migration to open standards.

Who Owns the Rights?
The ease — or even feasibility — of migration depends on whether the agency owns the IP rights to its system. In many systems, the customizations and integrations include IP owned by the systems integrator. The agency must determine if it has the right to modify its system and share specifications with third parties. If the agency owns the rights, the process of migration to open standards is greatly simplified and can proceed on any schedule defined by the agency.

However if not, the agency will likely have to purchase the rights. For example, a large European transit authority plans to deliver an open payment system within two years. To do this however, the authority had to pay millions of dollars to its system integrator. Purchasing rights can be cost-prohibitive, even for large, well-capitalized transit agencies but may provide an attractive return on investment in the form of reduced capital and operating costs in the future.

The Best Places to Start
If the agency owns or can obtain the rights to introduce open standards into its existing systems, where is the best place to begin? Because core systems are usually proprietary, the best opportunities for standardization are likely to be the devices at the “edges” of the network, such as payment vending machines, fareboxes and smartcard readers. Interface specifications can be shared with third-party providers of these devices to enable the new equipment to be interoperable with the core systems while also providing the means to introduce open standards compliance.

Agency control of the card to reader interface is also important. If the agency has the rights to share and/or change its card data structure and the security associated with card to reader authentication, replacement of both cards and readers is feasible, enabling the introduction of more secure and more cost-effective products. If such rights do not exist, it will be more difficult for the agency to independently complete this type of upgrade.

When new devices or smartcard readers are being added or are replacing existing devices, the agency should require that each device and the interface to/from that device is compliant with open standards and can support open standards-based payment cards.  By requiring such compliance, the agency will ensure that it retains the right to procure and introduce new, open standards-compliant devices in the future and will not be tied to a single supplier or a single solution for security.

Choosing a Truly Open Secure Standard
The only truly open standard for secure transit fare collection solutions is the Cipurse open security standard, from the OSPT Alliance. The OSPT Alliance is a nonprofit organization that was formed by Giesecke & Devrient, Infineon Technologies, Inside Secure and Oberthur Technologies to help the transit community move toward the next generation of secure, cost-effective and flexible fare collection solutions through a global, multi-provider community.

The Cipurse open security standard provides an advanced foundation for developing highly secure, interoperable, and flexible transit fare collection solutions. It is built on proven standards, including ISO 7816, AES-128, and ISO/IEC 14443-4 for securing multiple payment types. Cipurse-validated solutions can be used within existing application frameworks around the world while promoting cross-vendor system interoperability, reducing technology adoption risks, and increasing the industry’s responsiveness to market needs. The Cipurse open security standard also enables transit agencies to future-proof their fare collection infrastructures by ensuring interoperability with NFC mobile devices as they start to be deployed commercially.

Why Start Now?
As smartcard and mobile phone-based payment, loyalty and access solutions become widely adopted across the transportation industry, the industry becomes more attractive to fraud perpetrators. Traditional systems may have to be upgraded to address these threats and to meet security and compliance requirements. An open standards-based system is the only way to adapt and maintain your security posture without having to spend millions of dollars to an integrator each time security threats evolve.

Agencies can also increase their procurement options while reducing costs. Traditionally, agencies purchased systems from a handful of known vendors and integrators. With a lack of competition, agencies had little choice but to pay a premium price for peace of mind. However, with an accepted open security standard, such as Cipurse, agencies can eliminate security and interoperability worries because certified products have been validated to deliver the levels of security required. This offers agencies more purchasing flexibility and stimulates a more cost-competitive marketplace.

New open standards-based Cipurse products will appear on the market later this year. Now is the time to review your fare collection system strategy and plan for your next steps toward open standards.

Laurent Cremer is executive director of the OSPT Alliance, an international association chartered to define a new open standard for secure transit fare collection solutions. It provides industry education, creates workgroup opportunities and catalyzes the development and adoption of innovative fare collection technologies, applications and services. Membership is open to transit operators, solution vendors, government agencies and other stakeholders in the transit ecosystem. For additional information, please visit www.osptalliance.org.