Alternate Mode Transportation Center --> Transit Management Center:
alternate mode service data

Definitions

alternate mode service data (Information Flow): Detailed real-time schedule and other service information from alternate modes that supports coordination between modes to facilitate efficient transfer at connection points.

Alternate Mode Transportation Center (Source Physical Object): The 'Alternate Mode Transportation Center' provides the interface through which non-ITS transportation systems (e.g., airlines, ferry services, passenger-carrying heavy rail) can exchange data with ITS. This two-way interface enables coordination for efficient movement of people across multiple transportation modes. It also enables the traveler to efficiently plan itineraries which include segments using other modes.

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

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

This Triple is described by the following Functional View Functional Objects:

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

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

None

Communication Solutions

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

Selected Solution

US: GTFS static - Secure Internet (ITS)

Solution Description

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

ITS Application Entity
Mind the gapMind the gapMind the gapMind the gap

GTFS
Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt
Facilities

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

Internet Subnet Alternatives
TransNet TransNet

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Access Access

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

ITS Application ITS Application

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Mgmt Mgmt

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Facility Facility

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Security Security

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

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

Characteristics

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


Interoperability Description
National This triple should be implemented consistently within the geopolitical region through which movement is essentially free (e.g., the United States, the European Union).

Security

Information Flow Security
  Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Rating Moderate Moderate Low
Basis Information related to liaison between entities could have personal and contact information, so should not generally be readable. If no contact information is included Confidentiality would be LOW. Coordination-related information needs to be correct, or route calculation and coordinations will suffer. The impact will not be catastrophic but could be significant. This information is unlikely to change very quickly. Loss of this flow will have minimal impact, as organizations fall back to default operating procedures, assuming some initial coordination has taken place.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt True