Rural Systems
Nine rural transit systems responded to the survey. These systems reported use of five ITS technologies. S&D and GIS are the most widely used technologies by the rural systems responding (Table 3). The states where the nine rural transit systems are from and the technologies they use are identified in Figure 7.
Table 3. Technologies Used by Rural Transit Systems N = 9
| Rural | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Transit Management | ||
| AVL | 1 | 11% |
| GIS | 3 | 33% |
| S&D | 6 | 67% |
| SP | 1 | 11% |
| Automated Traveler Information Systems | ||
| IVA | 1 | 11% |
| Total | 12 |
Transit Management
Automatic Vehicle Location
Only one rural transit system reported the use of AVL and they have used this technology for less than six months (Table 3). Given this short time period, the system experienced the need for less labor. They did not report a change in costs, but it could be possible they would experience a decrease in operational costs if less labor was needed.
Geographic Information Systems
Three rural transit systems indicated they use GIS in their operations. The technology has been used for more than five years by one of the systems (33 percent) and between one to three years for the other systems (67 percent) (Table 3). Since implementing the technology, the systems reported an increase in passengers and an increase in the service benefits to residents.
Figure 7. Technologies Used by Rural Transit Systems Responding to Survey II
Scheduling and Dispatching
Six rural transit systems reported the use of Scheduling and Dispatching software. Two of the systems (33 percent) have used the technology between one and three years, while three of the systems (50 percent) have used the technology for three to five years. One system that reported the use of S&D for more than five years (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Length of Time Rural Transit Systems Responding Have Used S&D, N=6
The transit systems reported results of increased passengers as a result of implementing the technology. The technology most likely improved the systems ability to schedule rides and resulted in more rides provided. However, systems also reported the need for additional labor as a result of implementing the technology. They had to hire an additional dispatcher and drivers to meet the demand of riders (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Impacts on Rural Transit Systems Responding, as a Result of Implementing S&D, N=6
The systems reported mixed results in changes of costs and revenues as a result of the technology. Approximately one-half of the systems reported increased operating and capital costs. The increased operating costs were a result of hiring additional labor and the increased capital costs were a result of needing additional vehicles to meet the increased demand. Five of the systems (83 percent) recognized increased revenues (Figure10). A couple of these systems indicated their demand was growing, not as a result of the S&D, but the S&D helped them to better plan and meet this demand. All rural systems reporting use of this technology indicated an increase in services provided to the residents of their community.
Figure 10. Changes in Rural Transit Systems Costs as a Result of Implementing S&D, N=6
NOTE: Only those who responded to the question are included in the percentages, therefore percentages may not add up to 100.
Signal Priority
One rural transit system reported the use of Signal Priority. The technology has been in place between 3-5 years, which would allow the transit system to make a fair assessment of usefulness of the technology. This technology allowed the system to better meet their route schedule, which is an expectation of this type of technology. The transit system also reported an increase in their capital costs as a result of implementing this technology. However, once the costs have been incurred, capital costs should not continue to increase.
Traveler Information Systems
In-Vehicle Announcer
An IVA was reported to be in use by one rural transit system for 1-3 years. The system reported they experienced the need for less labor because of implementing this technology. It is not clear why they needed less labor. The system did report an increase in the service benefits to residents as a result of implementing the technology. This result would be expected because the riders would be informed of upcoming stops or other announcements that may be of relevance to them.
Small and Medium Urban
Forty-five transit systems that responded to this questionnaire are classified in the small and medium urban systems. Nine of the 11 ITS technologies are used by these systems. The specific technology breakdown is in Table 4. S&D is the most frequently used technology for small and medium urban systems with 34 systems (76 percent) reporting its use. The states where these transit systems are located and technologies used by the systems are shown in Figure 11.
Table 4. Small and Medium Urban Technologies
| Sm/Med Urban | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Transit Management | ||
| APC | 3 | 7% |
| AVL | 5 | 11% |
| GIS | 14 | 31% |
| S&D | 34 | 76% |
| Automated Traveler Information Systems | ||
| ATI | 7 | 16% |
| IVA | 2 | 4% |
| VMS | 3 | 7% |
| WEB | 1 | 2% |
| Electronic Fare Collection | ||
| EFC | 7 | 16% |
Figure 11. Small and Medium Urban Population Categories
Transit Management
Automatic Passenger Counters
Three systems (6.7 percent) reported the use of APC. They were split in the amount of time they have used the technology. One system has used the technology less than one year, while another has used APC between one and three years, and the last system used the technology for more than five years (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Have Used APC, N=3
The impacts of technology on the transit system could not be clearly synthesized. Only one system reported the need for additional labor – one additional person to process the data and information this technology generated. This would most likely impact the operational costs. The system that has used the technology for less than one year did not answer the question related to changes in capital costs, however, it would be expected this system experienced an increase in capital costs due to purchasing the APC technology. None of the systems reported any change in their revenues. All three systems did report increased service to residents using their transit system.
Automatic Vehicle Location
Five small and medium urban transit systems (11 percent) reported the use of AVL. Three of the systems have used the technology for less than one year. While one system has used the technology for one to three years and the other has used the technology between three and five years (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Reporting Have Used AVL, N=5
One of the transit systems that has used the technology for less than one year reported several benefits the technology had on the system. AVL has helped to increase the number of passengers, reduce labor, meet route schedules better, extend hours of operation, and increase service coverage. This same system recognized a decrease in operating costs because it needed fewer dispatchers. Likewise, they recognized a decrease in capital costs because they needed fewer vehicles. The same system recognized an increase in revenues. However, this increase was attributed to better record keeping. Surprisingly, the other four systems did not identify benefits of using AVL. However, they did experience changes in costs that they attributed to AVL.
Geographic Information Systems
Of the 14 systems (31 percent of 45 systems) reporting use of GIS, two (14 percent) have used the technology for less than one year while five of the systems (37 percent) have used the technology between one and three years. Three systems have used the technology between three to five years and one system has used GIS for more than five years (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Have Used GIS, N=14
GIS has had positive affects on the systems implementing the technology. Four of the systems (29 percent) reported they have added additional coverage to their route service. Using GIS, transit systems can better identify areas that do not have transit coverage, but contain potential transit customers. Three of the systems reported that they extended the hours of their service, while two of the systems had reported additional coverage. Most likely these systems identified a group of people that needed service and quite possibly began to provide evening service. Likewise, this accounted for the increased passengers identified in Figure 15. A system reported the need for additional labor, but this was due to the need to hire additional drivers because of the increased coverage and extended hours. Systems that reported the need for additional labor and extended service also experienced increased operational costs. Also a couple of systems reported increased capital costs. The capital cost increases resulted from the need to purchase GIS software, software upgrades, and additional vehicles to meet additional service needs. Less labor was required by two systems because they better utilized their equipment by eliminating a route that was providing duplicate service. This same system experienced reduced operating costs (Figure 16).
Figure 15. Results Since Transit Systems Have Implemented GIS, N=14
Figure 16. Changes in Costs and Revenues for Small and Medium Transit Systems as a Result of Implementing GIS, N=14
NOTE: Only those who responded to the question are included in the percentages, therefore percentages may not add up to 100.
Scheduling and Dispatching
Thirty-four small and medium urban transit systems (76 percent of 45 systems) reported the use of scheduling and dispatching software. Five of the systems (15 percent) have used the technology for less than one year. One-half of the systems responding (17 systems) have been using scheduling and dispatch software for one to three years. Interestingly, approximately 25 percent of the systems have used the technology for more than five years (Figure 17). Several of the systems have had different experiences with the S&D software.
Figure 17. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Have Been Using S&D, N=34
The small transit systems that use S&D software reported several results they attributed to the technology. Eleven systems (32 percent) attributed increased passengers due to the use of their S&D technology. Some of the systems indicated they did not know by how much they increased passengers as a result of S&D. Nine of the systems (26 percent) reported they are better able to meet route schedules as a result of the software. The systems were split on their need for additional labor (six systems or 18 percent) or less labor (six systems or 18 percent). The systems needing additional labor required more dispatchers or individuals with more technical background to work with the system (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Results Attributed to Implementing Scheduling and Dispatching Software, by Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems, N=34
Nearly half of the systems reported no change in operating costs, while eight systems (24 percent) experienced an increase in operating costs and eight systems (24 percent) experienced a decrease in operating costs attributed to S&D. Increased costs were due to hiring an additional dispatcher, offering new services, and the cost of implementing software. Systems that experienced decreases in operating costs attributed it to the need for less labor due to system efficiencies (Figure 19).
Thirteen systems identified an increase in revenues. Some indicated they were able to schedule more customers while a couple of the systems indicated an increase in revenues, but they could not necessarily attribute it to the technology. Twenty-eight of the systems thought they could provide better service and the city residents were positively affected through the implementation of the S&D software.
Figure 19. Operating and Capital Cost Changes Experienced by Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems as a Result of Implementing S&D Software, N=34
NOTE: Only those who responded to the question are included in the percentages, therefore percentages may not add up to 100.
raveler Information Systems
Automated Trip Itineraries
Seven of the small and medium urban transit systems reported the use of automated trip itineraries (ATI). Three of the systems have used the technology for between one and three years while one of the other systems has used the technology between three and five years. Three systems did not report the length of time they have been using the technology (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Have Used ATI, N=7
As a result of implementing ATI, two systems have recognized they are better able to meet route schedules, but provided no explanation as to why. One of the systems reported they have added additional coverage and other systems have extended their hours and increased passengers. Systems would not increase their coverage as a result of ATI, however, they may have incorporated ATI and increased their coverage at the same time (Figure 21).
None of the systems recognized any changes in capital costs, probably because they implemented the technology a few years ago. However, one system experienced an increase in operating costs and another experienced a decrease in operating costs. Two of the systems identified an increase in their revenues. Four (57 percent) of the systems recognized residents of their city were benefiting from this technology.
Figure 21. Results Since Small and Medium Urban Systems Have Implemented ATI, N=7
In-Vehicle Announcer
Two small and medium urban transit systems (4 percent of 45 systems) have implemented IVA. One system has used the technology for less than one year and the other has used the technology between one and three years. Neither system reported any recognized benefits to the transit system as a result of the technology. Neither system experienced changes in operating or capital costs. Furthermore, neither system recognized any changes in revenues. However, one system did report increased service to the city. This would be expected as passengers would have a better idea when to exit the bus, particularly for elderly passengers.
Variable Message Signs
Only one transit system in the category of small and medium urban reported the use of VMS. This system has used the technology between three and five years. They did not recognize any particular benefits to the transit system as a result of implementing the technology. Furthermore, they did not experience any change in operating or capital costs as a result of the technology. Nor did they experience any change in revenues. They did report that services to customers in the city did increase.
Web
Only one of the small and medium urban transit systems reported use of the Web. They have only been using the Web for their transit system for less than one year. They did not recognize any changes in operating or capital costs nor any change in revenues. However, the transit system reporting thought that citizens of their city would benefit from the use of this technology. This system may have posted route schedules for customers and potential customers to identify routes, times, and costs.
Electronic Fare Collection
Only one method of electronic fare collection reported on in this study. Several of the small and medium urban transit systems use EFC.
Electronic Fare Collection
Seven small and medium urban transit systems (16 percent of 45 systems) responding reported the use of Electronic Fare Collection. Two of the systems (29 percent) have used the technology for less than one year. One of the systems (14 percent) have used the technology for one to three years. Two systems (29 percent) have used the technology for three to five years and one system (14 percent) has used the technology for more than five years. One system did not report the number of years they have used EFC (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Length of Time Small and Medium Urban Transit Systems Reported Use of EFC, N=7
One system reported that EFC has helped them to increase passengers, but offered no explanation of why they experienced this increase. Another system indicated the implementation of EFC required additional labor. The additional labor was a result of needing someone with the technical background to maintain the system. The majority of systems indicated they experienced no change in operational or capital costs. One system that indicated increased operating costs said their increase is due to the need to purchase magnetic stripped passes. One of the transit systems that reported an increase in capital costs explained they needed to buy additional equipment. Three systems reported an increase in revenues. These increases may be due to better tracking of the fares. Over 70 percent believed the technology allowed them to increase services to residents. This could be because riders may not have to carry correct change, but rather use a special fare card.