Large Urban Transit Systems

Twenty transit systems in large urban cities with populations of more than 400,000 reported the use of ITS technologies in this questionnaire. Eleven different ITS technologies were reported by these systems. The largest use of a single technology is the use of scheduling and dispatching technologies. Each of the technologies in use are addressed in Table 5. The states in which these systems are located are presented in Figure 23.

Table 5. ITS Used by Large Urban System

Transit Management

The results from large urban transit systems’ experience with five different fleet management and operations technologies are reported on in this section. The technologies include Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL), Automated Passenger Counters (APC), Signal Priority (SP), and Variable Message Signs (VMS).

Automatic Passenger Counters

Automatic Passenger Counters are used by seven of the large urban systems reporting (35 percent of 21 systems). Each system has used the technology for various time periods. Three systems reporting (43 percent) have used the technology for less than one year. Two systems (29 percent) have used the technology for one to three years, one system has used APC for three to five years, and one system has used the technology for more than five years (Figure 24).

Three systems (43 percent) of the large urban systems responding to the questionnaire identified the need for less labor as a result of implementing APC. The systems reporting this finding had implemented the technology within the last year. Therefore, the other systems most likely experienced the need for less labor when they originally implemented the technology, and therefore, did not find it as relevant at this given point in time. However, the transit system that had used the technology for more than five years reported an increase in additional coverage as well as better meeting route schedules as a result of the technology. It is not clear how the system realized additional coverage. One of the systems newly implementing the technology reported increased passengers serviced as a result of the technology. Four systems (57 percent) reported their service to residents of the community increased as a result of the technology (Figure 25).

Two large urban systems (29 percent) reported a decrease in operating costs while only one system reported an increase in capital costs as a result of using APC. Most systems experienced no change in their costs as a result of implementing the technology. Most likely the systems experienced the increased capital costs when they first purchased the systems, but have since paid for the technology and may experience additional costs if they need to upgrade equipment.

Automatic Vehicle Location

Seven of the large urban transit systems (35 percent) reported use AVL. One system has used the technology for less than one year, whereas, one system has used AVL for between one to three years and three systems (43 percent) have used the technology for three to five years and two systems (29 percent) have used the technology for more than five years (Figure 26).

As a result of implementing the AVL technology, one transit system has experienced the need for additional labor while two systems (29 percent) have required less labor. A system reporting the need for additional labor indicated their need for more maintenance. Likewise, additional labor may be required for qualified individuals to operate the AVL system. Meanwhile, two systems (29 percent) have been able to better meet their route schedules as a result of implementing the technology. All seven of the transit systems (100 percent) reported they are better able to serve their residents as a result of implementing AVL (Figure 27).

Some of the transit systems reported changes in the operating and capital costs as a result of implementing AVL. Four systems (57 percent) reported increased operating costs, whereas, one system reported decreased operating costs. The increased operating costs may be a result of incurred maintenance costs by the transit system. Likewise, three systems (43 percent) reported an increase in capital costs and one system reported a decrease in capital costs (Figure 28). The decrease in capital costs maybe a result of better use of equipment.

Geographic Information Systems

Ten of the 20 large urban systems reported the use of GIS technologies. The systems reporting have extensive experience using GIS. One of the systems has used GIS for more than five years, while 60 percent of the systems (six systems) have used the technology for three to five years (Figure 29).

As a result of implementing GIS, two of the systems identified the need for additional labor. This may have been in response to needing to hire individuals experienced with using GIS. Two of the systems also reported GIS directly helped them better meet their route schedules. Furthermore, 60 percent of the systems (six systems) reported an increase in benefits to residents as a result of the transit system implementing GIS. Most likely these systems were able to identify target resident groups in their community and provide the necessary services to these groups (Figure 30).

Only one system reported an increase in operating costs, while two systems (20 percent) reported a decrease. Two systems reported an increase in capital costs, while one reported a decrease. The remaining systems reported no change in their costs as a result of the technology. Most likely the systems absorbed costs in their first year or two of implementing the technology. Each of the systems reported no change in revenues. This makes sense since none of the systems specifically identified an increase in passengers. However, it was surprising that none of the systems reported an increase in passengers.

Scheduling and Dispatching Software

Sixteen large urban transit systems reported the use of scheduling and dispatch software. Five of these systems (31 percent) have used the technology between one and three years. Three systems (19 percent) have used the technology for between three and five years and eight systems (50 percent) have used the technology for more than five years (Figure 31). Clearly there is extensive experience with scheduling and dispatch software.

Four systems (25 percent) have indicated they have increased passengers and also better met route schedules as a result of using this technology. The increased passengers could not necessarily be attributed to the software, but the systems have been better able to handle increased demand because of it. They are better able to meet route schedules because they have planned rides and routes better by using the software. Other benefits of the technology have been the need for less labor and also additional transit coverage to the city. Less labor has been required because schedulers and dispatchers are better able to handle more trips than they could manually, without software. In addition, systems have required fewer support personnel and have developed better schedules using the software (Figure 32).

Operating costs have increased for two (13 percent) of the transit systems using S&D. The increase is a result of taking more calls and requiring additional dispatchers. Five systems (31 percent) reported their operating costs decreased because of increased efficiencies with fewer man-hours required. Capital costs increased for two systems and decreased for one system while remaining unchanged for the other systems. The increased costs have come from upgrading software. Revenues have increased for two systems and remained unchanged for 14 systems (88 percent). The increase is a result of the transit systems ability to schedule more passengers (Figure 33).

Signal Priority

Three large urban transit systems (15 percent) reported use of signal priority. One of these systems has only implemented SP within the last year. The other two systems have been using SP for between one and three years (Figure 34). Two of the systems (67 percent) indicated the technology has helped them increase the number of passengers served. The systems reported no changes in costs or revenues as a result of implementing the technology. However, one system believed they were able to better serve the residents in the community by using the technology. The better service would be a result of reduced travel time or the systems better keeping their schedules. However, none of the systems identified better meeting their route schedules as an improved service due to implementing the technology.

Traveler Information Systems

The traveler information system technologies reported on in the questionnaire include Automated Trip Itinerary (ATI), In-Vehicle Announcers (IVA), Kiosks, Variable Message Signs (VMS), and the Web.

Automated Trip Itinerary

Nine of the large urban transit systems (45 percent of large urban systems) reported the use of ATI technology. Three of these systems (34 percent) have used the technology for less than one year. Another third of the systems have used the technology between three and five years and two systems have used the technology more than five years (Figure 35).

ATI has impacted several of the transit systems using the technology. Two systems (22 percent) have noted the need for less labor. This reportedly is due to increased productivity with customer information. Systems using the internet application of ATI have reduced the number of calls needing responses. A system reported increased passengers, which likely is due to the improved information available for the customers to use (Figure 36).

Two systems (22 percent) reported increased operating costs due to implementing the technology. While two systems reported decreased operating costs due to the need for less labor, only one system reported an increase in capital costs and one system reported an increase in revenues. The increase in revenues probably is closely related to improved service customers and city residents are receiving with this technology.

In-Vehicle Announcers

Four large urban transit systems reported the use of IVA. There was a wide range in the length of time each system had used IVA. One system has used the technology less than six months, while one system used the technology between one and three years, one system has used IVA between three and five years, while the remaining system has used the technology for more than five years (Figure 37). Of these systems reporting, the transit system using IVA for more than five years reported a need for additional labor. The system reported they experienced a slight increase in labor costs due to the need to copy programs on to each bus when changes are made.

One of the transit systems reported an increase in capital and operating costs indicating that purchasing a new bus with this technology has increased their costs. None of the systems reported a change in revenues. The systems indicated that passengers, particularly the elderly and handicapped, like the IVA. The systems perceive that implementing this technology has enhanced services to system users.

Kiosks

One of the large urban systems has been using Kiosks for more than five years. They did not report any particular increase in service to their residents. However, one would anticipate the residents could benefit from additional information made available to them. Furthermore, the system did not report any change in their costs, this could be due to the city or some other agency picking up the costs of the Kiosk or the fact it has been in place for more than five years and no additional costs have been incurred.

Variable Message Signs

Only one of the 20 Large Urban transit system reported the use of VMS. It has been in use between one and three years. The system did not report any impacts on their service or benefits to residents of the community. One would anticipate that if the VMS are real-time that residents would benefit from up-to-date information. However, the transit system may not have real-time information available for riders. The transit system did indicate an increase in operating and capital costs, possibly a result of the new equipment and maintenance.

Web

Seven of the 20 large urban transit systems reported using the Web for their transit system operations. Three of the systems (42 percent) have used the technology for one to three years. While two systems have used the technology for three to five years and two others have used the technology for more than five years (Figure 38).

One system reported they required additional labor since incorporating Web technology into their system. This was due to initiating and updating Web information for the system. Operating costs also increased for this system due to hiring additional labor. All systems reported there was no change in revenues as a result of implementing the Web technology. However, if the Web is providing ATI for systems they may experience an increase in revenues as reported for the ATI technology.

Electronic Fare Collection

Electronic Fare Collection

Fourteen large urban transit systems of the 20 systems reporting or 70 percent use EFC. Half of these systems have used the technology for more than five years while two systems (14 percent) have used the technology between three and five years and five systems (36 percent) have used the technology between one and three years (Figure 39).

Transit systems have reported mixed affects due to implementing EFC. Some systems have experienced the need for increased labor primarily due to labor needed for additional maintenance. The system reported that more sophisticated systems required more labor than manual fare collection systems require. Three systems experienced increased passengers, but did not provide reasons why they believed the passengers increased. It is possible that employers provided electronic fare cards to their employees to help defray their transportation costs of their employees and thereby encouraged the use of public transportation (Figure 40).

Six systems (43 percent) reported increased operating costs. These increases were reported to be due to increased maintenance. Three systems reported EFC reduced their operating costs. It was reported by a system this reduction was because they no longer needed to do “riding counts” to obtain their data, but could use the data provided by the EFC. Capital costs increased for six systems (43 percent), due to the need for equipment. One system reported a decrease in capital costs, but the reasoning was not clear. Five systems reported an increase in revenues, possibly due to the new secure fare collection mechanism, which ensures complete collection of each fare (Figure 41).

NOTE: Only those who responded to the question are included in the percentages, therefore percentages may not add up to 100.

Multiple ITS technologies are used by several systems serving rural, small and medium urban, and large urban locations. Each population category uses several different transit management technologies within their systems. They also used advanced traveler information systems. The most frequently used transit management technologies by rural systems are scheduling and dispatch and GIS. Small and medium urban systems use GIS frequently and also electronic fare collection technologies. Large urban systems reported primarily on the use of scheduling and dispatch, GIS, ATI, and electronic fare collection. Most of the systems responding reported positive experiences with ITS as reported in this section.

ITS and Welfare to Work

Many welfare recipients are dependent on public transportation, especially because so few own vehicles. To make the Welfare to Work Initiative a success, efficient transit systems with good community coverage is a necessity. ITS Technologies can help transit systems increase efficiencies and improve system coverage (i.e., better and more services).

Identifying transit systems that have implemented ITS and welfare to work recipients that have benefited from the technologies was the focus of this study. However, identifying the impacts on welfare to work recipients has been difficult. Most transit systems do not keep track of the socio-economic characteristics of their riders. A few survey respondents indicated that individuals on welfare already have enough problems with a stigma attached to this socio-economic position. The transit managers do not want to contribute to this stigma by issuing special cards that would identify these individuals according to socio-economic class. Many of the transit systems responding indicated a willingness to work with social service agencies to better meet the needs of the welfare recipients. The results pertaining to welfare recipients on Survey I and Survey II were quite limited. However, the results are described on the following pages.

Survey I Results

The questions on Survey I specific to welfare recipients included determining if welfare recipients paid different fares and also if welfare recipients received adequate transit services and coverage making it easier for them to begin work. Of the 122 transit systems that use ITS which responded to Survey I, most do not offer lower fares to welfare recipients. Only two systems (1.6 percent) indicated they offer a lower fare to welfare recipients. Some social service agencies may pay for welfare recipients’ transit fares, however, this information is not necessarily provided to the transit manager.

Transit systems were asked to provide an estimate of the percentage of welfare-to-work employees that have access to travel from home to work by public transportation. Transit managers were asked to define what they consider good access (relating to distance) to bus service. Several of the systems indicated good service constitutes customers walking approximately 0.25 to 0.50 miles to or from the bus stop. Fourteen (11 percent) of 122 systems that use ITS reported that more than 75 percent of the welfare recipients in their service area have access between 0.25 and 0.5 miles of a bus stop. Three systems (2.5 percent) reported between 50 and 75 percent of the welfare recipients have this kind of service while three other systems (2.5 percent) reported that less than 50 percent of the welfare recipients have this kind of service. Many other systems reporting did not know or could not offer this estimate. Although some of the welfare recipients have good access, not all do and this creates problems trying to move them from welfare into the job market.

Survey II Results

Seventy-four transit systems took part in Survey II. These transit managers were asked if the particular ITS technologies implemented had helped the system offer better service to welfare to work recipients. Respondents were asked to indicate if welfare recipients’ service was “increased,” “decreased,” or “do not know.” Not all ITS technologies would have direct impact on the services provided to welfare recipients. The results of the transit managers’ perceptions relating to relevant ITS technologies’ impact upon welfare recipients are listed in Table 6. Six technologies were considered to have the greatest possible affect upon service to welfare to work recipients. These technologies include AVL, S&D, EFC, GIS, ATI, and the Web. Transit managers viewed each of the six technologies as beneficial to welfare to work recipients. GIS was the technology most frequently identified to increase service to welfare recipients.

Table 6. Changes in Transit Service to Welfare Recipients as a Result of Implementing ITS Technology

It is difficult to track the effectiveness of each technology upon the welfare to work clientele so the results listed should be used with care when considering implementing these technologies to better serve welfare to work clientele. Each of the six technologies will be considered in this section. First, the population categories will be considered as a whole and if they perceive the ITS technologies benefit service to welfare to work clients. Second, each technology will be looked at more in-depth.

Each of the population categories, rural, small and medium urban, and large urban viewed at least one of the technologies as beneficial to welfare to work clients. Of the nine rural systems reporting, three systems (33 percent) perceived that welfare-to work clients benefited from the technologies. Rural systems only reported use of three of the six technologies considered. Scheduling and Dispatching was reported by six of the systems and three of the systems (50 percent) perceived the technology benefited the welfare clients. Of the 45 small and medium urban transit systems, 56 reported uses of the six technologies (systems can use more than one technology). Twenty-five systems (45 percent) reported they perceived that welfare clients benefited from the ITS technologies they implemented. Of the large urban systems responding to the survey, there were 62 reported uses of the six technologies. There were 22 reports (35.5 percent) where the technologies benefited welfare clients being served.

Automatic Vehicle Location

Of the 12 reported uses of AVL, four systems (33 percent) reported they believed the use of AVL increased the service to those on welfare. These systems were in small and medium urban and large urban locations. Although no specific reasons were given for the increased service, it is probably due to increased performance of the transit systems, which would result in better on-time service for transit riders including welfare recipients that may be entering the workforce.

Scheduling and Dispatch

Nineteen of 56 systems (34 percent) reported they believed that S&D increased service to welfare recipients. Primarily rural and small and medium urban systems reported the increase whereas most of the large urban systems reported they did not know if S&D increased service to welfare to work recipients. The increased service to welfare clientele is because of increased reliability and dependability of timely service. Some social service agencies are sharing information with transit systems regarding clients’ needs so transit systems are better able to plan and meet these clients’ needs. In addition, the transit systems can coordinate trips more effectively with this information and better utilize equipment because of improved planning efforts.

Electronic Fare Collection

Six of the 19 systems (31.6 percent) using EFC reported an increase to service to welfare to work recipients. Fourteen of the 20 large urban systems have implemented EFC. Four of the systems (29 percent) thought the EFC helped service to welfare to work clientele. The remaining systems simply did not know or did not feel comfortable indicating an increase. Some systems set up specific programs to assist low-income individuals. For example, some county social services departments purchased multiple trip passes for welfare clients who can be used for going to job training, interview, and to work for a certain period of time, e.g., 90 days.

Geographic Information Systems

Fourteen of the 22 transit systems (64 percent) using GIS thought the technology increased the service to welfare to work recipients. It was the small and medium urban and large urban systems that recognized these increases. The technology provides a great tool to help identify route additions and changes to better meet needs of riders and target specific riders. Geographic data available to some systems of where welfare recipients live, employment opportunities, and day care facilities enables systems to modify routes and offer more complete coverage of services.

Automated Trip Itinerary

Five of the 13 systems (38.5 percent) using ATI reported increased service to welfare to work recipients as a result of implementing the technology. All of the systems reporting this increase were classified as large urban systems. Database of routes is available for individuals to retrieve trip information. Individuals, including welfare recipients, can better plan their trips.

Web

Two of eight systems (25 percent) using the Web in their transit service indicated the technology would benefit welfare to work recipients. Some systems show their routes and schedules on the Web and clients are better able to access this information. They may feel that welfare recipients may not have access to the Web so they may not benefit from this technology.